Is This Article “Divisive”?

43 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. readingexchange says:

   January 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm

   “Now it is time to build a great public school system that meets the needs of the children of Milwaukee.”

   Divisive? No, I do not see your article as divisive, Dr. Ravitch. Although, perhaps the voucher-charter crowd may see it as divisive. You may be driving a wedge between them and their anticipated power, prestige and profits. The truth is pesky like that. Perhaps they fear a growing public awareness about their failed attempts to “save” public education. It gets drafty and uncomfortable when the curtain is pulled back, even a little.

   Reply
   • ggoslin says:

     January 20, 2013 at 12:40 pm

     “From what I have seen these past twenty years, charters and vouchers are divisive.

     What do you think?”

     Here’s what I think: A lot of people have been fighting AGAINST charters, vouchers, and the privatization of education for “these past twenty years,” while Ms. Ravitch was fighting FOR all of those things. The change of heart is nice, but it would have been a lot nicer 10 or 15 years ago, before the forces of privatization hit critical mass and were supported by mainstream Democrats.

     Reply
     • flerper says:

       January 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm

       I remember vouchers being the subject of one of my high-school debate meets in the late 1980s. Back then, Bill Gates was just a software guy and hedge funds actually hedged, but all the anti-voucher arguments were the same as today: the siphoning-off of more motivated students, the privatization of public institutions, the First Amendment and SCOTUS’s “Lemon test.” The pro-voucher arguments were the same, too: public schools weren’t working, choice was an antidote, and unions were the obstacle. Perhaps ironically, I can’t remember which side my team was on.

2. Kenneth Bernstein says:

   January 19, 2013 at 7:01 pm

   You oppose what they want to do, therefore by definition you are divisive, you might actually be persuading people to oppose them, and they are terrified of that

   Reply
3. Imagine Wisconsin (@imaginewi) says:

   January 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm

   Ironically, but not surprisingly, the think tank (WPRI)–labeling your work divisive–is one of Gov. Walker’s strongest supporters. Of course, Walker is the most divisive character since Joe McCarthy in Wisconsin’s history.

   WPRI is also in cahoots with the Koch Brother’s Americans for Prosperity and other groups supporting Gov. Walker’s divisive politics.

   Walker and his devote followers have pitted collective bargaining rights v. taxpayer rights, public service v. private enterprise, conservationists v. big mining business, charter/private schools v. public schools, and Republicans v. Democrats. Polls confirm it is Wisconsinite v. Wisconsinite under Walker management. Wisconsin is a house divided. This is Walker’s dichotomous creation.

   Let’s be realistic. With a GOP-controlled legislature and executive in Wisconsin, we are a ways from rescuing our state from anti-public education forces.

   However, in the spirit of MLK, who we honor on Monday, I appreciate your vigilance in exposing the truth about vouchers and other social justice issues related to public education.

   You are on the side of the angels, Diane. Thank you.

   Reply
4. M. Schneider says:

   January 19, 2013 at 7:36 pm

   Divisive? You mowed over an antpile. 🙂

   Reply
5. donvila says:

   January 19, 2013 at 7:52 pm

   As you well know, you’re looking at Bizarro World analysis. Sort of ironic that they charge your ideas would cause everything that their program has already caused. I really wish people would read your work carefully before they run their mouths.

   Reply
6. Fred Klonsky says:

   January 19, 2013 at 7:54 pm

   Check out the website of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. http://www.wpri.org These are people who KNOW something about being divisive. They are masters at it.

   Reply
7. Joe Nashville says:

   January 19, 2013 at 8:48 pm

   No, you weren’t divisive at all. He was certainly attacking you in his article though. All research is not cut from the same cloth either. I’m not necessarily impressed with research produced by a policy research institute. Anyone trained in research methodology should be weary of the phrases “studies show” and “research shows.” All research has limitations and delimitations, is subject to scrutiny, and researchers should openly acknowledge this while welcoming opportunities to civilly defend their work and improve upon it.

   Reply
8. dmaxmj says:

   January 19, 2013 at 9:17 pm

   “Divisive” is how the “powers that be” classify any challenge to their agenda-ignoring the reality that their agenda is to conquer/divide/monetize and profit from the pieces of what they’ve destroyed. If any party in the reform fiasco could be defined as divisive, it would be ANYONE involved in the de-funding and testing juggernaut. The defenders against that onslaught are our heroes. I have three daughters that I do not plan on losing to these incapable fools.

