« Notes on my New Profile of Diane Ravitch | Main | The Difference Between Testing and Test-Based Accountability »

June 23, 2011

Comments

Important to note that most of these ideas are actually anti-progressive in the education sense and most are to the education right. A focus on classic subjects, detailed curriculum concerned with what you learn more than how-- this is considered to be "conservative", and in fact, is completely abhorred in most education schools.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's easy for people who talk more in the politics world to not realize that in education, progressive has a very different and specific meaning.

JB this is a good point, one that I realized after I titled and published the post. I was using progressive more as shorthand for "someone who, politically, disagrees with school choice ideology." Was not referred to pedagogical progressivism.

It is curious to me that Yglesias would have no idea what sort of education reform Ravitch would support. She has left, ahem, quite a paper trail, and there are some consistent themes. Accusing critics of NCLB AND RTTT of some sort of educational nihilism, or merely being anti- ignores the rich history that many of them have in education. Yglesias seems to me to be willfully ignorant of a good deal of education policy history (ravitch), cognitive science research (WIllingham, Hirsch, Dweck, Duckworth), and the realities of urban public school systems in his citations of the latest report to come out of KIPP or DFER.

My impression after reading this was that it doesn't sound like a plan at all. If DR's response would be anything like you suggest then MY is right: she has nothing constructive to offer.

Also, MY's post is just sloppy.
His link for his claim that the federal government already has a loan forgiveness program goes to a private loan program that has nothing to do with loan forgiveness for teachers. As commenter sdbearyblonde points out, he probably googled "Stafford Loan forgiveness for teachers", and copied one of the top links.
His point on TFA misses the fact that schools also pay more for TFA (not just in psychic energy), by paying TFA a "finders fee." School systems also must pay to find another teacher when TFA'ers rotate out.
If Yglesias wants to know what Ravitch would do, maybe he should read some of her columns at Bridging Differences, or some of her books, instead of the presumably large number of profiles that he has read. She is fairly specific on a number of points in those columns and books. Your suggestions are only but a few of the main ones.

Did my comment disappear?

"If we make teaching much more attractive...[by] giving teachers much more autonomy in the classroom, we will be able to attract more talented candidates to the job."

While it is certainly a worthwhile goal to make teaching more attractive, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore the central role of teacher unions in restricting teacher autonomy in the classroom. By conflating critiques of teacher unions with attacks on teachers, as she repeatedly does, Ravitch commits this error of reasoning. Collective bargaining agreements treat teachers as interchangeable parts rather than dynamic professionals. They specify working hours and professional development (and by extension, opportunities for collaboration) down to the minute, and in practice preclude any meaningful performance management (whether through principal observation or student test results). By limiting the prerogative of principals to hire, fire, train, and meaningfully evaluate teachers, most CBAs create a strong disincentive for educators to seek the principalship. Without strong educators in the principalship, it becomes more challenging for districts to grant the autonomy you argue Ravitch is calling for. Moreover, most CBAs sharply curtail opportunities for the kind of professional growth that would allow teachers to develop the management skills necessary to provide the kind of strong instructional leadership necessary for autonomous classrooms to function effectively. These issues are inextricably linked to the teacher unions and the contracts they negotiate.

This is not to argue that non-unionized charter schools are the only or the best way to fix these issues. The long term collaboration between union and district in Montgomery county is an appealing approach, though it is not easily transferable to other political contexts, particulalry urban ones. The pro-charter policy camp is centrally concerned with making teaching attractive, and the policy agenda of charter supporters offers a number of tools to do this. They simply argue that these tools are best employed at the management level, rather than the policy level. It is possible to disagree with this approach, but it is dishonest to so deeply misrepresent it.

"By limiting the prerogative of principals to hire, fire, train, and meaningfully evaluate teachers, most CBAs create a strong disincentive for educators to seek the principalship."

I really don't get this point. Why is it any more of a disincentive for educators than non-educators? Yes CBAs do curtail some principal power (I would argue thats a good thing), but thats not a reason why educators would find it to be particularly unappealing.

"Collective bargaining agreements treat teachers as interchangeable parts rather than dynamic professionals."

