As readers know, John Merrow decided yesterday to post a blog in which he gratuitously insulted me by comparing me to a politician on the far right and implied we represented extremes and neither of us was a hero. This came out of the blue. I used to think of John as a friend, but friends don’t insult friends. He also insulted readers of my blog, suggesting that like Senator Ted Cruz’s followers, they are all closed minded. We are, he says, on “the left,” while Cruz is at the other extreme. He much prefers Dave Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, whom he holds up as an exemplar of “the messy middle.”
The insults came so thick and fast that it was hard to sort them out. My readers are not leftists. They are teachers, parents, students, administrators, and ordinary people who don’t like to see their local public schools closed down or taken over by a private charter corporation like KIPP.
I am a scholar and a historian. I don’t like the status quo of the past dozen years. I think our policymakers are doing serious harm to children, teachers, schools, and communities. It is outrageous that they call these policies “reform,” when it would be more accurate to call them “destruction.” They are destroying childhood. They are destroying creativity. They are destroying love of learning. They are maligning public education. They are demoralizing teachers and principals and destroying the education profession.
Through my blog and my books, I have tried to present evidence and research, not just opinion. When I express opinion, it is based on evidence. Dispute the evidence, if you will, but don’t resort to ad hominem attacks.
I invite my readers to read the comments following John’s post. Not many agree with what he wrote.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks Diane for this post. You once again hit it squarely on the noggin. Since I just finished Reign of Error only minutes ago, I revel in the role of a follower of such a fine scholar.
Thanks, Ellen.
“I invite my readers to read the comments following John’s post. Not many agree with what he wrote.” – I would respectfully submit that this invitation is unnecessary, as it seems that the dissenting comments to Merrow are the very readers of this blog. Many probably arrived there from this blog itself.
I used to read this blog with much enthusiasm, but I got turned off by the comments section. The supporters here claim to invite debate, but what I observe is not a lot of critical analysis and discussion but a lot of ire and presumptions against pretty much anyone who seems to disagree with any of Diane’s views even 1%. Or god forbid you might agree with a Diane enemy (though for very different reasons) – you’re automatically an enemy, too.
I have really loved Diane’s writing in the past but over time, but I have found the blog less accessible these days. (Before you comment and tell me not to read – I don’t much, anymore.) Though I tend to agree with a lot of Diane’s thinking and generally agree with the ideology of many commenters here, I DON’T agree that this is a platform for healthy debate. The comments section on this blog is mostly an echo chamber/virtual mirror. And I don’t confuse “healthy debate” with “messy middle” or “grey area.”
I do actually consider myself a leftist, and I have in the past worked in education research. My pedagogy and practice have been greatly influenced by Marxist thinkers and constructivist theorists. What concerns me about the prevailing sentiments on this blog (main content and comments) is the lack of solution identification that addresses genuine problems in our system and a zealous support of teachers as some monolithic group of misunderstood heroes.
Is Diane a champion of literally everyone who has a teaching credential and works in public schools? Or, a champion of public education? To me, those two things are not mutually exclusive – but sometimes they are.
Let’s say we get rid of standardized testing, ship Gates et al off to the moon. Forget about world domination and the global workforce and STEM and rigor and standards.
Then what do we do about the teachers who aren’t interested in professional growth or development? The ones who don’t assign *good* homework because “my kids don’t do it.” Or the ones who still say, “turn to page ….” (YEAH, they do exist!) Or the ones who won’t call immigrant students by their actual names, because they’re “too hard to remember?” What about all the original problems of structural racism and oppression that existed well before the latest era of testing and accountability came in to the picture? What about the districts where huge proportions of minority students are taught by white females? (I have actually heard Diane talk about this problem on the radio – it’s one of the reasons I came to respect her). This whole paragraph wasn’t written to bash teachers – though, ho hum, on this blog god knows it will be taken that way – but to say that it’s inane to keep defending “teachers” like some kind of homogenous monolith of goodness.
I just think this blog – perhaps unintentionally – conveys the idea that corporate ed reform is all that’s wrong with our public education system. That can be used to promote a perverted message that shields important problems in our public education system. Here, you either parrot Diane or you’re wrong.
Liberating public education from the grips of privatizers does not ultimately liberate our students.
“Liberating public education from the grips of privatizers does not ultimately liberate our students.” It is a start to true reform because true reform comes from within where students best interest are the main focus not profits.
Very true. But I think the problem is that if the reformers aren’t stopped, then public schools will largely disappear.
Still, we need a better vision an education, so we can begin to consider what steps are needed to provide a true public education. Over the past 120 years, the idea of a real liberal education has been drowned in a sea of reforms and academic hogwash, and American antipathy towards intellectual pursuits, that have turned our schools into day care centers. We really “school” our children more than we “educate” them.
I hope we can start having that discussion here soon.
Pitter, you say,
“Liberating public education from the grips of privatizers does not ultimately liberate our students.”
But, you know what, we’re going to do it. Liberating public education from profit-driven corporate domination is an action item, and this blog is an organizing center. We’ve reached a mobilization stage, and that’s what’s bothering you.
I’m an education reformer myself (UCSC, 1984), and an agent of change. Back then, there wasn’t any corporate reform on the horizon. So, you say you agree with that platform yourself, and your concern is that this one mission will divert real reformers from addressing other systemic problems from which our students need liberating?
Let me get this straight then. You agree the corporate drive should be stopped. Then you say,
“What about all the original problems of structural racism and oppression that existed well before the latest era of testing and accountability came in to the picture? What about the districts where huge proportions of minority students are taught by white females?”
