Malkin, the tide will soon start going out on school reform and educators will realize that they have to fix public schools. As Darling-Hammond tells American audiences about “reform” meaning choice and testing, “that is just not the way that educationally successful countries do it.”

Ancient Greece? Ancient Greecce was a slave owning society. Where did the slaves go to school?

As to a national curriculum, I also support that. For the Americans I am not really hopeful. Bush let them set their own tests for NCLB. If he had not done this, I doubt he could have received support. The Americans are very polarized not only by class and race but also by region. A national curriculum would say that the bar must be set near the top (Minnesota, Massachusetts?) or the bottom (Louisiana or Mississippi) or somewhere in the middle.

If it were set at the top level, the weak states would look very bad as if what have you been doing that so many fail. If it is set at the bottom or even in the middle, the high achieving states would need to dumb down their curriculum to the new level and their people would not stand for it.

I really don’t see that much of an easy way out of it, do you?

So this is what happened to Diane Ravitch. Such a pity.

In the 90s she was a huge proponent of school choice, then a few years back I remember reading her comments to the effect that competing charter schools and vouchers were not causing neighbouring public schools in the US to improve their educational offerings.  But, if I remember correctly, she thought this was the case because the public system didn’t feel threatened enough by a few competing schools.  In other words she wasn’t saying that the competing schools weren’t better—just that they were being ignored because there were few consequences to the education establishment if they did so. Strange that her “solution” now is to get rid of any competitive pressure whatsoever.

Sounds like I will have to read this book.

Due to the consequences of NCLB and the failure to meet AYP, a series of consequences click in in an escalating pattern. In many jurisdictions including Chicago, schools with low scores have been closed. No difference. In other schools the entire staff including the principal have been replaced with hand picked staff. No difference. In Rhode Island an entire staff is presently being fired for low performance. It will make now difference because the system simply does not work on the basis of punative consequences, especially when the 400lb gorilla in the room is poverty. Anybody notice the school in Rhode Island is one of the poorest in the state?

TDSB has had an internal choice system since the 1970s. Kids can go to any school they want provided there is an empty seat for them. Neighbourhood kids take priority.

Competition among schools is highly overrated as a solution. A big study is San Diago many years ago suggested only middle class kids who would have likely done well where they were, even took part. It seems to be a basic part of the make-up of working class and poor people that they ought to be able to get a good education at the PS down the street. I think they are right.

Choice is not an important element in the countries which are moving ahead rapidly or already on the top in education. Upgrading public schools is the answer.

All of the goals to reform educaiton are going to take time, and probably decades, but in a lot of places across NA it appears to at least be starting. 
Look at how long it took to erode the educational system here in Ontario?
Firstly the grade 13 departmentals (province wide testing) were eliminated; then the Hall Dennis report; then teachers federations were allowed to strike.  One could go back even further and look at the exit exams for grade eight students up till, when the 1930’s?
It’s been decades of a gradual downhill slide, so getting quality education back will be a slow uphill battle.
Many places in Europe have school choice, and when I lived in both Tokyo and Singapore, public schools competed with private institutions.  Their education was excellent, although I have to admit that the Japanese system was too hard.  The Japanese children had a saying, ‘sleep four hours pass, sleep five hours, fail’—tremendous pressure. 
It would be good to look at Europe’s, Japan’s and Singapore’s educational systems and see how why their competative systems succeed; also while we’re there, we should look at their syllabi and compare where our children are grade by grade, compared to Europe’s and Asia’s students…

Bev,

I don’t know how you can look at the world and get so many things wrong. I wrote those “departmentals”, there was wide agreement across Ontario that they were very unpopular and had to go. Canada has a better education system than every nation you mention. Our kids are more literate than Japan and more kids complete post secondary here than there. Singapore has an excellent educational system with no levels (streams or tracks) in their high schools, something we should eliminate over time.

You seem to have drunk the Kool Aid on competition making better results. You cannot import a business model into education, it just does not work.

Ravitch is Contemptuous of Parents

I just had the following published in the Washington Post:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/why-you-should-read-diane-ravi.html

Ravitch is contemptuous of parents.  In none of her writings or many presentations before commissions, hearings or panels has she said that parents have, or should have, an instrumental role in education of their children.  That is why she opposes any choice beyond the monopolistic funnel of the public school system.

She is a great spokesperson for the usurpers in education—the whole establishment which presents a united front against parents.  It is the parents, in most legislation I have seen, who are charged with the responsibility to “cause” their children to be educated. State systems are supposed to be there as a safety net, a backup, to parents who don’t fulfill their obligation.

The “system” has turned this ownership entirely on its head and taken over—by stealth, fraud, lobbies, power, and misrepresentation—and treats parents as second-class citizens.

I don’t mind the state providing funds for parents to fulfill their duty.  That is why I agree with Elinor Ostrom, this year’s Nobel Economics winner, who says policy makers should reconsider the past reforms and recommend “charter schools, voucher systems, and other reforms to create more responsive schools.”  See: “Policy Analysis in the Future of Good Societies” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/good_society/v011/11.1ostrom.html

What is Ravitch’s position on independent and private schools?  What is her opinion of home education?  If she is against choice, she’s against these successful, effective and efficient modes of education. They contribute mightily to the public good of an educated public.

I’m waiting to read the book to see how she treats parents—the true, but displaced and usurped, owners of and advocates for children’s education.

Furthermore, her credibility is low with me.  As long as she remains a Director of the Albert Shanker Institute which is funded and housed at the American Federation of Teachers HQ in Washington, DC, I will continue to see her as in the pocket of teacher unions.  Albert Shanker, president of the AFT from ’74-’97 never, to my knowledge, disavowed being a Marxist.

(PS:  I’m from Canada and feel our education systems are identical twins with identical issues, problems and threats.)

Tunya,
I would not want to put words in her mouth but having read her books to date (I admit I have read only 1/2 the new one but skimmed the rest).

I believe she would say it is always detached economists not educators who believe in markets and competition for education. I’m sure she would say all this choice nonsense will never add up to much and deliver the triplet goals of a nation’s education efforts, human capital, human equity and human fullfillment nd happiness. Only a high quality state system can deliver on that, the rest is mere window dressing.

Parents are important of course, but during the school day they give up their children to “in loco parentis.”

As more and more research shows the critical role of the teacher during the school day they will also show the critical role of the parent, outside of the school day.

Canada can have a great education system by putting emphasis on winner ideas and down playing loser ideas.

Winner ideas = Teacher training, teacher in-service, low class size, quality leadership, authentic assessment, inquiry and project method, deep and critical thinking

Loser ideas = testing, charters, vouchers, high class size, “alternative entry teaching”, back-to-basics, drill and kill workbooks.

I have never seen anything like this before. With one book Diane Ravitch has almost destroyed the momentum of the charters/vouchers/testing crowd of teacher bashers.

http://www.eductionnews.org/ednews_today/65527.html

Arne Duncan wants to see her ASAP.

I ran across an excellent comment by a classroom teacher from Texas on an American board today. Simple but true, I paraphrase;

I was surprised by the idea that all these supposed reforms have been going on in Texas for a while now and haven’t made a bit of difference.

Teach for America no problem

unlimited charter schools, no problem

student can go to any school they want, no problem,

testing up the wazoo, no problem

None of them have made even the slightest difference, they are gimmicks.