Diane Ravitch, former Assistant Secretary of Education, recently penned a piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining why she no longer supports school choice. Her new pet education reform? A comprehensive national curriculum for all students.
What we need is not a marketplace, but a coherent curriculum that prepares all students. And our government should commit to providing a good school in every neighborhood in the nation, just as we strive to provide a good fire company in every community.
Yikes.
Surprisingly, for someone who wants to wind down all our experiments in school choice and hand back control to public-sector unions in exchange for educational Bonapartism, she’s getting a respectful hearing from conservatives. Which is fair enough; Ravitch has been involved in this debate for a long time, and she knows her data.
Ah, data.
One wishes, in vain, that education reformers would take their noses out of the test score tables and draft curriculae and talk about whether parents have a right to educate their children as they see fit… or not. It would be good to know. That’s all.
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 4:12 pm
The problem with school choice is that parents sacrifice greatly to get their children away from low-performing, disruptive, dangerous students.
Among those sacrifices:
living far away from their city jobs in suburbs or exurbs, making long, tiring commutes necessary that eat up an enormous portion of one’s lifespan and energy and deny one family and leisure time;
paying far more for a home near a desirable public school and thus being chained, self-like, to the land for the rest of your life, never escaping the mortgage as well as the never-ending property taxes;
paying even more on top of that for private school education;
taking a high-stress, long-hours, soul-sucking job to pay for all this rather than something more emotionally fulfilling but lower-paying;
making themselves hostages to PC, knowing that the slightest word could wreck this job and leave them unemployable with these huge obligations. Thus, silent endurance of Orwellian indoctrination sessions, propaganda posters, left-wing comments at the workplace, etc.
What school choice advocates propose to do is to make all these sacrifices pointless, and ruin the schools that these parents have devoted much of their lives to getting their kids into by flooding them with loud, menacingly chaotic, aggressively “race card” politicized, academic failures.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Carney @ #1
In other words, if there were no minorities around, white students could get a good education?
How do you explain all the poorly educated white students who go to primarily white schools in suburban or exurban areas and whose parents do not make long commutes into the dreaded inner city and also have no inclination to say something stupid or racially insensitive in the workplace? By the way, if someone wants to say stupid things, they can do so in the privacy of their own home. As an employer, I have no obligation to provide a welcome environment for someone’s stupidity or general bitching.
There is an amazing disconnect between the Right and the underclass, even though so many in the underclass are on the Right. Most people on welfare and most people in poor to underperforming schools are white. You could eliminate all the racial minorities in the country and you’d still have very large populations of undereducated white students, except by eliminating racial minorities, people would be forced to confront the fact that white people have just as many problems as others.
kevin47 // Mar 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“In other words, if there were no minorities around, white students could get a good education?”
Well, those are other words, but they are not another way of expressing what Carney wrote.
Independent // Mar 9, 2010 at 7:30 pm
“Her new pet education reform? A comprehensive national curriculum for all students.”
Nothing like a little central planning from the Commissar’s office. I thought the Soviet Union had imploded; not moved to the Obama Educ Dept.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 9, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Kevin47 wrote: “Well, those are other words, but they are not another way of expressing what Carney wrote.”
What are the material differences between these words and the words Carney wrote?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 9, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Independent wrote: “I thought the Soviet Union had imploded; not moved to the Obama Educ Dept.”
Diane Ravitch is not in the Obama Administration so what are you talking about?
sinz54 // Mar 9, 2010 at 9:04 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
Carney is not representative of the Right.
The fact that Carney is constantly dissenting from the positions taken by diarists on this FrumForum blog is proof enough of that.
sinz54 // Mar 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm
The No Child Left Behind Act was supposed to provide for accountability by standardized tests. But it’s been one of the worst-kept secrets in America that each state with schools that appeared to be failing simply dumbed down the tests to the point that anybody could pass them. The alternative–admit that the schools had failed–would have led to attempts to fire poor teachers and would have triggered strikes by the teachers’ unions, even if that ruined the students’ education.
(It’s remarkable how militant some of those teachers’ unions can be. In 1968, when I was a student, the United Federation of Teachers struck the New York City public schools for over two months–classes didn’t resume for good till mid-November. Those of us who could, studied our textbooks at home by ourselves, or asked our parents to tutor us. Those who couldn’t, ended up with damaged educations. But at least we all got an education in the abuses of organized labor.)
The reason why the SAT test works is because it’s nationwide, a standardized test for all American students administered by the College Board. That’s how all testing for NCLB should be done.
You don’t need a nationwide standardized curriculum for this. Students have done well on SATs for decades without this.
What they should have done is have the College Board handle the testing for NCLB.
SFTor1 // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Seems to me that she has a point. The Republican slogans of “equal opportunity” and “meritocracy” begins with education in today’s world.
The idea that parents can educate their children successfully at home needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Maybe to conform to some sort of religious orthodoxy, but to face the requirements of today’s college and work environments? Don’t think so.
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:29 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead @ 2 wrote: ” Most people on welfare and most people in poor to underperforming schools are white.”
Wrong about welfare. And even back when it was right, blacks and Hispanics were still dramatically over-represented.
“by eliminating racial minorities, people would be forced to confront the fact that white people have just as many problems as others.”
For the record, I strenuously oppose genocide. But your point here is wrong, too.
It’s of course true that no race is immune from having poor people, violent people, and the kind of kids that ruin schools. Just as no race is bereft of successful, highly talented people who improve their surroundings.
However, different groups do not have exactly the same numbers and proportions. The percentage of blacks and Hispanics who are criminals, welfare recipients, drug addicts, low-IQ high impulsivity types, etc., are far higher than they are for whites and East Asians, and circumstances of life do not explain the gaps.
