Diane Ravitch interview on NPR

[emubird]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=135142895

 

Former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch was once an early advocate of No Child Left Behind, school vouchers and charter schools.

In 2005, she wrote, "We should thank President George W. Bush and Congress for passing the No Child Left Behind Act. ... All this attention and focus is paying off for younger students, who are reading and solving mathematics problems better than their parents' generation."

 

 

But four years later, Ravitch changed her mind.

 

 

One interesting quote:

"Waiting for Superman is a pro-privatization propaganda film. I reviewed it in The New York Review of Books and its statistics were wrong, its charges were wrong, it made claims that were unsustainable. One of the charter schools it featured as being a miracle school has an attrition rate of 75 percent. And it made the claim that 70 percent of American eighth-graders read below grade level and that's simply false. ... And the producers of the film are very supportive of vouchers and free-market strategies and everything else. So I think that film has to be taken not just with a grain of salt, but understood to be a pro-privatization film."

[amsunshine]

Hmmm....she also says "unions are not the problem", and then uses Finland as an example to support her claim. She's comparing apples to oranges.

[Stacy in NJ]

due to inconsistency in her advocacy. Which is it Diane? She seems to be a weather vain because she's explained her change of perspective so poorly.

[Perry]

due to inconsistency in her advocacy. Which is it Diane? She seems to be a weather vain because she's explained her change of perspective so poorly.

:iagree:

 

Her old position makes a lot more sense than her new one.

[kalanamak]

due to inconsistency in her advocacy. Which is it Diane? She seems to be a weather vain because she's explained her change of perspective so poorly.

 

Yes, one should explain things non-poorly, but heaven fofend we not allow people to change their minds. History is full of terrible stupidities brought about by people who weren't willing to change their mind.

 

Whatever you think of Robert MacNamara, it took guts to publish In Retrospect.

[stripe]

due to inconsistency in her advocacy. Which is it Diane? She seems to be a weather vain because she's explained her change of perspective so poorly.

I have to say, I've listened to interviews and read her book, and she doesn't strike me as a weathervane. She seems to have not realized what would happen when test scores became so important, such as that school funding and salaries would be tied to them.

 

I too think it's important to allow people to change their minds and realize their mistakes, or shift their perspective. Also, changing once is not a "flip flopping."

 

Why is it we find stubborn people so irritating in private life and so inspiring in public life?

[SonshineLearner]

I had heard that the man who promoted Head Start recanted his advocacy for the program... years later. If that is Mr Shriver, I can't find anything to hear the information that I had assumed to be true... Perhaps someone here knows?

 

I think that for a child in a normal situation, it's crazy to have them at school, before formal education is needed... For a child in a bad situation, perhaps anything outside of their family life is good. BUT, is that for the general public? Hopefully not. If the parents can't provide an adequate environment, then perhaps THEY need educated....

 

I find it fine to recant a position publicly; don't we have the right to change?

[Stacy in NJ]

now she seems to be saying the diametrically opposite of what she advocated just a few years ago. I've found her explanations (and I've read her most recent book) unconvincing.

 

Here's a fun vid about it:http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11891166/old-diane-ravitch-debates-diane-ravitch

 

 

 

I have to say, I've listened to interviews and read her book, and she doesn't strike me as a weathervane. She seems to have not realized what would happen when test scores became so important, such as that school funding and salaries would be tied to them.

 

I too think it's important to allow people to change their minds and realize their mistakes, or shift their perspective. Also, changing once is not a "flip flopping."

 

Why is it we find stubborn people so irritating in private life and so inspiring in public life?

[Perry]

Yes, one should explain things non-poorly, but heaven fofend we not allow people to change their minds.

Of course one should change their mind when new information suggests they were wrong. Unfortunately, Ravitch has decided to ditch the whole school choice idea because the results weren't as good as expected. I disagree with her conclusion. There are many other explanations for these results, and she isn't really considering them. I like what Dan Willingham has to say:

 

Willingham on school choice

 

 

By Valerie Strauss

My guest is cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham, professor at the University of Virginia and author of “Why Don’t Students Like School?â€

 

By Daniel Willingham

Education historian Diane Ravitch’s book, "The Death and Life of the American School System", has been well publicized and I won’t review it here, other than to encourage you to read it, as I encourage you to read anything that Ravitch has written. She is a brilliant scholar.

I have been fascinated by the response to the book, and in particular to Ravitch’s conclusion on charter schools, and more broadly on the idea of school choice. The hope was that school choice might lead to an array of benefits: leaner bureaucracy, satisfied parents, motivated administrators, and, ultimately, better student learning.