   Reply
9. Iaviator says:

   January 19, 2013 at 9:19 pm

   Karl Rove and his band of rethuglicans are masters at accusing their opponents of their own worst practices

   Reply
   • rmurphy12 says:

     January 20, 2013 at 10:48 am

     thankfully there are many who recognize the dispicable tactics of right wing liars for what they are. of course, for many of the wannabe affluents and for many of the acutual affluents on the Democratic side of politics, the response to be called ‘divisive’ by right wing liars is to attack the person on YOUR side!

     ‘stop being ‘divisive’ or they’ll attack us, and we’ll lose!!’

     it was 1 of the driving messaging philosophies of the Gore Duckakis Kerry campaigns! oh yeah – it is also used extensively by the clinton-obama crowd whenever they’re selling us little know no bodies out to their wall street buddies.

     Reply
10. Stu says:

    January 19, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    Divisive?

    …only because the “Milwaukee Plan” pits those people who want to privatize public education against those who wish to improve public education.

    …only because it tells the truth about the “success” of the voucher plan and the corporate owned charter schools.

    …only because it reveals that those people who wanted us to believe that vouchers and charters would “improve” public schools were either misinformed or lying.

    The truth is “divisive” to everyone who wants to manipulate public opinion in order to make a buck.

    Reply
11. KrazyTA says:

    January 19, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    The links provided in this posting and the earlier one on this subject reveal that the voucherites and charterites don’t have anything new or original or interesting or convincing to say. The best they can do is leave the impression that vouchers and charters are lifting all boats—but proof be damned.

    If they had conclusive, even if quasi-independent, proof of their claims they would be storming onto this blog, demanding that people read logical conclusions backed up by irrefutable facts reached by transparently honest and valid research. Instead it’s infomercials on friendly media sites, with backhanded compliments to Pete Seeger, “To every claim, Spin Spin Spin, there is a season, Spin Spin Spin, and a lie for just no reason, times seven.”

    I loved the comment on one link that Diane must be rolling in the Benjamins. Sure. Unlike the heroes of “education reform” like Wendy Kopp [Teacher for Wendy’s Wallet] and Michelle Rhee [LobbyistsFirst] and G. Canada [KidsInPrisonProgram] who can’t afford the large staff, office space and technical support that powers Diane’s unrelenting assault on, well, whatever they claim she is assaulting and for which they demand profuse apologies.

    When the house of cads [I wrote “cards” but this word is more fitting!] they have built collapses, they will deserve just as much sympathy as Lance Armstrong.

    Reply
12. Ken Mortland says:

    January 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    I found more or less the same thing a Imagine Wisconsin. There are ties between Wisconsin Policy Research, Americans for Prosperity, and the Koch Brothers. The author of this posting is both “divisive” and “disingenuous” .

    Reply
    • dianerav says:

      January 19, 2013 at 11:14 pm

      The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is funded by the Bradley Foundation, a far-right group that created Milwaukee’s voucher program in 1990. I wouldn’t expect them to like an article criticizing the voucher program. But they should face the facts. After 22 years of vouchers, the city of Milwaukee is one of the lowest-performing urban districts in the nation, and black students in Milwaukee have very low scores on the federal tests, far lower than black students in cities without vouchers.

      Reply
      • Ken Mortland says:

        January 19, 2013 at 11:27 pm

        The business principles behind advertizing say that you never admit or dwell on any aspect of the product that is negative. Given that the marketing dept/advertisers created the demand for vouchers and charters by trashing the reputations of public schools, they know what to say and what not to say. Admitting poor performing voucher schools would not be in the prospectus. You might recall that I wrote about this in 1992.

13. Christel Swasey says:

    January 19, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/one-small-step-to-new-standards-one-giant-leap-of-logic/ Great article by mom Alyson Williams, on the divisiveness and illogic of Common Core that crosses party lines and constitutional logic.

    Reply
14. schoolgal says:

    January 19, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Whoo-hoo Diane!!
    The fact that your piece got a reaction from them is WONDERFUL!!! If you weren’t a threat, you would have been ignored. The BBC (Billionaire Boys Club) cannot silence you, so they disparage you. Klein did the same thing when he had his communications director write those horrible op-ed pieces in Huffpo. I believe she now works for Murdoch??

    Even their insidious movie (which is coming out on DVD and I still won’t watch it) didn’t make a dent at the box office. Nor were any of the actors recognized for their over-the-top performances. Maybe they should remember they belong to a union.

    Reply
15. watermelonpunch (@watermelonpunch) says:

    January 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm

    I think “divisive” is the term that’s used to describe anyone who disagrees these days. In order to have an excuse not to discuss or compromise, and blame someone else for it.

