In its issue of November 19, The New Yorker published a lengthy profile of my efforts to change national education policy: to halt the galloping privatization, the demonization of teachers and the misuse of testing to advance the two previously mentioned topics.
Let me begin by saying that I was immensely grateful that this distinguished and influential magazine gave attention to these important issues. As everyone who follows this blog knows, it is very rare to see a critique of the ruinous bipartisan policies in print or on television.
I was also thrilled that David Denby wrote the article. He is not a player in the debates and was able to approach the issues with a fresh and unbiased perspective. By now, everyone in education has chosen sides.
I had other reasons to be grateful that Denby was on the case. He is well educated and cares genuinely about education (in one of his books, he describes a year he spent as an adult auditing Columbia’s famous “great books” classes). In addition, he spent a lot of time immersing himself in the subject. In addition to reading widely and interviewing many people on all sides of the issues, he accompanied me to four events from mid-April in Atlantic City to the end of July in Detroit and interviewed at length.
I have enormous respect for him as a writer and a thinker. Also, I enjoyed the time I spent with him. He is funny, insightful, and smart. As he picked my brain about education, I tried to pick his about film and books.
And I am grateful to him for two surprising reasons. My conversations with him encouraged me to start this blog and to write a book during the summer.
However, there were two inaccuracies in the article that I feel compelled to correct because they go to the heart of my argument against the current wave of destructive policies.
Both NCLB and Race to the Top are based on the spurious claim that our public schools as a whole are failing. I argue that this narrative is false. The article refers to my criticism of this “exaggerated negative critique” but then cites statistics that are wrong.
According to the article, I allegedly said that “high school graduation rates are higher than ever” at 75.5%. That’s the four-year graduation rate, the number that Arne Duncan and Bill Gates use to claim that rates are flat and we have made no progress in 30 years.
But that is not the number I use. The graduation rate for people ages 18-24 is 90%. That includes August graduates, as well as those who earned their diploma in five or six years or got a GED.
So let me say that again: the high school graduation rate for people ages 18-24 is 90%, the highest in our history.
The same paragraph says, “She mentioned a slight increase, among all ethnic groups, in reading and math scores on national tests.” This was an especially galling inaccuracy, because the fact checker asked me about it and I said it was wrong. I sent the NAEP data and a copy of my AFT speech in Detroit to the fact checker to demonstrate what I did say: test scores are not slightly increased. They are at their highest point in history for all ethnic groups. The scores of black and Hispanic students have increased in reading steadily and significantly over the past 20 years. The scores of black and Hispanic students in mathematics have increased dramatically over the past 20 years.
Yet despite my protest that I did not say “slight increase,” and my documentation with both the NAEP data and my speech, the erroneous statement was left in the article.
One may argue that my interpretation is wrong, but one cannot argue that these statements can be attributed to me.
The New Yorker decided not to print my correction, which is why I am writing it here.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane…I’m very interested in looking at the NAEP data you refer to. Can you please post a link? Glad you made the corrections..sorry their fact checkers missed them. They must be Republican fact checkers because, as we all all know, Republicans tend to make up their own “facts.”
You can download NAEP reports from NCES (ies) – look for the long term trends reports.
Start here: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
thanks
No, I don’t know that Republicans are necessarily the only ones who “make up their own facts”. It seems to me that quite a few Dimocraps (sorry I meant Democrats) do the same, see A Duncan and B Obama especially in reference to RaTT, for example.
I am traveling and don’t have easy access to the reports. They are easy to find on the Internet. Google NAEP reports for 2011 in reading and math and look at 20-year trend lines for every whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians.then google NAEP long-term trends. The long-term trend tests are given every four years (not every other year like main NAEP); the last one was 2008. Long-term trend starts in early 1970s, main NAEP in 1992. Both show steady, significant gains in reading, dramatic gains in math–for ALL groups.
Thanks so much. Happy travels.
I think you need to pressure the magazine to print your corrections.
I tried and was told no.
I was so happy to see this article after suffering through an election cycle where otherwise educated people knew nothing about the controversies surrounding the reform movement. I passed it on to my dad, a veteran teacher, to help introduce him to some of these issues. I felt it was a very cool headed article and I felt Denby was working to explain a lot of history as simply as possible. I would have liked a little more of your passion mixed in, but I think he did a good job. I also really appreciated that he spoke with Joel Klein and basically let the fact of his current employment with Newscorp delegitimize him. As a New Yorker, I’ve been talking about this for a while to blank stares from people not involved in education.