That was the theory, the model of what was supposed to happen. Ravitch concludes that the data don’t fit the prediction; they are uneven. I believe a fair summary of Ravitch’s position is: “If school choice were going to have a profound, positive influence, we’d know that by now.â€

What do you do when a theory makes a prediction and the observed data don’t fit? This is a common problem in science, but there is not a set of guidelines for an appropriate response. Ravitch’s response is one: abandon the theory. Other possible responses have appeared in critiques of Ravitch’s book:

 

You can claim that the data actually do fit the model, as Mark Schneider does.

You can claim that there aren’t enough data to make a judgment yet as Paul Peterson does.

You can claim that the wrong prediction was tested, as Rick Hess does.

You can claim that the experimenter doesn’t really know how to interpret the data, as Andrew Coulson does, or that, at least in this case, the data have been analyzed improperly, as Nelson Smith does.

Another option, not taken up by any commentator that I’m aware of but that seems the most reasonable to me, would be to modify the theory and thus the predicted outcome. School choice will not help under all circumstances, but it might under some circumstances. The next task would be to generate hypotheses about the conditions under which school choice ultimately results in improved schooling.

...

 

But that brings us to another vital point from the philosophy of science, emphasized by many, if not most philosophers: Theories should not be evaluated solely on how well they fit observations in the world. They should be compared to one another.

Don’t ask, “Does school choice lead to better student learning?†Rather, ask “How does school choice stack up against our other options?â€

More than a free market of school choice that is implemented universally, I would like to see a free market of competing ideas for school reform, systematically compared.

[kalanamak]

now she seems to be saying the diametrically opposite of what she advocated just a few years ago. I've found her explanations (and I've read her most recent book) unconvincing.

 

Here's a fun vid about it:http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11891166/old-diane-ravitch-debates-diane-ravitch

 

Did you do this vid?

 

I haven't read her book, nor will I (too busy, not my bag), but what I took from the interview is that NCLB has turned into something she did not envision, and now is speaking out to stop it.

 

Don't "we", here, frequently complain about teaching to the test, and about how many student's problems are not caused by the educational system, but the life the child leads (parents, neighborhood)? She didn't sound that rabid or foolish to me. But then, I've been unhappy with NCLB from the moment I heard about it, and I don't mind hearing complaints about it.:D

[Stacy in NJ]

I found it via a favorite blog. I actually don't have a problem with NCLB. It was enacted not so much to hold students accountable, but, rather, teachers and districts. That was a good thing, imo. The data provided by it was incredibly valuable in evaluating outcomes for kids in the most disadvantaged districts, and that was it's intended purpose: to shine a light on the performance gap between the haves and the have-nots and to try to narrow that gap. Teachers and administrators are the most vocal opponents of testing. I wonder sometimes whether that's because it is as disruptive as they claim or if they just prefer not to have their performance evaluated.

 

Our state test in NJ is no big deal for most of my local districts. Our districts pass the exams with 95% profficient. It's an inconvience for them, but no big deal.

 

As our current fiscal crisis intensifies, our current educational system is going to be rocked to its core whether we want it to be or not. Funding will be cut and we'll need to come up with creative solutions; charters and vouchers (see Indiana's new education reform laws) are going to expand nationally. So, NCLB was really just a stepping-stone, or thin wedge, to a larger solution. I don't think Ravitch is rabid or foolish, just mistaken.

 

My understanding is that public education was created to ameliorate the effects of poverty and disadvantaged backgrounds. If it's not capable of doing that, as some suggest, then why do we continue to publically fund it?

 

Did you do this vid?

 

I haven't read her book, nor will I (too busy, not my bag), but what I took from the interview is that NCLB has turned into something she did not envision, and now is speaking out to stop it.

 

Don't "we", here, frequently complain about teaching to the test, and about how many student's problems are not caused by the educational system, but the life the child leads (parents, neighborhood)? She didn't sound that rabid or foolish to me. But then, I've been unhappy with NCLB from the moment I heard about it, and I don't mind hearing complaints about it.:D

[Stacy in NJ]

Perry, Great quote from Dan Willingham. I love him.

 

Thanks for providing it.

[Perry]

I actually don't have a problem with NCLB. It was enacted not so much to hold students accountable, but, rather, teachers and districts. That was a good thing, imo.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I think NCLB has done many good things. It's not perfect, and there are some issues, but I'd rather see the parts of it that aren't working improved, instead of scrapping it altogether.