    Reply
16. David Eckstrom says:

    January 19, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    Diane, when you have the time, would you please respond directly to the criticism leveled by the writer from WPRI? I live and teach in WI and I know I will have this argument more than once. I presume he’s twisting the facts, but I’d like to know exactly how.

    Reply
    • dianerav says:

      January 20, 2013 at 12:00 am

      David, I am not sure what part of the criticism needs a response. The author of the article asserts that choice itself–a free marketplace of schools–will best meet the needs of the children of the city, but that is manifestly untrue. As I stated in my response to Wolf and Witte, after 22 years of choice, Milwaukee is one of the nation’s lowest performing urban districts. Black children–the alleged beneficiaries of choice–are doing terribly in comparison to black students in other cities. There was no rising tide in Milwaukee. Choice is a failed experiment, that is, if you care about impartial evidence. The author of the article is writing on behalf of a well-funded rightwing think tank. I am giving you my views as a historian who is funded by no one.

      Reply
    • dianerav says:

      January 20, 2013 at 12:04 am

      One other point, David, if this is the one you want me to respond to. The author says it would be disruptive to put an end to choice. It was also disruptive to put an end to legal segregation in 1954, but the U.S. Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that it was wrong. At some point, the elected officials in Wisconsin may decide that it was a terrible mistake to create three competing school systems and that none of them are doing well. It won’t be a court decision to end this fruitless experiment, but a political judgment that it is wrong to undermine and privatize public education: because it is wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective.

      Reply
      • daveeckstrom says:

        January 21, 2013 at 1:37 am

        Sorry. I should have been more clear. This is specifically what I wanted you to respond to:

        “Consider, the state’s new report card, which shows that about 50% of students in independent charters are attending schools meeting or exceeding state expectations, as are 37% of students using MPS specialty schools, and 13% of students in traditional MPS schools.”

17. gabe martinez says:

    January 20, 2013 at 12:35 am

    Hi Diane, new to the blog, but a long-time GED instructor. I have to say you are speaking the truth on this one. I’m an immigrant’s son, and a supporter of the idea of public schools, which I think one can make the case is a truly American ideal, or at least it has been. And yet, I do not understand why so many on the RIght do not see how they are destroying that ideal by talking about education the way one speaks of commerce.

    I work in the non-profit sector, and I would be the first to argue that there are some aspects of the business world that might benefit the average CBO: a push for efficiency, competitive salaries to bring out the most talented workers. BUT, the process of educating needs to be something that cannot be spoken about in terms of profit or marketplace.

    That said, by those terms themselves, your case is made even stronger. Companies deal with bottom lines, and as you point out in the article, the bottom line is that this idea of “competition” for students is not helping anyone and IS hurting many.

    Reply
18. Linda Johnson says:

    January 20, 2013 at 1:19 am

    Challenging, yes; divisive; no.

    Reply
19. Prof W says:

    January 20, 2013 at 2:02 am

    According to journalist Glen Ford, the Bradley Foundation focused on charters and vouchers in Milwaukee in order to drive a wedge between African Americans and the Democratic party and attract Blacks to the Republican party. Ultimately, Ford says, the Bradley Foundation, Heritage Foundation and other right wing conservative groups infiltrated the Democratic party by bankrolling black politicians such as Cory Booker –the ultimate in divisiveness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdPACwRgw04

    The NAACP, Urban League and other civil rights groups say nothing against charters, vouchers and segregated schools today. Apparently, they have been bought by corporate sponsors, too, including Bill Gates: http://blackagendareport.com/corporate-funding-urban-league-naacp-civil-rights-orgs-has-turned-corporate-leadership

    Very disturbing stuff!

    Reply
20. Lehrer says:

    January 20, 2013 at 4:52 am

    But apparently it is not divisive for charterites to call teachers lazy incompetent union thugs! You did not engage in their Group Speak. That worries them. Maybe they are niwcseeing the cracks in the ice of rheeform.

    Reply
21. JoJoFox says:

    January 20, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Devisive?…NO Clarifying what’s actually going on?….Yes
    Throwing your pearls before swine?…P-R-O-B-A-B-L-Y.

    Reply
    • JoJoFox says:

      January 20, 2013 at 9:01 am

      Hear them squeal?