And finally….what’s with the New Yorker fact checkers! I thought they were suposed to be the best!
Perhaps when teaching fiction and non- fiction reading to raise “test scores, journalists should be tested as well?
From the New Yorker web site:
Karen Lewis, the president of the Chicago Teachers Union, describes Ravitch as “the intellectual leader–and the intellectual soul–of the resistance to reform.”
Will this respect of union leadership for Dr. Ravitch translate to high quality curricula for schoolchildren? Are unionized teachers more likely than non-union teachers (at, say, Great Hearts Academy) to embrace curricular improvements?
I’m leary of reformers (or anti-refromers) who embrace Dr. Ravitch but reject E. D. Hirsch. Dr. Hrisch’s positions mirror the state courts which mandate state oversight of public education. Doesn’t rejection of E. D. Hirsch imply defiance of the courts?
Define “curricular improvements”.
Hirsch has suggestions that appear to address Justice Souter’s concerns with “pervasive civic ignorance” and America’s “dangerous state of civic education.”
The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools
“Hirsch unabashedly confronts the education establishment, arguing that a content-based curriculum is essential to addressing social and economic inequality. A nationwide, specific, grade-by-grade curriculum established in the early school grades can help fulfill one of America’s oldest and most compelling dreams: to give all children, regardless of language, religion, or origins, the opportunity to participate as equals and become competent citizens. Hirsch not only reminds us of these inspiring ideals, he offers an ambitious and specific plan for achieving them.”
Haven’t you heard of the Common Core? We have this already.
The “ideals” of the Common Core center around testing every child, in every grade (pre-school included) constantly, in every subject.
I know. But that’s what the previous poster was referring to. I certainly don’t support the Common Core.
Justice Souter expressed spoke to the American Bar Association and regarding America’s “dangerous state of civic education.” Three years later, he spoke with Margaret Warner and expressed concerns with “pervasive civic ignorance” (to the applause of his New Hampshire audience). David Coleman’s Common Core doesn’t address civics. E. D. Hirisch has long connected the historic purposes of public education with educational equity. He comes closest to addressing concerns raised by Justices Souter, O’Conner, Congressman Lee Hamilton, and others.
Jay Greene notes that educators ignore Hirsch–until a Core Knowledge charter school threatens to take students from traditional public schools. My point is educators should have a plan to address concerns of Souter et al rather than wait for a charter to threaten.
EDIT: Justice Souter spoke to the American Bar Association regarding
Also note Hirsch’s concerns are shared by both Dr. Ravitch and the Shanker Institute. Dr. Ravitch would have first hand knowledge of these shared concerns. I note only those concerns align with the concerns of Souter, O’Connor and Hamilton, and that current Supreme Court justices have the power to ensure students have access to an adequate curriculum, possibly via privatization if unionized teachers make that necessary.
That’s really frustrating. My guess is that the New Yorker’s acts were based on the view that “nobody will understand the complexities of this discussion, so we won’t expose ourselves by correcting ourselves.”
On the other hand, it was quite a step by the New Yorker, which has been a hapless sucker for ed-reform “miracle” crap for years. In about 2001, they ran a giant puff piece by the highly respected writer Elizabeth Kolbert (who was having a major critical-thinking failure) on a Boston-based for-profit charter chain called Advantage Schools. Shortly after that, the Boston Globe ran a page 1 expose on Advantage Schools’ academic, financial and other scandals, and Advantage Schools collapsed. There is no mechanism in journalism for the “oops, our puff piece was wrong” follow-up, so that didn’t happen.
The New Yorker also ran a big puffer on Steve Barr, the smooth-talking con man who created the Green Dot charter chain, which is mostly in L.A. The piece truly was full of inaccuracies — or more like claims that don’t make sense — and had been funded by some investigative journalism operation — it was a mystery how that got past any editors or fact-checkers with common sense. And they’ve run Steve Brill and other idiocy as well.
So it’s quite a breakthrough that they ran the Denby piece, and overall those issues are really small compared to the greater importance.
I think you’re exactly right–there’s an assumption that the discussion is too complex, so corrections are unnecessary. This is the reason that Richard Rothstein, who has been pointing out for years that NAEP data shows steady gains, gets zero traction. The dominant narrative–public schools are failing–is simply conventional wisdom. It was beyond the scope of conventional wisdom to re-think graduation rates or what NAEP is really telling us.