Well, my experience is that the mobilization Diane finds herself leading is welcomed by real reformers and activists for social justice. Consider Karen Lewis in Chicago. The corporate reformers have tried to purge Chicago’s teacher corps of its non-white members, and teachers of all colors have united to oppose the drive.
So, no we aren’t backing down.
Not to disagree with the gist of your opinion here–you are largely correct about our unwillingness to self-condemn–I would just note that context matters.
Do a large number of teachers feel unfairly blamed for the effects of poverty? Do they, in short, feel they get bashed enough by others while they do their best to contend with children trapped in socially unfair (and academically corrosive) environments and therefore come here to lick their wounds? Yes. Has Diane verbalized their pain and worry? Yes. Should we expect them not to unite in their frustration and assume a defensive posture? When a group feels powerless and surrounded by (often unfair or disingenuous) critics, I would think it is historically typical that they pause from criticizing one another and tending to their own weaknesses as a group, and put up a united front.
Expecting anything different from teachers at this time seems illogical and ahistorical, perhaps a bit naive.
“Liberating public education from the grips of privatizers does not ultimately liberate our students.”
But it does, doesn’t it? If mad teachers’ activism causes K12, Inc. to shut its doors, then a great parasite–that harms kids (or doesn’t it?)–will be gone. Your post kind of assumes a monolith of its own: bad teachers are the only enemy harming kids. Unless I misunderstand, you posit a false choice here: either you oppose bad teaching, or else you aren’t helping children in any way, shape, or form. As if bad teaching is the only foe children have today.
Ed reform politics and philosophy has proven very able to separate leftists like yourself (not a swipe) from teachers by creating this dichotomy. Either you are for good teaching, or you are for nothing. Education reform has made the really important levers for improving children’s lives essentially off-limits. Talking about poverty, equity of resourcing, access to political power–all of those things have been declared “excuses” and are therefore not to be examined. Because what we should be doing is going after bad teachers.
I would encourage you to read this article (not by a teacher or what you might consider a Ravitch sycophant): http://mattbruenig.com/2013/09/21/education-and-poverty-again/
“…but to say that it’s inane to keep defending “teachers” like some kind of homogenous monolith of goodness.”
I’m pretty sure that neither Diane nor any commenters have ever claimed that teachers are “like some kind of homogeneous monolith of goodness”. I think Diane would readily admit that there are bad teachers, just as there are bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad truck drivers, etc. – no profession is immune. I hesitate to speak for Diane (nor do I need to as she speaks quite eloquently for herself), but I believe her basic points are (a) teaching is a much harder profession than many people, especially the “reformers”, give credit for, (b) at least some problems with teachers are problems in the teaching profession itself – dealing with children living in poverty or dealing with unsupportive administrators as a couple examples, (c) there is no “crisis” in education/teaching that requires the firing of large numbers of teachers, (d) to the extent there are problems with “bad” teachers, those problems are best dealt with locally, individually and, at least initially, supportively rather than through some kind of punitive “standardized” system of tying teacher pay/job security to student test scores, and (e) that much of the alleged “crisis” of “bad” teachers is drummed up by the “reformers” as an excuse to eliminate unions and the benefits/protections they provide as a way to de-professionalize teaching and pave the way for the “Wal-Martization” of education..
“I’m pretty sure that neither Diane nor any commenters have ever claimed that teachers are “like some kind of homogeneous monolith of goodness”.
–says the woman who just yesterday defended a group of teachers who published a book on writing with enough spelling and grammatical errors to earn them a C-, at best, from any competent high school English teacher. Her defense? Teachers have enough to do, they shouldn’t be expected to proofread books they publish on Amazon.
No, dear. The point is that you are impugning all teachers on the basis of one self-published Amazon book. But nice try!
Lol, no sweetie, you just take it that way because you’re so hypersensitive in your defense of teachers. Of course, the fact that the book made it so far is lost on you. You just focus on a perceived attack on teachers. That the principal, the superintendent, the board, the publisher, etc are all fine with the errors shows just how little care is taken to teach our children proper basic skills. As long as they pass tests all is good.
Pop quiz. Who wrote the following passage which can be found in a book, available on Amazon, about teaching children to write. Was it:
A) the tenured elementary school writing teacher who’s name along with the school name is on the cover of the book
B) a 9 year old
“Especially, the Harris Burdick pictures in the Mystery of Harris Burdick. The story of Harris Burdick is a mystery. It starts with a man by the name of Harris Burdick.”
Your response “sweetie” tells me all I need to know about you. How are the Giants doing so far this year?
who’s -> whose
Look who’s talking.
I’m not a “published author” like these educators. Were I to produce a book about proper writing techniques , fill it with students’ work, and slap my school’s name on the cover, I would certainly make sure the 7 page introduction with my name on it would be as flawless as possible. And no, this was not self published–an actual publisher and some semi-famous author (who I’d never heard of) are responsible for this book. It was also promoted by the district and written up in the local papers. I guess no one the school district actually read it. At least, I hope not.
Its interesting that you didn’t call out your friend for using “dear” to address me, love. Turns out Pitter K is correct, no one in these comments can handle any criticism of teachers, real or perceived. I am so glad you think that examples of such writing by adults tasked with teaching school students how to write are acceptable (oh no, I spilled the beans). That tells the world all we need to know about you. Do you know the difference between “then” and “than”? Apparently, at least, one of these teachers doesn’t.