      Reply
22. concerned teacher says:

    January 20, 2013 at 11:09 am

    I am a strong supporter of the public schools and opposed to the “reform” movement attempting to privatize education. I didn’t find your article divisive. But, I do have a question that keeps coming up for me about some of the reasons why charters gain traction. Charters benefit from the real and perceived impact of heterogeneous grouping upon the achievement of more prepared students. Similarly, they score points because public schools are less able to address and remove disruptive children. For these reasons, a diverse district with students from all socio-economic backgrounds is at risk for charter take over. We complain that charters are skimming the top, we have to take all comers and we can’t cherrypick; we can’t dump the least school ready students. We wear it as a badge of honor; we’re a force for egalitarian education for all. We’re a place where all children come together to learn. Well, that’s great. BUT… a parent who wants to limit negative influences or increase challenge of instruction may not care about the general mission if the impact of that mission upon their child is negative. I’m not sure we can stem the tide of charters when we use middle class children as social equalizers and consider the annual limitation upon their achievement and growth as an acceptable loss. That’s an insufficient mission. This makes public school less desirable for parents who have prepared, able children. I understand why these parents want to flee classrooms when the books are two or three levels below grade and their children are rarely challenged in the school day. And, I understand why they get tired of being told that every need is met with skilled teachers who can differentiate. It’s not true. Differentiation is frequently insufficient in classrooms where the range of student skill base goes from 2nd grade to post high school.

    If we are going to meet the challenges posed by privatizers, we need to look at what we’re doing with a clear eye. Research shows that the positive impact of heterogeneous grouping is on the social development for lower income students. It is a benefit. In my experience, most students in a well constructed, heterogeneous classroom, headed by a teacher who is skilled share a common positive culture that makes it possible for students who might otherwise have few positive role models to grow. It has been my experience that a middle of the pack student will make academic gains if they are in a class that is challenging, but not too challenging. However, it is also my experience that the lowest skill level student makes no progress in a heterogeneous setting and would benefit more from a homogeneous, small class with more focused and direct instruction. It is my experience that the middle top and top does not receive academic benefit from heterogeneous instruction. I don’t know of any study of heterogeneous grouping that shows a positive academic impact on above average students. But, I do know that a homogeneous class of top of the middle and top students will make significant progress each year. We need to look at how to really challenge all of our students if we are going to compete with charters and private schools. We need to be willing to consider the cost of chronically disruptive students upon the efficacy of the regular classroom and the lack of alternatives for students to run their own race in our schools. I don’t know what the answer is, but 25+ kids each period wait upon our ability to figure out what to do. If we don’t come up with solutions in the traditional public school setting, parents are going to opt out.

    Reply
    • Wilbert says:

      January 20, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      Watch out, sooner or later someone here will call your opinion ‘divisive’. There aren’t too many people around this blog who will admit how bad things actually are in the worst schools. They just claim that the charters are exaggerating.

      Until we admit that there are issues and contribute to a plan that is more than ‘end poverty and give us more resources,’ we’ll continue to lose the battle for public opinion. Us dragging our feet on admitting how bad the problem is in many places is the best thing that the reformers have going for them in this battle.

      Reply
      • dianerav says:

        January 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm

        Things are awful where poverty and segregation are intense.
        Share your ideas, as charters don’t solve the problem

      • Other Spaces says:

        January 20, 2013 at 6:59 pm

        Actually, “the best thing that the ‘reformers’ have going for them” is the teachers they convince that poverty and limited resources make no difference on student learning.

        Progressive educators have repeatedly stated that out-of-school factors must be addressed, including paying the working poor a livable wage. As long as teachers deny the importance of labor unions in requiring billionaire employers to pay equitable salaries, workers will continue to be exploited and you are very likely to become one of them.

        From a non-union, exploited, working poor teacher.

    • Prof W says:

      January 20, 2013 at 6:30 pm

      I have taught in a wide variety of public and private school settings in my 45 year career in education, with many different populations, and in my experience, the primary determinant of a teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction, as well as implement different grouping strategies within the class, to foster children’s abilities to benefit both socially and academically from being with heterogeneous peers, is small class size. 25+ students is the problem.

      Charter schools are mostly deregulated so they can implement innovative practices, but how often have you heard of charters with multi-age or heterogeneous classes and small class sizes? They tend to use the same grade-by-age, large classes as neighborhood schools and prefer homogeneous groups, not because tradition dictates or because that’s more effective, but because, whether for-profit or non-profit with six figure executive salaries, it is cheaper to hire novice teachers to teach to the middle and charters are looking for bang for the buck.

      Reply
23. dickvelner says:

    January 20, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Diane, I enjoy reading your blog because people want to contribute to the important subject of education but there is something I do not understand.
    Every time something is mentioned about charters or vouchers, you have a tizzy fit. Charters and vouchers speak to the issue of change but your belief that the only way to deliver public education is through “public education”. I am convinced you have political reasons, a political agenda for thinking like you do. Can you define “public education”. Charters are public institutions and vouchers bring choice to the classroom. As a math teacher I love the whole business of teaching and learning and we, the teachers, are not delivering the best we have to offer.
    This can only be done through change, offering our individual sense of creativity where parents and students can choose their classroom teacher.