My personal goal is to get the Detroit Free Press to hire journalists who take take a nuanced look at what’s happening in Michigan. A couple of months ago, the Free Press (which is Detroit’s “liberal”-ish paper) ran a giant puffer on the Jalen Rose Academy, full of incomprehensible praise given the fact that 100% of their teachers quit, and they ran out of money in May. I blogged about it, and got a response from the MI Charter School Assn, which sent me a link to another puffer video on Jalen’s charitable impulses. Even real data, including test scores–abysmal–didn’t stop them.
I’m with you. It was a victory overall All PR is helpful.
A link to the Jalen Rose blog: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2012/09/no_fab_formula_for_jalen_rose.html
When it comes to education, the overwhelming majority of reporters seem to abide by the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, that “Facts are stupid things.”
The other well-known line is “check it and lose it” (the “miracle” story, that is).
Have you seen the Free Press’ puffers on the EAA? I know people who have worked there and say it is AWFUL!! You’d never know it though if you read the Free Press. They also had a puff piece on TFA. My question is why? Who has bought out that paper?
This is bad news. We are lucky, in Chicago, to have The Reader, which continually runs stories about what’s really going on (thanks to Ben Joravsky, in particular). I’m also impressed by New Orleans’
Gambit: they write about educational reform issues (i.e., charters) that are perpetrated by Jindal & White statewide.
These reporters (Joravsky & Gambit writers) are education heroes, too!
Diane: Am posting the following to Washington state Republican legislators on their respective Education Committee and to a network of Mainstream Republicans in Washington. Thank you for your on-going work to counter misrepresentations of fact.
kmortland
Acknowledge Success, Then Move On
Much of the on-going discussion about education reform is “based upon the spurious claim that our public schools as a whole are failing. I argue that this narrative is false.”
Those are the words of Diane Ravitch, educational historian and past Asst Sec. for Education for two presidents. I have maintained the same belief since the Sandia Laboratories report on education commissioned by Pres. George H. W. Bush stated that the claim of system wide failure is simply not supported by their findings. Let’s look at two of those claims of failure:
High School Graduation Rates:
Though we are told over and over that there’s a crisis in graduation rates, we are not told that “… the high school graduation rate for people ages 18-24 is 90%, the highest in our history.” Those are the figures Ravitch uses to describe the facts. Claims that the graduation rate is only 75.5% are based on the four year graduation rates (which are also at or near their all time highs) and do not include those who earn their diplomas in August, in the next 5-6 years, or earn a GED. That’s why Ravitch chose the use the 18-24 data. To my knowledge, the US is the only country that provides opportunities to earn a diploma after the regular four years of high school. It’s part of what makes American education so unique and powerful.
NAEP test scores:
Though we are told there’s been no improvement or only slight improvement in NAEP reading and math test scores, what we are not told is, “They are at their highest point in history for all ethnic groups.”
No institution in the world is so well run that it couldn’t be improved, including America’s schools. But, to base the proposals for change on a crisis mentality and misrepresentations of facts is neither professional nor responsible. We can and should keep trying to improve both the graduation rate and reading/math test scores.
But, as we set out to do so, honest reformers will acknowledge that America’s schools have been on an improving trend for four decades. The people who ran or are running public schools should be recognized for their achievements, not vilified with misrepresentations of facts. And then we must set out to make even more improvements.
Ken Mortland
Mainstream Republican of Washington Board
WEA-Retired VP
Hi Ken,
Thank you for your efforts. I see you were “nominated for Civics Educator of the Year in 2007.” Congratulations!
Dr. Ravitch’s credibility is eroding with mainstream Republicans, so your appeal to authority may not work. They are unlikely to take time to separate Ravitch-the-historian from Ravitch-the-polemicist.
The polemicist seems to believe “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The polemicist refuses to acknowledge sound proposals from ALEC that align with the Shanker Institute and court-supported purposes of public education. The polemicist sees no need for a bright line between oath-sworn public officials and the International Socialist Organization (or Bill Ayers). The polemicist continues to support the (state) constitutional purposes of public education, but not at the cost of alienating the far left.
All this make it more likely moderate Republicans will fall into the ALEC orbit. The resulting polarization will strengthen traditional Democratic coalitions while weakening public support for public education. Apparently, this is not a problem for Ravitch-the-polemicist.
Good luck with your efforts.
BTW: Your state constitution’s ed clause won’t be much help. How does “ample provision for the education of all” differ from “lavishly financed yet mediocre?”
Yikes! Not what I expected; Does high school civics cover this?