This book has 2 essays written by 3 teachers (well, its hard to say as one of the essays has 2 authors but is written in a singular POV — “I” and “me” instead of “we” and “us”) spanning 14 pages.
Yesterday, I posted 8 errors and the one above makes 9 (unless you consider that description of Harris Burdick acceptable)–out of those 14 pages. If I post 5 more, we’ve already got 1 per page. How many errors are acceptable to you? Because, I can post entire paragraphs that make no sense, unless these teachers were channeling Gertrude Stein.
I gave the answers to the 8 I posted yesterday. I wonder if you can spot the errors below. (Granted, these aren’t as “sexy” as the insane and obvious misspellings and word usages yesterday, but why make it easy?):
“These were left, in tact, as it adds to the voice of the fifth graders.”
“We are their role models, their guide, and someone they can count on for help.”
“The teachers instructed the students on how to develop story leads, add detail to parts and objects that are important, setting, and construct conclusions.”
“Shortly after, merely by chance, but as if someone had heard our call and had come to answer: Semi famous author.” – (NOTE, I removed the name of the author, in case that’s not obvious)
“We have become more courageous in our writing and understand that some may appreciate what we have done, while other will not.”
“I think this is why, even the most hesitant or reluctant writer enjoys writing a fictional story.”
“They were beginning to work on no longer telling the reader how someone acted, but they were showing them through their actions and dialogue.”
“At the beginning of the process, students thought they only needed one draft ad were done.”
BTW – thanks for continuing to attack me, I could post about this garbage all day.
I’m sure you way too busy for posting here all day.
Giants Fan, a person I showed to have poor grammar skills, is attacking the work from teachers, where apparently the publisher failed to have somebody edit the work. The reality is that many writers, even those distinguished with a high intellect, make a lot of typos and errors in their drafts. It’s the editor’s job to proofread, normally, not the writer’s (although a few writers are gifted enough to proofread their own writing). It’s the editor’s (or lack of editor) fault. Giants Fan obviously just hates teachers and thinks they’re all ignorant. Typical troll.
GiantsFan,
I have lost the context of this discussion, but I do remember wincing after reading some of the excerpts you quoted. Several people obviously dropped the ball when they published that book without significantly more editorial support. However, if any intention of using the book as an example of the “global” failure of our public education system was intended (I honestly don’t remember) than I understand the defensiveness. It is hard for anyone in any profession to hear their profession judged by only its failures/weaknesses. Perhaps that book does not represent one of that school’s finer moments. Right now, though, we are trying to salvage a system we believe in, despite its flaws.
“…the lack of solution identification that addresses genuine problems in our system…”
This part is also a bit misleading. The first step to solution identification is problem identification. If there is no “crisis”, then the solutions needed for the problems are a lot different.
For instance, you take your car in for a tune up. The mechanic puts it on the diagnostic machine and finds some minor problems – a sensor here, a gasket there. Certainly you want to fix those problems – replace the sensor and the gasket.
But then someone who’s not a mechanic comes in and tells you that your whole car is falling apart and is in urgent need of a major overhaul – new brakes, new transmission, heck, a whole new engine – and you can’t wait because it’s a crisis!! You protest that there aren’t any major problems and that you don’t need a complete overhaul, and then Mr. Non-Mechanic accuses you of “lacking solutions”. What might you guess Mr. Non-Mechanic’s motives might be?
To what book is Giants Fan referring?
deb – yesterday Giants Fan posted about a book that was self-published on Amazon. The main focus of the book was student-written stories/essays/etc., but there were also teacher-written introductions that supposedly had egregious spelling an grammatical errors. GF listed about 7 or so examples, most of which looked more like typos/brainos indicative of carelessness/lack of proofing rather than ignorance of spelling/grammar. Apparently his point was an anecdotal illustration of how ignorant teachers are. At least, I can’t think of any other reason to rag on those teachers unless he was trying to make a broader point about teachers in general.
See his response to my post above. Raging trollery.
“Liberating public education from the grips of privatizers does not ultimately liberate our students.”-I agree with you whole heartedly on this. It is sad that we must invest so much energy into just protecting public education from privatization, as this sucks energy that otherwise could be invested into collaboratively identifying and implementing better educational practices.
And: I guess you could ask why I bothered to take the time to write my comment. It wasn’t to offend or undermine Diane or point fingers at the commenters. I’m just sharing the feelings I have in reaction to this blog sometimes, and just because I’m not YAY!!!! all the time doesn’t mean my opinion is automatically invalid.
Yes, I do ask myself if you early-rising concern trolls have a day job. I am on my way to a classroom, and I check in here for action items.
I can’t imagine somebody going without breakfast to complain that people he generally agrees with aren’t sufficiently supportive of his generalized complaints that people don’t support his complaints, and are therefore displaying “a lot of ire and presumptions against pretty much anyone who seems to disagree with any of Diane’s views even 1%”.
Yes, well, I don’t see that, myself. I’ve had some disagreements with several other activists on the blog, and so has Diane, and we’re able to go on in life without making that our central complaint. Over the past five years, I think I’ve helped move many over to the mobilization position she now takes in Reign of Error.
You go chemtchr! I think the model of civil discussion on pressing issues of concern to educators started with Diane and Deb on Bridging Differences, and now we do have a national network.
I get a little bothered by the “leftist” stuff. Calling out a purposeful and coordinated attack called “reform”, challenging the supposed facts/strategies because they deny the realities of the goals and victims…well, heck-we’re like that hero Cruz, right? Calling attention to bad policy. he’s not on the “left”.
