An Interview with Diane Ravitch: Reforms and Reforms Everywhere; And No Improvement Forthcoming

Diane Ravitch

3.13.10 - Michael F. Shaughnessy - As time went by, and the strategies of accountability and choice turned from theory to practice, I saw evidence accumulating that persuaded me that these strategies were ineffective and might even be harming education.

An Interview with Diane Ravitch: Reforms and Reforms Everywhere; And No Improvement Forthcoming

Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University
Portales, New Mexico

Diane Ravitch is the author of :The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, which was released in March and was an immediate sensation, selling out on Amazon and attracting reviews and articles across the nation. In this interview, she gives us a glimpse as to what the book is about and the issues that we must confront.

1)   Professor Ravitch, what was the impetus of this book. What brought it about?

I served in the Bush 1 administration, from 1991-1993. After doing so, I emerged as a supporter of choice and accountability. When Congress passed No Child Left Behind and President George W. Bush signed it into law in 2002, I thought it was a good idea. I was not an architect of NCLB, but I applauded it, as did Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman George Miller (D-CA), and almost 90% of both Democrats and Republicans.

As time went by, and the strategies of accountability and choice turned from theory to practice, I saw evidence accumulating that persuaded me that these strategies were ineffective and might even be harming education. I also saw a bipartisan consensus that refused to recognize the damage that NCLB was wreaking. I thought it was important to write this book so that these policies might get the scrutiny they deserve. In other words, I wanted to break through the consensus and say as plainly as possible, "Stop this train, it is heading in the wrong direction!"

In doing so, I had to admit that I had been wrong, which many people find amazing. But why should it be amazing to re-examine your beliefs  and ask whether you are saying the right things? To me, that is what critical thinking is all about, that is, the willingness to reflect and change direction when necessary.

2)  Since “A Nation at Risk “ (and probably before) we have been examining education and implementing these “ reforms “. Are these reforms foolish, superfluous or toxic to the American Educational system  (or all of the above) ?

As I explain in the book, "A Nation at Risk" called for improved teaching, stronger curricula, better prepared teachers, better textbooks, and a host of sensible reforms. There was a radical break with this set of reforms in the mid-1990s, due to the controversy over the disputed history standards. Policymakers responded by rejecting content standards and putting all their eggs in the basket of test-based accountability.

So, now we are saddled with content-free tests of basic skills. And the NCLB juggernaut, with its draconian punishments, has created a timetable that will shut down thousands and thousands of public schools. This is a frightening scenario. I hope my book will cause policymakers to think again.

3)  I just attended a state conference here in my home state of New Mexico and there seems to be consensus- all teachers seem to hate this emphasis on testing. What seems to be the climate nationwide?

Since my book appeared, I have been getting about 300 emails daily from teachers who hate the overemphasis on testing. It is not that testing itself is bad, but that it has been turned into a monster to which all must bow. Testing is being misused. I explain more in the book in chapter 8. Accountability has become a synonym for punishment. NCLB has harsh penalties for schools that are unable to meet an impossible goal: 100% proficiency, and even dumbed-down state standards have brought that goal closer.

4) Now, some people feel that all these alternative schools, private schools and parochial schools are the answer- what is your position on charter schools and their allies?

Charter schools, as they were originally conceived in 1988, were supposed to help solve some of the problems of public education, to act as R&D laboratories and to concentrate on coming up with innovative ways to educate unmotivated students. Unfortunately the sector has largely been taken over by private entrepreneurs who see them as a wedge to privatize public education. They boast that they are "better" than public schools instead of collaborating to help them. In some districts, they even seek to take away space from public schools and replace them. At the same time, most charters skim students, taking fewer ELLs and special-education students, and leaving the regular public schools with even more of the neediest students. Charter boosters claim that they have found a key to improve American education, but charter students have never outperformed regular public school students on NAEP.

So, the strategy as a whole is weakening public education while showing meager or no results. So much attention is spent on the 3% of students who are enrolled in charters, while very little attention is devoted to improving the system that enrolls the other 97%. That is the tragedy. We can't improve American education by destroying the public education system and privatizing it.