    Reply
    • concerned teacher says:

      January 20, 2013 at 2:17 pm

      I disagree with some of the points you make. First, I don’t know where you teach or how long you’ve been teaching or how you know that “teachers are not delivering the best we have to offer.” But, most teachers I know are doing their jobs. I know a few slackers in the profession, but they are small in number. The vast majority of teachers I work with are dedicated professionals who deserve respect and authority in the profession. I think it’s a good idea to teach in a number of different settings over a career. It helps to give perspective. I have taught in private schools, inner city schools and suburban schools. I’ve taught in the heterogeneous and homogeneous model. My students have come from every walk of life, including among these one student who went to the family horse farm every summer and another student who already had two children with her drug dealer boyfriend by the time they were both in 8th grade. If you are newish to the profession, may I recommend that you try working in a variety of settings before deciding what teachers are doing or not doing and whether the public system as a whole is failing.

      Secondly, while I agree that some schools are failing, I believe that failure is more a function of who the students are than of who the teachers are. If a school has a critical mass of children with multiple handicapping circumstances, they will likely be failing. There is no magic to that equation. You need there to be enough functional students in any school for it to function.

      Finally, I’m convinced that charters are not public institutions but a backdoor way for private interests to get access to public dollars and undermine workplace guarantees in order to increase the profitability of what should be public institutions. I’ve seen how charters are used in NYC. The worst students are dumped into a school from other surrounding schools. That school is then found to be inadequate and taken over by a charter company who then refuses entry to those students. Because it’s a new school, they have the license to remove all the teachers who previously worked there, no matter how qualified or dedicated. The older, more expensive teachers lose their jobs. One of the best math teachers I’ve ever known had that happen to her because her salary made her less desirable than a teacher with two or three years of experience.

      Parents aren’t choosing their teachers. They are choosing their children’s peer group. Charters are open to a type of corruption that doesn’t seem to concern you. Should a school be able to deny entry or counsel out large percentages of undesirable children? Should a public school be able fire good teachers simply because they make more money or because they choose to teach the least able? Should a school be able to teach creationism and be publicly funded? Should a publicly funded school be run for profit? Is this the creativity you refer to?

      Reply
      • KrazyTA says:

        January 20, 2013 at 3:51 pm

        concerned teacher: nicely stated.

        Let me add as both a former bilingual aide and SpecEd TA who worked with many many teachers and subs: the only teacher dickvelner can be absolutely sure is not “delivering the best” to students is—himself.

        Not complainin’, just explainin’.

    • dianerav says:

      January 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      I once believed that charters and vouchers offered hope for change. The evidence proved otherwise. Look to Milwaukee. The vouchers have been on place for 22 years. Milwaukee is one of lowest performing districts in nation.
      Innovation? Look to public schools with great teachers and adequate resources.
      Keep reading. You will learn a lot and the scales will fall from your eyes, as they fell from mine.

      Reply
    • Prof W says:

      January 20, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      Since when can parents and students “choose their classroom teacher” in charter schools or anywhere else? They pick the school, not each specific teacher that they want, especially in small schools, where there may be just one class and one teacher per grade or subject. Even in college, adults might select a particular course taught by a certain teacher as a spe

      Reply
      • Ken Mortland says:

        January 20, 2013 at 6:57 pm

        Prof W: In suburban Seattle’s Northshore School District, parents routinely “choose” their child’s teacher, if they wish. I’ve had many parent requests over the years. Same is true for parents who ran afoul of me, asking that their child be placed somewhere other than in my room. From my perspective, it happens more often than you might imagine.

      • Prof W says:

        January 20, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        Ken,
        Sorry, that post went out before it was completed. I started to say that, even in college, when there are often several sections of a course and students think they are selecting a specific teacher, things may change, so that selection is not guaranteed.

        I know that parents may seek to select specific teachers, especially in advantaged environments where folks feel “entitled,” but is that a given, as a matter of procedure, or is it a special request?

24. wgersen says:

    January 20, 2013 at 7:46 pm

    I must confess that I did not Google “Rightwing Wisconsin”, but I am 95% confident they believe “the marketplace” will yield fair and just results far more than any program developed by the public sector… Are you surprised, then, that they think an article that states facts about the failure of the marketplace is “divisive”… Whenever anyone on the “left” recounts facts that contradict the faith-based capitalist thinking of the right, the right has two lines of defense: they cry “divisiveness” and they claim the person recounting the facts is a socialist…

    Reply