I confess that I was very disappointed by the review of my new book in the New York Times. The reviewer thought that I should have presented “both sides,” not argued on behalf of public schools, which enroll 85-90% of American children. If we starve the public schools that enroll most children, we harm them and the future of our society. I debated whether to respond on this blog but then decided against it. Sometimes it is best to remain silent.
Happily, Neil Kulick, a teacher, critiqued the review. He posted his comment here.
Thank you, Neil!
He writes:
Your new book gives public school teachers (like me) hope. You are truly our champion. Thank you.
A while back, I read the review of “Slaying Goliath” in the NY Times. I did not quite like the review. Here is my reply to it:
Readers of Annie Murphy Paul’s review of Diane Ravitch’s “Slaying Goliath” (in the February 2 NYT Book Review) can be forgiven for thinking that Professor Ravitch has lost her way and written a book in which she exults in the failures of all who are interested in strengthening our public schools.
In fact, “Slaying Goliath” is a work of meticulous scholarship that chronicles the failure of every single “reform” in recent decades, most of them market-based (as if children or their teachers were commodities, or schools factories) and virtually all funded by billionaires who know little about teaching and learning but are glad to call the shots when it comes to our schools. Professor Ravitch is not against reform but rather the particular set of “reforms” that have been foisted on our public schools and our teachers and students, including so-called merit pay and the oddity of evaluating teachers based on their students’ test scores. Her book ends with a call for genuine reform, which would require adequately funding our public schools so that they have a fair chance of educating a population that includes so many children born into poverty and who come to school already behind and lacking the supports at home of their more affluent peers. It would also require funding programs to support impoverished families. Our public schools are not broken; our society is.
Professor Ravitch accurately terms those who push (and, astonishingly, continue to push) for these failed reforms “disrupters,” because the purpose or effect of their actions is to undermine the very institution of the public school. And yes, Professor Ravitch does name names. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, for one, is not an advocate of public schools. Rather she favors “choice,” as if that were an end in itself. But that choice does not include a well-funded public school for every child, though if Secretary DeVos had her way it would include a charter school. Charter schools, unfortunately, are generally no better than public schools, and some are militaristic, so that students learn not to question but to obey. Nor are charters known for serving the needs of children with learning disabilities or who have emotional or behavioral problems or for whom English is not their first language. They do, however, succeed in draining money from public schools.
Ultimately, Professor Ravitch is optimistic, believing that today’s “reformers” will inevitably lose, despite their vast wealth, because the “resisters” — parents and grandparents, schoolchildren, and their teachers — are multitudinous and motivated by passion. And they cannot be bought. As a public school teacher, I hope Professor Ravitch is right.
Some might wonder why public schools matter. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of American schoolchildren attend them, public schools are our best hope for a flourishing democracy. In public schools, children from diverse backgrounds come together as one community. They learn together, and they learn from each other. John Dewey understood how essential public schools are to our way of life: “A democracy,” he wrote, “is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.”* It is just this “conjoint communicated experience” that public schools afford.
Yes, I think books should always present both sides. For instance, when I read books about astronomy, I expect to read the evidence for the earth being flat. And when I read about evolution, I expect to read arguments in favor of humans riding dinosaurs. And when I read history, I expect to hear about the good parts of the slaughter of indigenous people and slavery and the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent.
So, yes, it was a definite failing that you did not include all the wonders of charter schools. I’m most disappointed, Diane.
Dienne,
You went right to the heart of the matter.
Why didn’t Rachel Carson tell the side of the DDT companies?
Think of the many books that have made a difference, and most if not all advocated for a different approach than the status quo.
We also need to hear Hitler’s side.
Oh, wait, we already hear that… at Trump rallies.
That’s exactly what we hear at Trump rallies, which is why they are so very, very frightening.
Here, the OUTSTANDING Frontline documentary, “Zero Tolerance,” about how Bannon, Sessions, and Miller chose Trump to be the standard bearer of anti-immigrant White Supremacy in the United States:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/stream-zero-tolerance-and-explore-38-extended-interviews-with-our-sources/
Watch this. It’s truly horrifying.
I raised a question this morning as we reviewed WW2. What would Hitler have tweeted? What would his hash tags looked like? I think I will have a contest.
Excellent, SomeDAM! Perfect.
I have noticed that Greta Thunberg is very one-sided. She ignores the views of the climate change deniers.
Greta is very one sided…the good one.