Providing ‘ample provision’ for public education goes well beyond the dollars and cents Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville
“Not ample funding, but ample provision. That distinction is too often overlooked. … providing for basic education … In my book a rule change aimed at keeping great teachers in the classroom, whether it’s their third year or thirteenth year, qualifies as ‘providing’ for education.”
Eric: We need to talk more, dude! Mainstream Republicans not involved in teaching, educational policy, or education reform (meaning most of them) never heard of Diane Ravitch. So, eroding credibility, at least here in Washington state, is a non-starter. She’s only has creds with them because I mention her as an asst sec of ed and then share her ideas. They wouldn’t know her from Eve. It’s the ideas and data that have credibility; or at least can’t be ignored.
I do not dispute or disagree with Diane bringing up the positive aspects of the article. However…
Another reason to be thankful for the existence of this blog: to correct grossly incorrect statements in the mass media, and to make it impossible for anyone with a sense of honor and decency to claim that Diane is somehow inconsistent or careless if these two manufactured lies (inaccuracies is a very polite way to put it) are ever used against her. And in terms of the online community Diane has brought together: for the protection of so many others.
🙂
Is it too much to state the obvious: that the edubullies could never get away with what they do if the mass media didn’t cover for them, misrepresenting (even if, to be charitable, at times through carelessness and unprofessional sloppiness) both their “reforms” and the positions of those opposed to their destructive policies and actions?
So much for the New Yorker’s famously scrupulous fact-checking department. And what a drag that they wouldn’t print a correction after they went to press with something that was pointed out during the fact-checking process. I’ve written a letter to the editor, thanking the magazine for profiling Diane but asking that they publish her correction in the magazine or online.
http://www.newyorker.com/contact/contactus
I just finished the New Yorker article last evening and was wondering what your reaction was. I concur with the gratitude of many commenters: it’s great that a magazine like the New Yorker is helping you break the bubble of “miracle schools”… but I am dismayed that the New Yorker didn’t make a correction. Keep fighting the good fight!
Diane,
You make no mention of the widening racial and
economic gap on dropout rates that appear
evident no matter what metrics are in play. Is that gap real or not?
The next time any one says that the public schools here are not as good as the ones in other countries, like China, tell them to read this article dated Nov. 22,2012 in the New York Times by Dan Levin, page A8 in the international section. Its title is, “A Chinese Education for a Price” and it describes in detail how state run schools in China are rigged in favor of those who pay bribes. Big time manipulation of test scores by bribery and other means. The article ends describing how a bar owner in Beijing, disgusted with the endemic bribery in China, sends her son abroad for his education. To a public high school in the USA!
There is certainly a difference between suggesting that “our schools are failing” and identifying that a number of problems still exist. “Failing” indicates that nothing is working, or working significantly. Clearly, there are a great number of children succeeding in a variety of areas related to education.
However, the statements about “not failing” seem to be used to suggest that education reform does not need to happen, which could only be based on a premise that our schools and children are performing at a proficient level in large number. This, sadly, is not the case. For example, in the 2011 NAEP, only 42% of 4th graders read at the proficient or advanced level, with 33% failing “below basic.” It might be possible to argue the arbitrary cutoff scores used to determine proficiency, but even cursory experience in many schools will indicate that these NAEP results are not – as a whole – telling a false narrative. Rather, significant numbers of children continue to struggle with even basic skills in a number of areas.
The larger issue here is that I believe too little attention is played to the hugely important question, “What are we going to do instead of the reforms we’re against?” This question doesn’t seem to be answered very often by those who seem to be against reform. Too often, for example, people are against “teacher evaluation via standardized test,” but provide no alternatives.
Diane, it may be dangerous to construct a narrative around “schools are failing,” but it’s probably even more destructive to students to construct one around “we’re doing fine, and as well as we’ve ever done,” suggesting that there is no basis for reform, even if those reforms aren’t the right ones.
… What are we going to do instead of the reforms we’re against …
The broader and bolder folks would suggest curing poverty. Then others would respond, “Is that your final offer?”
Here are some actions that courts might expect educators to take:
– Address concerns with civics education raised by Justice Souter and others
– Promote honest dialogue regarding the public purposes of public education, cf David Mathews, Reclaiming Public Education By Reclaiming Our Democracy
– Assure accountability to state constitution education clauses, possibly via Strauss’ “school judgement rule”
If public schools aren’t visibly serving public purposes, even our courts might decide in favor of privatization!