Notes on Diane Ravitch

Diane Ravitch began her  keynote presentation to PSBA with this cheerful thought: “Pennsylvania is in the forefront of doing terrible things in education.” It’s hard to argue with that when the Commonwealth’s new Education Secretary claims that “money has no impact on the quality of education”.  A number of other comments were also worth noting.

Ravitch challenged the idea that schools should be run like a business, noting that capitalism is built on the premise that failure is acceptable, and even desirable. In education, however, we can’t afford to produce failure.

Taking on the voucher issue, she noted that just as we wouldn’t consider privatizing public libraries, beaches and parks, or police and fire departments, we should be equally reluctant to privatize public education.

Ravitch cited several studies.  In Milwaukee, vouchers have been available for about 20 years, and are used by about 20% of their students, but there’s no evidence that vouchers have positively impacted educational achievement in any way.  She also noted the so-called Texas and New York ‘miracles’ that, upon further review, turned out to be non-existent.

Then leaning on the advice from “All the President’s Men” to “follow the money”, Ravitch observed that hedge fund managers are key players in the current push for charter schools. The possibility of using public dollars to finance for-profit schools is viewed by them as a significant investment opportunity.

She challenged the assertion of “Waiting for Superman” that “70% of students are performing below grade level.” She said the actual number is 25%, which includes a high proportion of non-English speaking and special education students.

While quality teachers are correctly recognized as the key to a good education, Ravitch pointed out that statistically, families have the greater impact on student achievement, and that ‘family income’ is the better predictor.

And while the Harlem Children’s Zone is often cited as an example of how it is possible to educate students from difficult environments, Ravitch observed that the HCZ is successful because they explicitly address issues resulting from poverty. Their budget is about $16,000 per student, not including the cost of their after-school program, rewards for student performance, a chef who prepares healthy meals, central administration and most building costs, as well as some of the expense of the students’ free health and dental care.

Another charter school success cited by “Waiting for Superman” is the SEED school in Washington, D.C.. , which is, however, not cheap at about $35,000 per student.

Ravitch mentioned two keys to improving education:  a strong professional teaching force, and an emphasis on early childhood education to address the gap that exists on the first day of school, and which will only widen if you don’t address it.

She suggested that we might want to consider the models of successful countries. In Finland, for example, schools are not labeled as “failing”; rather, the best schools help the weaker schools, just as the better teachers are seen as resources to help the weaker ones. The ideal teacher evaluation tool would be largely dependent on quality principal and peer review.

In the midst of all the rhetoric about “college and work readiness” we have forgotten that the Founding Fathers saw public education primarily as necessary vehicle for the development of a capable citizenry.

Stating what ought to be obvious, Ravitch concluded by saying that we shouldn’t be mandating unproven ideas, and that the current rhetoric on education reform  “borders on nihilism”.