NY Times and a Lively Discussion on Ed Reform

Last month, noted educator, Diane Ravitch, had an op-ed in the NY Times called Waiting for a School Miracle.  In it she reviews how NCLB, adopted 10 years ago by Congress, mandated that all students must be passing math or reading by 2014 or their schools would be deemed failing.   It is now mid-year 2011 and the stats don't look good.

She pointed out several issues:

• there is no 100% proficiency so how can that be done.  Nevertheless, some politicians believe that the right combination of incentives and punishments will produce dramatic improvement. Anyone who objects to this utopian mandate, they maintain, is just making an excuse for low expectations and bad teachers. 
• that the "miracle" schools are few and far between.  She also says this kind of "hyping" of test score improvements has been going on for years (and cites NYC itself).  Even at Geoffrey Canada's famed Harlem Children's Zone School, he forges a path that is not scalable at a cost of about $23k per child per year.  What district has that kind of money (wait, Connecticut spends $20k but that's an anomoly).   And, we have wide-spread cheating (and exaggeration of results, see Michelle Rhee) now being revealed throughout the country.  

Her bottom line:

If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved. And that would be a miracle. 

So then regular columnist, David Brooks, wrote a rebuttal called "Smells like School Spirit."   What's interesting about his take is that he almost seems to shake his head over how hard she works for education.  He thinks she is too quick to rebut any criticism.    And, he believes all her work is in service to protecting the teachers' unions:

She has come to adopt the party-line view of the most change-averse elements of the teachers’ unions: There is no education crisis. Poverty is the real issue, not bad schools. We don’t need fundamental reform; we mainly need to give teachers more money and job security. 

He does make a lovely point, thought:

Most important, she is right that teaching is a humane art built upon loving relationships between teachers and students. If you orient the system exclusively around a series of multiple choice accountability assessments, you distort it. 

In sum, Ravitch highlights a core tension. Teaching is humane. Testing is mechanistic. 

He believes in the successful schools of innovation like KIPP or Harlem Success schools that:

In these places, tests are not the end. They are a lever to begin the process of change. They are one way of measuring change.

He goes on:

The places where the corrosive testing incentives have had their worst effect are not in the schools associated with the reformers. They are in the schools the reformers haven’t touched. These are the mediocre schools without strong leaders and without vibrant missions. In those places, of course, the teaching-to-the-test ethos prevails.

But, in the end, as with most education discussion, there's a lot - in both pieces - of accusations of data and research cherry-picking.  And that is a problem because for nearly every part of education, you can find research supporting each side. 

He believe Ravitch wants to end testing and I don't think that's what I'm hearing.  She's saying that the focus has got to be on the child, not the test or the score.   He ends with some provocative statements:

Ravitch’s narrative is that America has humane local schools that are being threatened by testing wonks. The fact is that many schools have become spiritually enervated and even great teachers struggle in an inert culture. It’s the reformers who often bring the passion, using tests as a lever.
If your school teaches to the test, it’s not the test’s fault. It’s the leaders of your school. 

That's a pretty big statement and worth considering.   Are our schools in a malaise or morass of sluggish thinking so that all they can do is teach to the test?

Here's what readers had to say to her op-ed:

• Duke University recently announced findings from a study that showed that regular public school teachers can be retrained to view and teach all students as gifted. In this “slow fix,” teachers learn to design rigorous but creative curriculum, not merely present textbook fare — a dramatic change. This nearly erases the achievement gap by the third grade regardless of family circumstances.  (I'll have to read this study but this was tried at one SPS elementary with great results and promptly shelved.)  
• Diane Ravitch is right regarding the need for better prenatal care and parental education, but she goes too far in playing down the role of grade schools in determining outcomes for disadvantaged children. The shortcomings of our public school system are a major part of the problem, and Ms. Ravitch commits the same intellectual error that politicians make when they disregard the academic handicap created by an impoverished home life. 

Then what they had to say about Mr. Brooks' column:

• Diane Ravitch herself (shortened) - I don’t want to get rid of testing. But tests should be used for information and diagnostics to improve teaching and learning, not to hand out bonuses, fire teachers and close schools. Poverty has a strong influence on academic achievement, and our society must both improve schools and reduce poverty. 

• In a “failing” urban school district near me, there are dedicated teachers who make time beyond their school days to give extra help with humor and care and encouragement.  That is the “humane art” that should be our goal. But there’s no test for that.

• I am the “education blogger” whom David Brooks mentioned in his column. I have been a longtime critic of Diane Ravitch in part because she makes disingenuous arguments by, as Mr. Brooks correctly notes, picking and choosing “what studies to cite,” but even more so because, while it’s very clear what Ms. Ravitch is against (she’s a vocal, clever and, sadly, effective critic of what we reformers are doing), I can’t for the life of me figure out she’s for.

• We hear from David Brooks that charter schools are an overall success and from Diane Ravitch that “high quality” studies are equivocal about charter school success. Which is it? Without a definitive distillation of results that can be agreed upon, there can be no informed decision about where to go from here. 

• Educators from John Dewey through James Comer and Diane Ravitch have repeatedly argued for a “community schools” model, offering extended day schedules, extracurricular activities, and perhaps basic clinical health care and counseling to help the families of impoverished children overcome some of the chronic deficits in their lives that hinder their achievement.  This would constitute real educational reform: school vouchers, charter schools, obsessive testing and the like are nothing more than placebos put forward by misguided reformers who shy away from the real work in front of us. 

Then the Times allows Ravitch to respond (a new feature they are trying out):


Good schools are no mystery. They have a dedicated principal, a stable staff with a mix of veterans and young teachers, and a strong curriculum that includes not only basic skills but the arts, history, civics, science, world languages, literature and physical education. And they engage parents and community leaders to support their goals. 

Most low-performing public schools enroll disproportionate numbers of children who don’t speak English, live in poverty or have disabilities. Low-income children start kindergarten a year or two behind more affluent peers. Many low-income children live in neighborhoods with high crime rates, are in ill health and are not well nourished. 

Certainly, poor children can learn and excel, but the odds are stacked against them. Every testing program — be it the SAT, the ACT, state scores or federal tests — shows a tight correlation between test scores and family income. 

This is a REALLY important discussion to have.   Where do we want education to go and how do we get there?  Is there one way?  If not, how many ways do we try based on outcomes?  Do we have money for 3 methods, 5 methods, and what will it do to schools that exist today? 

I have my own take that I've been slowly noodling in my head now for several months.  More to come.