5) Are charter schools and school choice undermining the public school system?

I am not opposed to choice, but I am opposed to privatization, for the reasons identified above. By removing the most motivated students in the poorest communities, the remaining public schools become weaker.

By concentrating attention on a tiny slice of the enrollment, less attention is paid to the need to dramatically improve the system that enrolls the overwhelming majority of students. By introducing the idea of market competition, entrepreneurs encourage everyone to think of their own private advantage and to forget about the common good, about the responsibilities of the community to the education of its children. 

6) I still mourn the loss of Albert Shanker and there still seems to be little leadership in America in terms of really advocating for teachers. Am I off on this?

Absolutely. I was a friend of Al Shanker, and there are many days when I remember him. I hope that my present work respects his memory by advocating for classroom teachers. I will do that as vigorously as I know how. Today there is a very punitive attitude in the country towards teachers. I explain the research on teachers in chapter 9 of my book. Teachers now are being blamed for everything. If kids don't learn, it's the teacher's fault. The student is absolved of any responsibility for his learning, as is the family and the popular culture. Only the teacher will be held accountable if Johnny doesn't get a higher test score. We even have major newspapers expressing pleasure when schools are closed and teachers fired. Personally I think this punitive attitude is mean-spirited and will drive good people out of the profession. Teachers need advocates and defenders. I'll be there to fight for them. Al would have wanted me to.

7)  Many administrators bemoan all of the IDEA disability categories and seem to feel that if they could eliminate all IEP’s and ITP’s and 504’s that schools would be a better place. What should we be examining in terms of the onerous burden that some feel about “ special education “?

I don't know what the right answer is in the area of special education. Many teachers say they find the burden of teaching classes that contain disruptive students (some of whom are special-ed) to be overwhelming. I suspect that part of the appeal of charters is that they manage to evade many of the same burdens and to impose discipline codes that used to exist in regular public schools.

8)  Will the implementation of race to the top and Arne Duncan’s endeavors help at all?

Race to the Top will make matters worse. Every part of it is tied to NCLB, markets, choice, competition, test scores, and accountability. The business model of education is deeply embedded in RTTT, along with every mistake of NCLB. Worse, it embodies the punitive idea that I mentioned before. When a school in Rhode Island was closed and the entire staff was fired, the Secretary and the President thought it was terrific.

I thought it was mean, stupid, and vindictive. No child in that school will be better educated because of this action. What an example! I think of it as the Donald Trump School of Management: "You're fired!" Surely the goal of education is improvement; why not support schools and teachers who are struggling? Why not diagnose the problems and bring timely assistance? How easy it is simply to say, "You're fired!"

I used to be a teacher in the South Bronx, and in Nebraska, so I know both the urban and rural concerns. I also know that basing my pay on test scores is somewhat capricious and arbitrary, and as a former guidance counselor, I also know where I put certain students with certain difficulties-and that is with certain teachers whom I knew to be effective. What is wrong with this picture here? Who is being rewarded and who is being punished?

Teachers should not be evaluated on the basis of test scores. I explain in chapter 9 why this is a bad idea and how it has been refuted by researchers. The assumption is that the students' test scores are influenced solely by the teacher, not by his motivation or the actions of his family or a lot of other factors. This approach has unleashed a punitive attitude towards teachers. It is undermining teachers' morale and professionalism.

9) What have I neglected to ask?

Our nation needs more professionalism, not less. It needs school superintendents who have some educational experience, not businessmen, lawyers, generals, and admirals. It needs principals who have been master teachers, because they are supposed to evaluate teachers; instead, we are getting more and more principals with little teaching experience and a one-year residency in a "leadership" program. Such principals rely too much on data rather than judgment because of their own inexperience. We need experienced teachers, not newcomers who intend to stay only two or three years.

In sum, my book says we are on the wrong track and that the language of "school reform" has been used by politicians, business leaders, foundation executives, and other non-educators to promote well-intentioned but misguided policies that will harm our schools and a generation of our youth