all over the place

http://ningsquared.hotcom-cafe.com/wordpress/?p=770Questions for Diane Ravitchall over the place

ツイート

I have not had chance to read Death and Life of American Public Education: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education yet. However, I think I get the message by watching the following video, in which Dr. Diane Ravitch gives a talk to Duke University’s education school. If any of the readers think my assumptions about her ideas are misguided given my limited source of information, please—I beg you to point out, as I am super new to issues with American education and also desperate to learn more.

Over the past few months, I have been excited to learn, think, and brainstorm about American education reform with a bunch of my classmates who are TFA or other education NPO veterans. Coming from a highly demanding, highly competitive, and highly rewarding Asian K-12 experience, I was fascinated to find something like KIPP—hardworking, demanding, stimulating, and goal-oriented educational institution, also existed in the US.

That is when I also came across Dr. Diane Ravitch’s speech. Due to my ultra “pro-choice” and “pro-testing” position in K-12 education, my initial reaction was spinal reflex type of disagreement. However, the more I give a time, the more I understood why her position makes sense, to even someone like me, and the fact it does not really contradict my position.

Even so, I still have unresolved questions about her position, which are specifically discussed below:

Is it really about TESTS?

According to Dr. Ravitch, the current reformers of education (free market, corporate reformers) think like the following:

The good schools have high test scores, and the schools that have low scores are the failing school. The difference between them, say the reformers, is teacher quality. The failing schools have bad teachers and the way to save the school is to fire the bad teachers, close the school, and build a new one. So I call these reformers corporate reformers, because they want the schools to operate the way it operates in the free market. They want parents to be consumers making choices, children be products, shaped by demands of the schools, test scores be profit and losses, and teachers have no rights, no job security, no seniority. They get bonuses if they produce high scores, and get fired if they have low scores.

To me, this is a very sentimental argument that demonizes the reform movement (including charter schools) without offering any alternatives. It also smells like a baby switch. She attacks the concept of “test score” many times in the speech without, even once, explaining what purpose does the test score even serves to the “rich people” who funds the movement.

Testing measures achievements, and level of understanding of the material, whatever that is. A well designed one, at least, should. But, in other words, that is it. In Asia, test scores determines whether you get into prestigious middle schools, high schools, and college. But we all know that’s not how it works in the US—test scores do not determine the outcome of any kids (excluding a few exceptions of some states offering scholarships and admission through the score of PSAT). Then, it is safe, I believe, to assume that the smart corporate reformers are aware that tests are only means to an end—not the other way around.

Ultimate goal of education should be the outcome of individual children. From being able to graduate from high school, to getting into college, to being able to read, write, do math, the outcome should rule. Not scores. However, I seriously wonder if Dr. does not see the point of, or if there is any better way to, make sure whether the future American citizens can do the following properly to participate in the great American democracy system other than testing:
 Read and write English
 Being able to perform simple math
 Know basic facts about the US—e.g., all the states in the country

She mentioned several times that if the national institution mandates the teachers to boost test scores, it gives teachers incentive to “teach to the test” and to cheat. Well, sure. But for something this basic, how else would you teach?

I think there are only three ways you can go about doing this: 1) teach to the test and kids will walk out the classroom knowing all of the above, and thus score properly on the test, proving that they know them; 2) teach so fabulously and kids lean above and beyond what’s the basic and would destroy the state tests anyways; and 3) not to teach anything, let the kids to fail the test and cheat.

It seems that Dr. want to argue that there will be only 1) and 3) types of teachers if we enforce testing of basic skills specified above. I believe KIPP and some motivated TFA core members were determined to do 2)—the goal is clear. They want their kids from low income, underserved community to be able to graduate from high school (by passing some tests) and to attend college (where they test much hasher than state mandate tests).

Or, there might be 4) teach through some black box method and refuse to test the students whether they have learned anything, claiming that tests are bad. Under Dr.’s argument, 4) type of teachers seem to have a good point. Why?—well, for stability?

