Democratic Education Blog

Analysis of Diane Ravitch lecture at Bank Street College of Education, February 4, 2008:

It seemed at first that Diane Ravitch may have had a complete change of heart. She spoke strongly against the No Child Left Behind law and Bloomberg’s “Children First” New York City education reform efforts, especially the excessive testing provisions (even spouting the classic argument, “just taking someone’s temperature doesn’t help them get well!”), the singular focus on reading and math, sanctions on schools for poor performance on tests, and the lack of true “autonomy” for schools in NYC, among other aspects.

Yet it quickly became clear that Ravitch maintains her belief in an authoritarian and centralized educational system. Her vision is for the federal government to create a national curriculum based around E.D Hirsch, Jr.’s Core Knowledge program and a national testing program (expanding the already mandated “Nation’s Report Card,” NAEP), albeit with a more broad liberal arts content focus. I suppose that as long as Ravitch likes the tests being given (she served on the board of NAEP in the late 1990s and early 2000s), she has no problem with them. Yet how does she justify the NAEP when it, just like the state tests administered through NCLB, is based on multiple-choice tests which she criticize for merely training kids to fill in bubbles?

Furthermore, while she believes that NCLB limits what happens in schools, Ravitch is perfectly comfortable with a national curriculum that would mandate and determine what every school has to do and cover. Moreover, while Ravitch decried the false autonomy given to teachers and schools in NYC, she seems to ignore that argument in her own push for national curriculum, standards, and testing.

But the “highlight” of the evening was Ravitch’s reply to my anonymous question (written on a question card and submitted to Ravitch):

“What is the role of the student in school improvement? Can there be school improvement without meaningfully involving young people in that process?”

Ravitch responded with a list of the common factors of strong educational programs based on her own international research: a coherent curriculum, effective instruction, adequate resources, a supportive community involvement, and willing students. Students, Ravitch said in answer to the question, need to be willing to study. It is terrible, she said, if students simply expect the teachers to do the work and want to be entertained.

So, meaningful student involvement for Diane Ravitch means students doing what the school system and teachers tell them to do. According to sociologist Roger Hart’s “Ladder of Youth Participaton,” this is lowest of the 8 rungs of participation, namely “manipulation of young people.” Perhaps the question was not worded clearly enough to refer to involving youth in brainstorming, planning, decision-making and other non-academic ways. And to be fair, I would agree that being determined and hard-working is an important quality; however, I would qualify that working hard for one’s own goals is what is important and not necessarily working hard for what others think you should be doing. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Ravitch took “involving youth in the process of change” to mean students doing their schoolwork.

How widespread are Ravitch’s ideas? There were many grunts of approval and rounds of applause throughout her talk, filled with New York City teachers, Bank Street professors and students, and others. But those signs of approval were mainly for Ravitch’s critiques of NCLB and Bloomberg’s NYC reforms, and less so for her recommendations.

Meaning there is an opportunity: with all the dissatisfaction with NCLB and the increasing testing, rigidity, and academic-based accountability, there is a powerful opportunity to re-frame the discourse. Instead of basing education on authoritarianism, centralization, competition, and standardization, we can re-frame education along our common human values of respect, freedom, democracy, justice, and sustainability. Instead of education as preparation for the workforce, we can reframe education as the process through which young people develop the skills and qualities needed to achieve their personal goals, to strengthen our communities, and to create a more just and sustainable world.