And just a reminder:
Do We Need More Heroes?
by JOHN MERROW on 25. SEP, 2013 in 2013 BLOGS
Joe Nathan 25. Sep, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Well done, John.
For some odd reason Merrow’s blog articles are emailed to me. I hit “reply” to the email and had a one sentence response … “Mr. Merrow, this article rids you of any credibility and is so unworthy of any response as to its contents”. He is just a lose cannon and is looking for accolades and praise from the “loudest group of clappers”! This kind of journalism is a disgrace to the profession.
And yes Diane, I have never believed in labels… what I want to be is an informed citizen/teacjher who makes the best decisions I can based on thorough readings of many well researched opinions that are out there. What we need a lot more of are citizens who are not SOLD IDEAS but come to their opinions based on critical thinking. I fear that we have a nation of angry school age children who have experienced a world where there are “right” and “wrong” opinions and the “right” ones are sold by the wealthiest opinion-maker and supported by the “citizen” who is not a human being but viewed as “consumer” of opinions” first and foremost.
We need to change this dialogue and bring JOY and HONESTY and true REFLECTION into the education process. We need to stop “selling” opinions to the highest bidder. Here is a good example of a “sold opinion…. the last question on the SLO form we are being forced to complete reads, “Explain why completing this SLO has helped your teaching. So I must agree that the SLO has helped my teaching. Really? My real answer is this.. “This is an over-reaching and leading question because here is what the SLO has done… my career depends on getting a good evaluation on this SLO as it is 50 percent of my evaluation. You are requiring me to choose a select group of my students and to track their “progress” during the year. 100 percent of them must show progress or mastery in order for me to receive a high score. What teacher in their right mind would not pay special attention to those students they had to select as a sub group when their careers depend on it. THIS IS AWFUL!
Here is my most recent thought… Robert Reich for president and Diane Ravitch for Secretary of Education. Our nation’s children deserve nothing less and they have been getting “LESS” for far too long. Ridding children of their childhoods for “profit” should be the highest crime in the land.
More dissembling and misdirection: using a term like the “messy middle” implies that there are significant policy disagreements among the so-called reformers, when in fact they move in predictable, robotic lockstep, lying about virtually everything. It also maintains the false narrative that the education privateers occupy some fictitious “vital center,” when in fact they are radicals who can barely restrain their eagerness to smash and grab the public schools.
At this point, it’s clear that Merrow’s recent article on Rhee, while a good piece of reportage, was solely intended to innoculate him against charges of being a mouthpiece for the so-called reformers, which is what he’s been and continues to be.
“At this point, it’s clear that Merrow’s recent article on Rhee, while a good piece of reportage, was solely intended to innoculate him against charges of being a mouthpiece for the so-called reformers, which is what he’s been and continues to be.”
OR, he had an offer he couldn’t refuse.
“… with additional funding provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Teachers here arrived at their current critique the hard way, through hands-on experience with smart children in classroom currently under siege from above and beyond. Ideologues? No! Like Merrow, the simple-minded way to write us all off is to chalk our painful outrage up to ideology. But as Merrow has discovered, you can’t live in denial forever.
Merrow has a new “friend” in Levin. That is how Merrow works. He did not investigate deeply or thoughtfully the first time around, tried making a name for himself with simplistic analysis and is now on the wrong side of the issue. His popularity and profits are threatened so he seeks shelter and credibility in the very messy middle of KIPP. Cunning of him but certainly not very courageous.
I’m just going to say it… whether JM thinks the term is over-used or not: Diane Ravitch is my hero, Diane Ravitch is my hero, Diane Ravitch is my hero, Diane Ravitch is my hero, Diane Ravitch is my hero, ……………
Reformers don’t look at the evidence if it contradicts their beliefs and policies. They are great at attacking the messenger when they can’t refute the message.
I am uncertain as to how I came to read Diane’s blog the first time. But, I had arrived at the same conclusions long before. I hadn’t even heard of her prior to this blog. She tries to bring all the information and links to articles around the nation into one place. She has connected the actions of people such as the Koch Brothers, Gates, and friends with the privatization movement that is occurring in education as well as in other service professions. I have been noticing these things for years, before I knew of ALEC or Michelle Rhee et al. There is a concerted effort to revamp industry and I feel that has been extended into the service sector of our society. What occurs is more unemployment, more poverty, more technology to replace human workers, more rapid change. Technology has always led the change in our world. Recent advances (experiments) in computer technology have opened a whole world of “what ifs” from Wall Street to the classroom. We have seen that what CAN BE done should not necessarily BE done!
But, in our strife … what about the kids? What about the kids?
I read this and other sites because the media coverage of traditional public schools is overwhelmingly negative. I could object to that as a “supporter” of public schools, but it’s also objectionable because it isn’t accurate. It simply isn’t true. I know it isn’t true because I attended public schools and my children attended (and attend) public schools. I also know it isn’t true because I work with juveniles and neglected, dependent and abused children in the court system and I’m in schools a lot. I don’t recognize the caricature of “public schools” that is presented by media. It doesn’t gibe with my direct experience.
The fact is the vast majority of traditional public schools are not “failing”. Facts matter, and when I see what looks like a herd-like piling on that tends to make me skeptical on motives. That’s a reasonable response.
Today the economix blog in the NYTimes has a piece, a “report card” on ed reform. Two people were interviewed, Mitch Daniels and Arne Duncan. Mr. Daniels and Mr. Duncan share exactly the same views on public schools. They also agree that reforms are working and public schools need to imitate charter schools. The piece is almost comical in the lack of dissent or disagreement. Apparently, we have jointly decided that all public schools are failing and there will be no alternate views allowed.