Back to the point of “outcome first.” Again, tests are just means to an end. Goal is to prepare each kid to be a productive member of the American society (or, arguably, a shot for attending college).

Some form of testing is the only a way to make sure they are in the right track. Since it is proven that randomly assigned students from the same socio economic status of the same region can outperform perfectly controlled peers by attending good charter schools (not the bad ones) winning lottery, there are nothing else to blame other than teachers and schools. If any teacher or school fail to make sure that each kid is on the right track of achieving something they are perfectly capable of, or, along with Dr.’s argument, fail to prepare each kid to be on the right track of a good American citizen, then, well, they fail. Individual kids and parents deserve something better.

I seriously wonder why Dr. would cherry pick the “test score” out of all the ideals and hopes and dreams of the reformers, where she used to be a part of. She knows that reformers know that test scores are not ultimate goals. She should. It should be actually about dropout rates, college entrance rates, crime rates and everything else—everything that really matters.

I am not big on conspiracy theory, but judging from the type of audience they have (who applause her bashes against NCLB act and her praise to teachers), and the type of language she chose to use (e.g., Ed. Reformers are funded by a group of rich and powerful corporation, foundation, and hedge fund managers from Wall St.), it is kind of politically juicy. I will stop there.
Also, there are some other random points:

Test scores are not how they measure elite kids in the private schools, but somehow they forgot about that and not mentioning it.

Well, if you are talking about a large group of kids who already know how to read before starting the 1st grade, of course they don’t have to be scrutinized with public money like that. Parents, the paying party, will drill that part down to hell.

Free market produces winners and losers, and it is not kind to losers. Therefore, free market is not a way to operate basic public service like public schools. But the goal of our schools should be to rise up every child. Not to pick winners and losers. We should treat every child as unique individual. We should do this not to win the global competition, but to make sure each child can reach to his or her full potential. We should not throw away a life of any child. Education is not a competition. It is not a race. It is a long, slow incremental process of human development. Education should prepare each of us to the way in the world…

Wait a second, this does not make any sense anymore. Currently, what is going on, I believe we agree that Dr. does not like to see, is a system to fail teachers who cannot make sure EACH KID to be able to do reading, writing, and basic math. By failing loser teachers and replace with a good one, the reform system should make sure each child can read, write, and multiply, which is exactly fits what she says should happen. But instead, she seems to be big about not picking winners and losers among teachers, not to throw away a life of any teacher, and not to make teacher’s quality into a competition. If she really cares about children (rather than the system of public education itself or existing teachers’ welfare), why shall she be opposed to 1) tests that make sure children are given opportunities to know all the basic things to survive in the US, 2) charters that give low income kids chances to be college ready, and 3) systems that remove ineffective teachers from them?

Reformers from high-tech industry and hedge funds love creative disruption. They love tearing things apart and start over. They love risks, and to place bids. Chaos and disruption are not good for children. They need caring adults who are there for them, year in and year out.

First of all, I want a proof of the statement. Not whether stable availability of caring adults are necessary for healthy child development. Rather, I am curious if whether it matters if availability of a typical public school teacher throughout many years matters to life of his or her pupils. U.S. public school teachers do not do home visits. KIPPs do. U.S. public schools in the low income neighborhoods do not even allow parents to enter the school for security reasons. Isn’t it more important to measure whether individual teachers are actually caring, loving, and effective? Well at least I grew up hating bad teachers and just by imagining living in one of my worst teachers’ regime for more than a year makes me twitch. Therefore, unconditional support for teachers’ retention is not only ungrounded but also horrifying.

Good public education should be basic human right and a public good. Not a consumer good, whose availability is determined by market forces.

Shouldn’t it be more like: it’s a basic human rights to receive public education of decent quality, and citizens of this great country have rights to veto the bad ones? So, I am not an advocate of NCLB. Despite its good intention, the law, it seems, has been executed disastrously. However, I am a firm believer of choice and well-designed testing at the end of the day, for lack of better short term solutions to some obvious problems.

Well anyways, this got longer than expected and it’s only 20 minutes into a one hour talk!

To be continued…