This is a dramatic overstatement. CBAs create standards around wages, professional development, and work conditions, but they do not prevent creativity by teachers. They do not get into curricula specifics. They give teachers a lot of latitude for how they run their class, which is what Ravitch is talking about. You may think that its important to principals more freedom to manage, but thats a separate point from the one Ravitch is making and to bring it up as a rebuttal to an argument about autonomy for teachers in the classroom is simply a strawman.

Ravitch's KIPP point is facetious. She must know full well that no superintendent or teachers' union would agree to hand the keys over to KIPP to run an entire district. What she says is merely an insinuation that KIPP's success is bogus (until and unless KIPP does something that she knows is impossible).

And it's sillier than that: why should KIPP's success in any way depend on whether it can force its methods on an entire district? KIPP is like a tough marathon program: not to everyone's tastes, but does wonders for those who stick with it. The criterion of success for a marathon training program is whether the people who choose it get better results than they would have otherwise, not whether the marathon program can be forced upon people who don't even want to be runners at all. And it would be inane to claim that a 120-mile-a-week marathon training program is no different or better than a 40-mile-a-week program merely because the 120-mile-a-week program is chosen by people who are really motivated to run.

"My impression after reading this was that it doesn't sound like a plan at all. If DR's response would be anything like you suggest then MY is right: she has nothing constructive to offer."

Christ, its just some off the cuff musings by someone whose familiar with Ravitch's work. Its not a policy white paper and its not even written by Ravitch herself. The woman has published 20 books and hundreds of articles. Its really, really, not that difficult to get some insight into what a more detailed plan of hers would look like.

"And it's sillier than that: why should KIPP's success in any way depend on whether it can force its methods on an entire district? KIPP is like a tough marathon program: not to everyone's tastes, but does wonders for those who stick with it. The criterion of success for a marathon training program is whether the people who choose it get better results than they would have otherwise, not whether the marathon program can be forced upon people who don't even want to be runners at all. And it would be inane to claim that a 120-mile-a-week marathon training program is no different or better than a 40-mile-a-week program merely because the 120-mile-a-week program is chosen by people who are really motivated to run. "

Thats fine, except that many people present it as evidence that their approach ought to be replicated systemically. Its one thing to say that KIPP is successful for a specific sub-group of people (although I think that their success has been vastly overstated) and an entirely different thing to suggest that we need to encourage more widespread adoption of the KIPP model and/or that we need to direct more resources to schools of KIPP's ilk.

Keep in mind the goal of public education is (to deploy your metaphor) not to train a small group of elite marathon runners, but to train a society of capable runners. So in fact it is perfectly valid to criticize KIPP's ability to reach a broader student base because thats the essence of public education.

Well, you can criticize KIPP for setting a standard of hard work that other people find tiring, or you can criticize other people for not being willing to do the work that it takes to bring a disadvantaged kid up to grade level.

"Keep in mind the goal of public education is (to deploy your metaphor) not to train a small group of elite marathon runners, but to train a society of capable runners."

Not to strain the analogy too far, but some kids are starting out with such disadvantages that becoming minimally competent at school (i.e., being a capable runner) is going to take so much work to catch up that it's equivalent to the workload of being an elite marathoner.

So back to KIPP: If the "KIPP model" were imposed on an entire district, and the results weren't that great, it wouldn't be because working hard (a la KIPP) is inherently a bad idea, it would be because too many people don't want to do the extra work that they unfortunately need to catch up academically.

So, public schools could be doing a superior teaching job, it's just that they look bad because too many of their students are slackers.

That's one way of looking at it (and Ravitch herself certainly makes that point all the time).

But the causation runs both ways at times. Imagine a coach who says in disgust that he's a perfectly good coach but the team just won't devote themselves to practice. One could respond that he might be a good coach in some sense, but he would be a better coach if he could motivate the team to practice harder.

1-) The last thing that education needs is people that THINKS that they know solutions to every problem that faces education.

Point to Ravitch here.

2-) Ravitch has praised KIPP several times.

3-) Ravitch has a good point when she says that KIPP should run a district because the problem of any school with stellar results is whether the model can be replicated in large scale.

1-) The last thing that education needs is people that THINKS that they know solutions to every problem that faces education.

Point to Ravitch here. http://www.vip-escortlar.net/escort-istanbul-selay/

2-) Ravitch has praised KIPP several times.

3-) Ravitch has a good point when she says that KIPP should run a district because the problem of any school with stellar results is whether the model can be replicated in large scale.

The comments to this entry are closed.