What really sticks out about the piece (and most of major media education coverage) is there is no real discussion of traditional public schools. The entire focus is on charters. I think this coverage is skewed, because of course MOST children attend traditional public schools. The only time traditional public schools are discussed is in the context of how they are failing. I don’t think that’s an accurate reflection of REALITY, let alone “fair and balanced”.
Dear Mr. Merrow:
I have been following Dr. Ravitch’s blog for some time now, and I have encountered, here, people opposed to the new national standards [sic], to value-added measurement schemes, to national databases of student responses, to letter grading of schools, and to high-stakes testing who are leftists, libertarians, Democrats, Republications, and apolitical.
Some who oppose the new standards [sic] are Constructivists with a passionate commitment to discovery approaches to education.
Some have traditionally been opposed to Constructivism and detest the new ELA standards [sic] because of a commitment to content-based education. These folks have rightly observed that the CCSS in ELA are simply lists of abstract skills and have pointed out deep problems with a skills-based approach. Some in the content camp are committed to cultural literacy approaches to education in the English language arts; others believe in content-based approaches but have many reservations about normative notions of “knowledge” literacy.
Some of those who oppose the “reforms” are people with business backgrounds who see mandatory national standards as a surefire way to kill the autonomy and innovation that would come from having competing, voluntary standards. These people believe in the power of a competitive, free market in ideas, curricula, and pedagogical techniques. Some of these think that actual continuous improvement comes not from the top down but from the bottom up via the Toyota model.
Others who oppose the “reforms” are passionately committed to critical pedagogy and view the new standards as totalitarian, hegemonic prescription, and, yes, some of those folks are leftists.
Some oppose the new standards and tests and evaluation systems for very practical reasons. They have seen and continue to see, in their work, day in and day out, the negative consequences of the “reforms” in classrooms and on the materials being created by educational publishing houses (those houses now begin every project by making a spreadsheet with a list of standards on the left and a list of lessons where those are to be “covered” on the right, and taking this approach has dramatic consequences, narrowing and distorting and destroying the coherence of curricula).
Some believe it demonstrable that the new standards are creating a Walmartization of curricula and pedagogy. These folks point to the fact that national standards create “national markets for products that can be brought to scale,” as Arne Duncan’s office puts it, and they understand that there will be an awful sameness to such products.
Some oppose the new ELA standards because they believe them to be unscientific, because they believe these standards to instantiate a lot of unscientific misconceptions—folk theories—about how kids acquire language skills (and this is demonstrably so).
Some of these scientifically minded folks are aghast that materials as important as new standards and tests have been imposed without having been vetted—juried and tested, and many of these are experts in assessment who believe that they can demonstrate that the tests and evaluation systems to be unsound for scientific reasons.
Some here would support national standards but not THESE standards.
Others are vehemently opposed to the whole notion of invariant standards imposed unilaterally from above because, well, duh, kids differ.
In other words, opposition to the reform juggernaut takes many, many forms and comes from many quarters, including great parts of the “messy middle.” Dismissing such varied critique as all having some fanatical leftist or Tea Party origin is simply inaccurate, and journalists are supposed to care about accuracy.
cx: “and many of these are experts in assessment who believe that they can demonstrate that the tests and evaluation systems are, for scientific reasons, unsound.”
Frequently, I find myself wanting to archive your responses, so I can go back and read them when I forget what I believe. Thank you.
One thing I would like to see advocates for public schools do more of is simply discuss traditional public schools, outside of the “failed and failing” narrative. I think there’s a huge need for simple, factual reporting on traditional public schools. To listen to national reform advocates (and they absolutely dominate media) one would think all public schools are “failing” and “drop out factories”. Again, this is not only unfair (and it’s downright malicious as far as the tens of millions of kids who attend those schools and the people who work in traditional public schools) it is NOT TRUE. Does it matter that it isn’t true? It does to me.
I think so many public school advocacy sites have sprung up because Diane and others are filling a hole in traditional media. I’m grateful they do it. The vast majority of them aren’t paid for the work, and it’s thousands of hours of work. The truth is, as a public school parent and public school supporter, I don’t have anywhere else to turn.
Chiara, I completely agree with your comment. Until I found the education blogs, I thought I was the only one who saw that traditional public schools were doing a good job and were full of mostly inspired, motivated teachers. Traditional schools and their supporters need to write letters to the editors of every newspaper they read that dwells on the same old narrative. We need to provide concrete examples of the success. In my community, we started a facebook page so parents and teachers could easily share happenings at their schools. Of course, now we post links to Diane’s blog too!
Sadly the corporate controlled media, at least in our area, are refusing to print researched, reasoned articles – on education or other important topics.
Merrow was a phony from the start. It’s amazing that anyone trusted his credibility. In his defense, what else can we expect from PBS that licks the boots of corporate donors. He should be selling cars not kids.
The deformers are going to have to try to paint Dr. Ravitch, who epitomizes sound scholarship and careful reasoning, as some sort of kook. She has been busily exposing them. She is our Ida Tarbell, our Upton Sinclair, our Ida Wells-Barnett. She has brought a lot of misfeasance and malfeasance to light. Of course they are going to attack her, and they are going to use every means at their disposal. Those means include a LOT of bully pulpits and propaganda organs masquerading as news organizations.
And journalists, like everyone else, know who is writing the checks.
