Yesterday, the New York Times published an article about my forthcoming book that turned out to be a profile of me. The reporter, Motoko Rich, did a good job of describing me, my dog Mitzi, and the basic facts of my unusual philosophical and political journey over the past few decades.
The headline was wrong, however, and I know that reporters don’t write headlines. Whoever wrote it is out of touch. The headline said: “Loud Voice Fighting Tide of New Trend in Education.” I would have preferred an adjective other than “loud,” like “strong” or “persistent.” My megaphone is actually rather small, consisting of nothing more than my pen (actually, my computer). I don’t know how “loud” my computer is.
I also found objectionable the suggestion that I was fighting a “new trend.” In fact, I am fighting the status quo. When a policy is shared by the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Congress, most governors and state legislatures, ALEC, Jeb Bush, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the President of the United States, how can it be called “new”?
I wish the article had said that the book refutes every claim of the privatization movement; that it provides ample documentation to show that American education is not failing or declining; that it demonstrates that test scores for American students are at an all-time high; that high-school graduation rates are at an all-time high; that dropout rates are at a historic low; and that privatization of public education is bad for our democracy.
It turns out I was not the only one who harbored these concerns. Read The Daily Howler on this topic.

I reacted rather negatively to that “Loud” in the title as well. It does not sit well with my vision of you, Diane Ravitch. Today, in response to that, to a number of other articles, and to your talk last night in Greenwich Village, I posted this: http://academeblog.org/2013/09/12/ravitch-at-the-bridge/.
LikeLike
In the Daily Howler, excellent exposing of NY Times’ terrible reporting of Diane’s book.
LikeLike
I didn’t think the article as a whole was nearly as negative as some have claimed (or as I expected from the NYT these days), but it’s remarkable how a few well-chosen words can do plenty of damage. And I believe the NYT is the sort of media outlet perfectly capable of attacking with both the rapier and the bludgeon. This was one of its more subtle efforts, just as a change of pace and to show a range of what they are still capable of.
LikeLike
I think the article was a fair as can be expected, I might have chosen the word ‘leading’ rather than ‘loud’. One wonders how out of touch reporters an headline writers are if they think what is going on in education is a new trend. As a child I heard how bad US schools were and I am 62 years old now.
LikeLike
Headline wording and choice of photographs are underacknowledged forms of editorializing; though the article itself may have been fair, the Times tipped its hand yet again about its attitude toward so-called education reform.
Yet again, the highly skilled and educated reveal their inability or refusal to think.
LikeLike
The New York Times can spin how they please, but they know which way the wind is blowing. Trending down this year, teacher kickers.
LikeLike
Moved enough by the underlying NYT bias for the “reformer” when I read the piece and couldn’t access comments that I researched the comment policy at the paper. FYI: they select 17 articles/columns daily that are permitted to log public comments. Predictably few NYT education reports allow for comments.
So, plaudits for how judiciously you couched your concerns. That approach seems consistent in virtually all of your blogs. However cagey the reporter was about directly criticizing you, it was clear that the basic assumptions deeply held throughout the paper surfaced. The headline was only the first salvo unleashed. Your withering critiques of reform ed seemed to bounce off their Teflon coated framing of education. Maybe the DeBlasio campaign can help unhinge those deeply embedded beliefs in American society. Your voice, your relentless marshaling of real data, real facts, in concert with the others working to overturn privatization of public schools, contributes mightily to that fight.
Thanks for all that you do for the extraordinary children of our country.
LikeLike
The article said Dr. Ravitch regularly “skewers” individuals like Michelle Rhee, as if it’s personal. The author Motoko Rich even says Diane “resorts to personal attacks”. She further said her critics see Diane as a caricature. But I don’t think the author understands the issues, so to her it’s meaningless criticism. As the publishing of her book causes Dr. Ravitch to get her ideas more and more publicity, it will be important for all of us to clearly explain the obvious to the ones taken in by the Koch and Walton marketing machines.
LikeLike
I’ve gotten to the point that some newspaper articles are not worth reading for it tends to slant its facts, not necessarily accurate, towards the oligarch and their hidden agendas. I rather read your book, Diane, because you slant for no one except towards the truth.
LikeLike
zulma, retired math teacher: I appreciate your comments and those by others under this posting. Your last sentence was particularly telling.
I have not always agreed with Diane in the past, I part with her on some things right now, and I don’t think I will ever be in complete agreement with her. That is as it should be.
None of us are the standardized widgets of current self-styled education reform.
Want to know the difference between forced [extrinsic] behavior and freely chosen [intrinsic] behavior? No one is twisting her arm. She slants in her own way for her own reasons “towards the truth.” That is what she—and so many of us posting on this blog—want for ourselves and everyone else in this country. To get the kind of education that enables us to form our own opinions about matters large and small, using good judgment, trustworthy data and honest self-reflection. That is part of what a “better education for all” is all about.
Of course, bucking the education establishment incurs penalties and sacrifices, but I think she judges herself by a standard different than $tudent $ucce$$:
“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” [Frederick Douglass]
Still good words to live by.
🙂
LikeLike
In addition to Diane’s obvious expertize, I really appreciate her openness to a range of opinions and respect for them and her willingness to refine or modify her own thinking.
LikeLike
All that said, you came out quite well…..a champion of learners and teachers in our k12 public schools and defender of their faiths.
LikeLike
Bill Knaak: Teach the Best and Stomp the Rest. No surprises here. When the message is strong it is common practice to attack the messenger rather than the message. The strike was most effective coming from a reasonably respected education writer writing in a reasonably liberal New York Times. Dr. Ravitch regularly presents the most eloquent and effective defense of public education against corporate intrusion since the late Gerald Bracey who died in his sleep at a relatively young age. You have better tools than Bracey–a stature as a respected educational education researcher and historian AND, a well organized social media. Your blog is outstanding–a bastion in defense of meaningful education for American children. Of course this attracts opposition from profit-oriented corporate moguls and you can expect to be monitored by the Broads and the Gates as well as USOE.
LikeLike
I wrote to the Times public editor. The “portrait” twice quotes unnamed “critics”, a practice I believe is forbidden under NYT editorial rules. The language used is loaded. Her words on her blog are “barbed” and convey “righteous anger”. She displays a “quick temper” and “skewers” individuals. The evidence for that claim? Her new book “devotes a chapter to Michelle A. Rhee”. What does the chapter have to say? We aren’t told. Other “individuals” she allegedly skewers are education politicians in public office. We aren’t told what she had to say about them. Political office-holders have to endure criticism all the time. Is it common practice for the NYT to use such loaded terminology about political disagreements? Of course not. And of course, the darlings of NYT education reform cult don’t “skewer” their opponents ‘ they make reasonable arguments. But woe if you disagree with them, you are a mean-spirited loudmouth.
LikeLike