My take on the review was the reviewer objected to the depiction of reformers as self-interested.
What baffles me is why no one objects to that when ed reformers do it- key to their political campaigns is the idea that people who support public schools have bad motives- we’re all either greedy labor union members or wealthy parents in suburbs “hoarding” education.
In the ed reform echo chamber there are no working or middle class public schools- there are either very low income schools or hugely wealthy schools. It’s one of the reasons I don’t accept “the movement”- it doesn’t comport with reality.
My own district is fairly ordinary in Ohio. It’s about half lower income. It’s strong in some areas and weaker in others. It doesn’t fit their anti-public school political campaign talking points. It’s not a “factory” and the kids aren’t sitting there miserable yearning to attend a charter, and although the teachers belong to a labor union in 25 years as a public school parent I have never heard the union mentioned by another parent- not ever.
I don’t think my district is unusual in Ohio. I think there are a lot of schools like my school. Solid public schools with some big challenges. It’s bizarre that ed reformers demonize the people who work in these districts as being somehow wholly motivated by greed and power- it is so far from my lived experience I can’t reach any other conclusion that this is about an ideological agenda they have. It’s pure politics.
This is Jeb Bush, the national leader of ed reform, describing every public school in the country:
“he says the United States has “over 13,000 government-run monopolies run by unions.”
This is standard in ed reform. DeVos is actually worse – she not only bashes public schools, she bashes public school STUDENTS.
Why is it okay to criticize public schools and public school leaders but not okay to criticize charter and private schools and the people who promote those?
All of these people who object to ed reformers being criticized- where were you when ed reformers launched a 20 year political campaign to bash public schools?
Why is okay to have charter and voucher advocates but NOT okay to have public school advocates? Our students don’t deserve advocates? Charter and private school students may have powerful and politically connected advocates but our schools and students have to shut up and sit down? Why? Because “government schools” are unfashionable in elite circles? Because none of these ed reform leaders attended a public school? Our schools are too dull and workaday to meet the excitement level ed reformers require?
I’m grateful Diane is an advocate for public schools and public school students. I think they need and deserve at least ONE.
You know, Ohio is closing all of our public schools after school on Monday and I am listening to public schools parents frantically planning and it isn’t just “childcare”- our children’s lives revolve around these schools. Just the cancellation of school sports alone is hugely disruptive to people in this county and that’s just sports- add in the music programs and the clubs and the social lives and friendships and FOOD our lower income kids get in school and it’s HUGE.
Ed reformers just don’t get it. They never valued the role public schools play in communities like mine and they NEVER will. It ISN’T like picking a cell phone plan. You’re wrong. It’s much, much bigger than that. Without public schools we wouldn’t have a community. It is what we have in common.
They are pitching this in the trash without every understanding why it was valuable. It is the most reckless, ill-considered thing I have ever seen. It’s hubris. THEY don’t value public schools so they assume no one else does either.
Yeah, let’s all hear both sides of the organized crime story.
We usually leave that to Hollywood …
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/on-romance-literature-v2-0/
Waiting to hear Trump denounce the Third Reich.
White Supremacists don’t denounce White Supremacists. If someone in this maladministration should do that, Propaganda Minister Stephen “Goebbels” Miller would not be pleased.
Great job, Neil Kulick!!!
It is notable that this review is coming from a source that is identified as a “left-leaning” newspaper. The right of American politics excoriates the Times on a daily basis for its supposedly left wing slant on the news. So how does a review like Murphy’s fit into that narrative?
There are people who think of themselves as progressives who followed the Obama-Duncan ideas about education (which were the same as GW Bush and the Republican Party): the way to fix education was with a “Race to the Top” that emphasized more charter schools, test-based evaluation of teachers, getting tough on schools with low test scores (and “turning them around” by firing the staff), and exaltation of standardized tests. Eight years of these policies from a Democratic administration led many progressives to believe that these very harsh and conservative policies were good. The real question is why Obama and Duncan fell for these bad ideas, and my guess is that when you run for president there are promises you make while fund-raising. DFER (hedge-fund managers) were a huge source of funding for Obama and they urged him to choose Duncan because they knew Duncan would protect their highest priorities: charters and getting tough on teachers.
Nice work, Neil Kulick….
Diane ,
Here is my review that will be E blasted to 27 000 Canadian education activists tomorrow. 👍✊
Doug Little
http://Www.thelittleeducationreport.ca