The problem may be that, given this reform movement, anyone who has been educated by the established means of the past is, by default, not to be consulted, because he/she has been “indoctrinated” with the old school, failing, myopic viewpoint. I don’t know. It seems that to shut out those who believe in education as a place to learn how to be individuals and to replace that with their brand of “rigor”.
Robert…Diane is really more our Lincoln Stephens, when speaking of political and theocratic muck raking.
Diane, some of your proud supporters are also proud to be liberals.
John Merrow’s comment was a rhetorical hatchet job using a false equivalence in the same way that some journalists use creationists to be “balanced” when discussing the teaching of evolution or use climate-deniers when discussing climate change. Shame on him!
Wow! Witnessing a Merrow melt-down. Abandoned by his reformer buddies he now lays waste to us. Too bad John, you quit and you can’t redeem yourself. Time to retire to a cozy chair by the fireplace and live out your remaining years in seclusion. Harsh? Yes. But well deserved. Either change the system or shut up. Your on the wrong side of this issue, and history will not judge you, what you’ve written nor done kindly.
Merrow’s blog post about “heroes” is, well, silly. I wouldn’t dignify it with any response.
Merrow’s closing really says it all. He seems to be pre-emptively striking the source of what will surely be an onslaught of criticism against his documentary about the New Orleans “rebirth.” The “…film will premiere nationwide on Netflix and will be live-streamed for 24 months in nine languages).” Oh, my!
So he had to cut down Diane, and her intelligent, critical followers, too. The release of his movie depends on it.
John Merrow has always left me feeling kind of icky – a bit too shamelessly self promoting, a bit too enamoured of Rhee and Vallas in his PBS pieces. Looks like his bubble has burst, and his zenith will be his interview with Adell Cothorne, which of course was only reported in his blog, not on television – always a bit of caution to protect his own image. And, of course, he has never been a teacher, though he is an expert on public education. Must be because his wife is Head of a private school in Manhattan. A Very Serious Person, indeed.
A link to his bio: http://learningmatters.tv/blog/about-us/about-us-our-president/1325/
It has come to my attention—ok, I was reading the comments on this thread—that there are some misconceptions about this blog and net etiquette. As always, KrazyTA is here to assist.
1), The first three words on this blog are “Diane Ravitch’s blog.” I know this will come as a shock to some of the posters on this thread, but this electronic bulletin board is—in the first instance—a reflection of a single individual’s interests and concerns. She uses her own judgment in selecting or not selecting items to be posted. This very occasionally includes matters of a decidedly personal bent. She even sets [very broad] limits on what is posted here. That’s because it is her blog.
2), If viewers and posters are uncomfortable, or outraged, that “Diane Ravitch’s blog” is not covering their favorite topics, they can start their own blogs. Criticizing the owner of this blog who—unlike Michelle Rhee or Arne Duncan, for example— doesn’t have a large staff to run a blog and basically does it all herself, is a non-starter with those who value the worth and honor of individual effort. The world wide web is a pretty big place; there’s a spot for you if you are willing to put in the time and effort on your own blog. And have the patience to endure gratuitous insults.
3), “A site to discuss better education for all” is the subtitle of this blog. This is a very radical idea. But there are an almost infinite number of topics that could be brought up. If something isn’t being covered to your satisfaction, don’t sit on the sidelines and mope. Take a few moments to post your opinion about what you consider really important. If you actually want to bring others over to your POV, then start by giving respect to get respect. And there’s always the “start your own blog” option…
As is obvious from the above, I wholeheartedly endorse the well-known Marxist maxim:
“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
Of course I meant Groucho. Who else?
🙂
All excellent points. Another point is that if there’s something you want Diane to cover, put it somewhere in the comments and ask her to make a separate post for it. She may or may not do so (refer to point #1), but more often than not she does. She’s even been known to publish posts that she personally disagrees with – imagine that from someone who allegedly “censors” or “silences” those who disagree with her so she can have an “echo chamber”.
Dienne: your response is spot on.
Let me add this shout out to you: I don’t always agree with your POV but you generally stay on topic, get me thinking, and try to move the discussion forward.
So when I see a comment headed by the word “Dienne” on it, I read it. You don’t—nay, can’t—twist my arm to read your postings. But you present your ideas in such a way that I would be remiss in not following your remarks—I might miss something important!
Some other posters could learn a thing or two about ‘good netizenship’ from you.
Keep posting. I’ll keep reading.
🙂
My response to Merrow’s “heriosm” post:
My view: People have forgotten what real education is about, the search for ultimate values: good, truth, beauty. To value integrity, love etc. It is searching out the best ideas of humanities greatest minds, greatest teachers. It is NOT about passing test scores. When this first came out – the “nation at risk” era, we laughed. Pretty soon they will be having classes on how to pass tests. That is not funny anymore. It is reality. Has the era of corporate leadership which took us to the brink of worldwide financial collapse, within hours, the panacea for our problems. Is it that we are not producing enough scientists and mathematicians or that 50% of marriages – when they occur – are collapsing, that 23% of our children live in poverty, that our health care is amongst the worst in the world, ad nauseum. How do we view our children, as objects, widgets, into which we pour government – corporate – approved facts or as human beings to reach their highest potential as human beings? How do we define education? Who defines it, scholars and educators or politicians? What yardstick do we use to measure success, test scores, or lives lived to their fullest?
Here is the comment I posted on Merrow’s blog:
Merrow’s closing really says it all. He seems to be pre-emptively striking the source of what will surely be an onslaught of criticism coming from Ravitch and her readers against his documentary about the New Orleans “rebirth.” The “…film will premiere nationwide on Netflix and will be live-streamed for 24 months in nine languages).” Oh, my!