SFTor1 // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Carney:
“circumstances of life do not explain the gaps.”
This means that addiction and violence is genetic doesn’t it? It is a tough one to prove, but I am sure data will be forthcoming. What do the numbers look like for blacks and Hispanics in the upper income brackets? Are they addicted and violent? There must be numbers somewhere.
Hispanics are as white as anyone by the way. Does this pose some kind of a problem for the assertion?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:47 am
Carney wrote: “Wrong about welfare. And even back when it was right, blacks and Hispanics were still dramatically over-represented. ”
I am not wrong. Until around 2001, whites represented the largest recipients of AFDC of any group. However, before and after 2001, when taking into account all forms of government handouts to poor people (AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.), whites comprise an overwhelming majority of recipients.
The fact that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately represented among welfare recipients does not in any way substantiate your absurd implication that the poor education received by students is due to the presence of racial minorities in the school system. Nor does the disproportionate poverty among minorities support your attack on my claim that the presence of minorities among the poor prevents whites from recognizing their own poverty. In fact, by raising the issue of disproportionate poverty among minorities, you’ve actually proven my point.
When presented with the fact that whites are the largest recipients of government handouts, instead of presenting evidence that I may be wrong, you conflated that issue with the issue of disproportionate poverty among minorities. These are completely separate and distinct issues. Whites are a majority of both the undereducated and government handout recipients AND minorities are disproportionately represented among the poor and undereducated. Both are true, but the popular perception that most poor and undereducated people are minorities often leads to the kind of silly and absurd assessments you made in #1, which place the blame on the presence of minorities.
There seems to be this rather odd tendancy among many on the Right not to perceive themselves as afflicted with social ills or dependent on government handouts. I guess this is how you get so many older whites demanding that government stay out of their Medicare.
kevin47 // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:48 am
“What are the material differences between these words and the words Carney wrote?”
Ummm, I misread what Carney wrote. My bad.
sinz54 // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:41 am
SFTor1:
You’re wrong.
Homeschooled children often beat public schooled children on standardized tests.
I don’t think that’s because homeschooling is superior in an absolute sense.
Rather, it’s because so many public schools are ghastly–little more than miniature anarchies in which any kid with the slightest sign of intelligence is beaten up by gangs.
Read: Diane Ravitch Department // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:34 am
[...] Brownson is even more dismissive of Ravitch than Coulson or I would be. He also gives school reformers some grief: “One [...]
LFC // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:31 am
I have no problem with a standardized basic curriculum, but not a full one. Setting minimum standards for math, English, maybe geography, and science is fine. Setting a standardized curriculum for most Social Studies, history, art, foreign languages, etc. gets trickier.
Of course, science has gotten tricky because of the people who refuse to accept evolution, quite possibly the single most evidence supported theory in all of biology.
kevin47 // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:43 pm
“The idea that parents can educate their children successfully at home needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.”
Why? The evidence is not on your side here.
“Maybe to conform to some sort of religious orthodoxy, but to face the requirements of today’s college and work environments? Don’t think so.”
I think so. Many of my homeschooled friends enrolled in community college at 15 or 16, and had full time jobs by the time they we 19 or 21 (depending on whether they stuck with a two year).
Homeschooling curricula, on average, tend to be far more rigorous on the basics, and lighter on things like physical education and the arts. That is changing as home school co-ops become more mainstream, but there is a trade off.
Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that this trade off results in poorer results re: college/work preparedness vs. public schools, I don’t see any grains of salt for you to latch onto here.
It seems to me that our public schools should be delighted that students choose other avenues. This brings down costs and class sizes on a system that is obviously overburdened. We should be encouraging this behavior, rather than lamenting it.
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Spartie: “Diane Ravitch is not in the Obama Administration so what are you talking about?”
Diane Ravitch was hired by the Obama Administration as a “Senior Advisor” and paid consultant on Wed January 28, 2009. She comes with impeccable Clinton-era credentials.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Independent wrote: “Diane Ravitch was hired by the Obama Administration as a “Senior Advisor” and paid consultant on Wed January 28, 2009. She comes with impeccable Clinton-era credentials.”
Do you have a link for this or any kind of evidence other than partisanship? I cannot find any evidence that Diane Ravitch is a paid consultant to the Obama Administration.
I did, however, discover that she was Asst. Secretary of Education to Lamar Alexander in the George H.W. Bush Administration. I guess she also has impeccable Bush-era credentials as well.
kevin47 // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:29 pm
She did work in the Clinton administration, and has undergone an ideological shift generally. It doesn’t really say much of anything in her op-ed, and I haven’t seen her come up with any sort of concrete ideas, so I don’t really much care what she thinks.
Carney // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:08 pm
SFTor1, just one tidbit for now: whites from families making less than $10,000 outscore blacks from families earning over $70,000 on the SAT, which is closely tied to IQ, which in turn is closely tied to life outcomes such as crime, welfare, and drugs.
“Hispanics are as white as anyone by the way. Does this pose some kind of a problem for the assertion?’
Wrong. Only some Hispanics are white (that is, exclusively or overwhelmingly of European descent). Most, especially in the US, are mestizos (mixed white and Indian, heavily the latter) or pure Indian. Except for Cubans, the white elites of Latin America are not the ones flocking to our shores; they’re already on top of their societies and are eager to dump their non-white underclass on us.
SFTor1 // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm
OK, Carney, just come out and say it: white people are smarter than black people. It’s an honest view. Racist, but honest.
It still leaves us with a problem with Hispanics. You seem to have some theories about the intelligence of mixed races. Is that the case? H0w about people who are mulattos? How do they figure in all of this?
“Their non-white underclass.” Nice.