The death and life of the Great American school system
by Steve Danzis
[ bookreviews ]
Education reform is a hot topic on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, the Obama administration is pushing states to adopt merit pay for teachers and to open up more charter schools. And in Britain, Education Secretary Michael Gove has announced an ambitious program of American-style reforms. But will these measures help turn around ailing public school systems? Not according to one of the most distinguished experts in the field.
In her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Diane Ravitch rejects key elements of the school reform movement. She believes that testing, accountability and school choice are doing irreparable harm to the American public education system. Her concerns carry special weight because she was once a prominent supporter of these reforms, not only as an education scholar but also as a policymaker in the first Bush and Clinton administrations.
There have been many waves of school reform in the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s, reform was driven mainly by liberal activists who wanted to decentralize school systems and place individual schools under the control of community leaders. A backlash against these reforms emerged, partly in response to reports of falling SAT scores. In 1983, a group appointed by President Reagan released a report declaring that "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people."
After President George HW Bush appointed Ravitch as assistant secretary of education in 1991, she led an effort to develop voluntary national curriculum standards. The administration also pushed for school systems to adopt business management innovations and called for vouchers that could be applied toward private-school tuition. Vouchers were controversial, but the other reform ideas had bipartisan appeal and were promoted by President Clinton. However, when a draft of national history standards was released in 1994, it was fiercely attacked by conservatives. The Clinton administration backed away from the fight, leaving individual states to create their own standards and tests.
George W Bush made education a top priority when he was elected president in 2000. Bush declared that every student in the United States should be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. His No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program established sanctions for schools that failed to meet targets. Like many more prescient critics of NCLB, Ravitch now believes that Bush's goals were hollow because "it was left to each state to decide what 'proficiency' meant. So the states, most of which had vague and meaningless standards, were left free to determine what children should learn and how well they should learn it. In effect, they were asked to grade themselves by creating tests that almost all children could eventually pass."
As Ravitch explains, the term proficiency doesn't mean basic understanding but full mastery of standards for a grade. By setting the unachievable goal of 100 per cent proficiency, Bush created a perverse incentive for miseducating students. Raising test scores became the be-all and end-all of education. Good schools can get punished for simply maintaining their high educational levels, while poor schools may be rewarded for small and often illusory improvements. Students spend a great deal of class time on test-prep activities that do not add to their knowledge. A significant number of teachers and principals have even helped students cheat so they can raise scores. The worst may lie ahead, when many schools will be privatized or closed for failing to meet goals. Ravitch considers 2014 a "timetable for the demolition of public education in the United States."
Charter schools are another element of school reform that Ravitch once found promising. A charter school is an independent public school operated by a nonprofit or for-profit organization, which receives a charter from a state to run the school for three to five years. The school operates with a great deal of autonomy, though it must meet minimum requirements. Because charter schools are nonsectarian, they do not arouse the political controversy associated with vouchers, which can be used to pay for tuition at private religious schools.
Ravitch is especially good at explaining how educational innovations get distorted when politicians try to apply them broadly as panaceas. Charter schools were originally proposed as incubators for cutting-edge pedagogy and curriculum. One of the earliest promoters was Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers. But as states began to pass laws authorizing charter schools, they were increasingly seen as an alternative to public school systems. Charter schools appealed to conservatives who sought to eliminate bureaucracy and weaken teachers' unions. They also appealed to ethnic organizations that wanted to open public schools with a culturally specific curriculum. And they became a new means for entrepreneurs to profit from public education funds.
Most studies have shown that in general, charter schools do not provide a better education than regular public schools. As Ravitch puts it, "Some charters had efficient management teams that ran first-rate schools, but others were operated by minimally competent providers who collected public money while offering bare-bones education to gullible students. And a few were opened by get-rich-quick schemers who saw easy pickings." The charter schools that get superior results may have an unfair advantage over regular public schools because they enroll fewer English language learners and other students with special needs.
Many of the best charter schools are part of a network called the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), which is dedicated to preparing poor minority students for college. Each KIPP school sets its own curriculum, but all of them have longer school days, Saturday classes, and two or three weeks of summer school. Parents must also commit to a high level of involvement in their children's education. KIPP has received a lot of good press, and Michael Gove cites KIPP as a model for his plans to reform British schools. Ravitch admires the results of the KIPP schools, but she feels that they are achieved in part by siphoning off the best students from public schools. She is also concerned about the high attrition rates for both students and teachers at KIPP schools.
Ravitch's main concern is that as more and more charter schools open, drawing the most motivated and best-performing students, the regular public schools will be left to bear the burden of educating students with special needs. "As charter schools increase in number and able students enroll in them, the regular public schools in the nation's cities will be locked into a downward trajectory. This would be an ominous development for public education and for our nation."
The last section of Ravitch's book, where she proposes her own ideas for improving America's schools, is disappointing. She mainly reprises the reforms she promoted while serving in the first Bush administration. Ravitch calls for a national curriculum in the liberal arts and sciences; balanced evaluation of students, which would include research projects and papers as well as standardized tests; and more professional training and higher salaries for teachers.
There is already progress on one of Ravitch's proposals. A state-led organization called the Common Core State Standards Initiative has released a set of national standards for mathematics and English language arts, and so far only Texas and Alaska have refused to accept them. Similar efforts are under way for other subject areas. But will a national curriculum really have the effect Ravitch anticipates? Britain established a national curriculum in 1992, and its schools are still in trouble. If most American states agree on common standards, they will need to purchase new textbooks and standardized tests, placing an additional drain on their resources.
The educational crisis of the last few decades is now compounded by a financial crisis that is causing deep cuts in state educational budgets across the United States. Tens of thousands of teachers will be laid off in 2010. Under these circumstances, Ravitch's proposals seem too naïve and tepid. Whether we like it or not, there are 5,000 charter schools currently operating and many more on the way. We need a vision of how these schools can function effectively alongside regular public schools. I hope that Ravitch, one of our best education scholars, will take up this challenge in her next book.