Who needs to toss around words like “hero” when Merrow promises a REBIRTH?!
Diane Ravitch is an unusual scholar. Not only does she share her research and knowledge with us parents, teachers and others in the trenches, but her blog also serves as a forum for an exchange of stories from small towns to large cities across the country. By connecting the dots between all these places, we readers are able to see the larger agenda to which our schools and our communities are falling victim. As we fight for the very survival of our neighborhood schools–many people’s first foray into our democratic society–someone who provides that service i[s] indeed heroic.
Mr. Merrow, you question yourself by stating “Perhaps I am getting crotchety….” and I would say (knowing we are around the same age) that perhaps you are starting to become overly critical based on your own life experience. You could have made your point by not vilifying people for their points of view, no matter how extreme. I say vilify because in this very tense political and economic time in our history to identify people this way taints them far more then to have people listen to their views, whether you or anyone else agrees. We don’t shut people down but raise them up in order to make an informed and balanced decision. This is America and to come to some consensus we need to be aware of all points of view no matter how far apart they may be. The way in which you approached the ‘outing’ of these people did nothing to make your argument or your message any stronger, especially on the heels of seemingly making a plug for your film and lauding someone who is intrenched within the For Profit Education movement.
A hero is someone who risks in the face of an unknown and at a personal cost of some kind. I do not know Senator Cruz, or agree with his positions and have found his technique very over reaching but nonetheless entertaining. As for Diane Ravitch, someone who could easily retire comfortably and live out her life without the fan fare or the notoriety, good or bad, but someone who has reshaped her thinking with sound research and hands on experience within the world of education and politics. She has risked and therefore, for many she is a hero. She is a spokesperson for those who are the voiceless and the powerless in the face of titans of commerce and politics. Is there room for both? I think so. But the big boys don’t play fair and play with damn near all the chips. How they are proceeding is without respect for the opinion or input of the little person and I literally mean the parents and the children.
I am an advocate for the learning disabled and I am seeing damage, destruction and disrespect of the plight and laws which govern these struggling and challenged learners and their families. Stripping out and trampling hard fought for federal mandates without the approval of the People and making demands of already painful school experiences and days by far too many of these children. For measuring and testing they are being told to perform at the same level and same result as the regular and gifted child and this is cruel and abusive! Why? To be measured for failure in order to give the excuse or reason to destroy the Public School System of this country for the For Profit Education Industry? Those same appointed managers of a sorting mechanism to look for the value added students for the global workforce for the corporate titans and government. Diane Ravitch has held the mirror up to this travesty and narcissistic push for expediency in this quest of global dominance. Children being moved into someone else’s lane before their maturity or interests take them to their own decision or choice of future. Old school thinking? Maybe, but with an American Dream foundation.
The goal of creating a literate society is awesome and the public school system has faired well in this pursuit. There is enough research and enough evidence that this country runs off the engine of its People who perform the functions needed for our survival. From the smallest job to the loftiest leadership our schools have brought us to the forefront of global power. Is it perfect? No! Can it be enhanced for the individual consideration of each of its generations? Yes! You don’t abandon some because the shift to management by a measuring frenzied obsessed corporate surge for superiority and greed lunges ahead beyond reason and takes over our senses and our government and then they came for us!!!
The title of Diane Ravitch book is compelling and accurate and her methodical disclosure of this wrong of dismantling education and other of our honored systems by an outside elite unseen group of mind and money manipulators is a reign of terror. Do No Harm should be mantra of any civilized society and we are seriously veering away from the very words we pledge to our flag…Liberty and Justice for all….not some…not the worthy or value added….ALL!!! It is always what we don’t know that will begin to make sense of things, like follow the money, watch for the hidden influence, and knowing who individuals have gotten too close to when trying to find the truth. A little truth here and there might bring us to some honesty. Pearl Buck and James Yen tried to Tell All The People with the book about the education experiment in China in the beginning of the last century, operative word is experiment and that is where we are at this point in time to bring us to a robotic future. Did anyone ask if we want to replace ourselves for the comfort of an elite few and the misery of masses? There are heros in this revolution but I think you and I differ on who they are! Time and the history books will determine who will bear the insults or the honors. To this point I have been a strong supporter of you and your work, I am so sorry that we have come to this point of disagreement but I am proud to live in a country that allows for our differing points of view and in public light.
REPLY
WOW!
The irony about Merrows characterization of Ravitch supporters having a “Comicbook mentality” isn’t lost on me.
The sad thing is that there is more truth and complexity in the average comicbook compared to Merrow’s psuedo journalism.
As federal money gets thinner, public broadcasting must seek more corporate money. “Citizen Koch”, for example wasn’t aired this summer because…Koch strong-armed PBS. Merrow has most likely been subjected to the same sort of pressure. Witness Bill Moyers’ gracious and dignified retirement this year.
Sure, they will attack and attempt to belittle Diane, Reign of Error is powerful and empowering. Facts are stubborn things. Ideologues don’t like facts.
The comments are often more enlightening reading than Diane’s post. There are some fine minds among you, and your contributions are read and appreciated by many.
The trolls are merely trying to create distraction and confusion. Don’t encourage them.
Well said.
Merrow’s actions reminds me of a piece by Chris Hedges “The Treason of the Intellectuals”
https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_treason_of_the_intellectuals_20130331?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
“The power elite, especially the liberal elite, has always been willing to sacrifice integrity and truth for power, personal advancement, foundation grants, awards, tenured professorships, columns, book contracts, television appearances, generous lecture fees and social status. They know what they need to say. They know which ideology they have to serve. They know what lies must be told—the biggest being that they take moral stances on issues that aren’t safe and anodyne. They have been at this game a long time. And they will, should their careers require it, happily sell us out again.”
I have two thoughts. First, his post seems to be one of those things people write because they need to write something. As someone in Colorado’s Front Range near the massive flooding we’ve had, yes, we’ve had heroes in the traditional sense and yes, that’s an entirely different category. But it’s also a non-issue.
That said, I would completely agree with him in that our society tends to oversimplify issues into yes/no categories. I agree with Dr. Ravitch on many, many issues, but not all of them. I’ve commented here before (I think) that I do like school choice. We have it in Colorado. My oldest is choice-enrolled in a nearby neigbhorhood school. It has a K-6 strings program (she’s played violin since she was 4) that her incredible music teacher runs during her free periods, and it is one of the GT centers in our district. From my perspective, this isn’t at all equivalent to the kind of voucher system that many espouse as part of “choice,” in part because this is a neighborhood public school. It happens to be a mile away from her assigned neighborhood school, 2.5 away from our now-closed (due to very real budget cuts) neighborhood school.
GT may be another issue where Dr. Ravitch and I disagree, perhaps because reality and ideology are very far removed in this regard. (Major disclaimer: it’s been a busy week and I may be misremembering what I read in one of her earlier books. If so, please disregard!) I like the idea that if classes are small enough and teachers are well-trained, etc, that GT kids would be well-served in regular classrooms, as would the middle-of-the-road and the struggling students. However, my experience, my husband’s and pretty much that of everyone I know is that when you’re one of one, or two, or maybe three GT kids in a classroom of 24/27/30 kids, there’s not enough time to make that happen. It doesn’t. Add in the social issues that come with being the “know-it-all” and there are many lonely, sad and alienated kids. My oldest is in a classroom of her peers, which has both the benefit of giving her a social group of kids at a similar level and also keeping the work challenging enough that she won’t just slide through her K-12 experience and then have a rude awakening when she gets to college. The kids mix with their age-group peers for art/music/PE, lunch and recess and extracurricular stuff, but their academic needs are met. And yet, I can come here and read Dr. Ravitch promoting Jersey Jazzman’s “Choosy Parents Choose Choice” and completely oversimplifying the issue, as if choosing a good public neighborhood school, even if it’s not quite my neighborhood, is the same as being a voucher proponent.
There are grey areas and many of them. Unfortunately, blogs and social media tend to lead to an echo-chamber effect in which the loudest voices dominate (and typically agree with the poster; we certainly tend to follow only those with whom we most agree these days) and nuance is lost.
I’m very grateful for your books in which there is a great deal of documentation and nuance. I wish the public school supporter blogs could be as nuanced and acknowledge that this is not an all-or-nothing position. Then again, perhaps McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” really is more influential than we expect when it comes to social media and perhaps nuanced discussions with many, many shades of grey are simply not possible via social media.
Ravitch writes: “The insults came so thick and fast that it was hard to sort them out. My readers are not leftists. They are teachers, parents, students, administrators, and ordinary people who don’t like to see their local public schools closed down or taken over by a private charter corporation like KIPP.”
Diane – KIPP is not a private charter corporation. I understand KIPP raises a ton of private funding to supplement the public per-pupil revenues it receives from the state. I understand that KIPP schools spend more money than most other public schools in the their districts. But to write that KIPP is a private charter corporation is factually incorrect -it is a nonprofit corporation – and because I assume that someone as versed in these matters would know better, I can only conclude that you are being rhetorical and manipulative. The problem with knowingly and intentionally spreading inaccurate information like this is that it hinders readers from having more nuanced, critical and informed discussions about the issues taken up on this blog. For example, isn’t it important for your readers to know the differences and similarities between KIPP schools and truly for-profit EMO’s like Edison (and, for that matter, the school my children attend, PS321 in Park Slope, a traditional public school which like KIPP raises substantial private funds to supplement its public revenues)?
You write that through your research and writing you have “tried to present evidence and research, not just opinion and that “when you express opinion, it is based on evidence.” You and others on this blog cite the work of Bruce Baker to support your unequivocally negative opinions of charter schools, “reformers”, etc. Maybe you need to look a little more closely at how Baker works with his data, and how it often leads him to paint a picture of charter schools that is far more balanced and sophisticated than your caricatures. Here, from his analysis of performance, funding, and student attrition data, are some un-Ravitch like conclusions he draws about KIPP TEAM Academy (a charter school in Newark that will be the focus of a chapter I wrote for a soon to be published book on the past, present and future of, yes, progressive schools):
“Again, to summarize:
It’s not a miracle but it just may be a pretty good school.
It doesn’t serve the same population, but serves more similar population than many other high-flying charters.
It spends quite a bit and pays its teachers particularly well, but structures that pay differently.
AND THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. (even if it doesn’t make good news copy!)”
Perhaps Mr. Ratner should have disclosed that he has prepared publications for the KIPP Network. One presumes he was paid for such work.
See under Publications: http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/profiles/Andrew-Ratner.cfm
He who protests too much!! Whether it is Ratner or Merrow, to speak out with such vehemence begs their message, especially when both have their own publications to protect. They are entitled to their opinions but it has a hallow ring in light of their commercial interests.