I'm with Ravitch on so many points, particularly her argument that our emphasis on collecting assessment data deprives students of opportunities to develop untestable talents & skills. I thought the chapter about the unchecked power of foundations to fund business model initiatives without paying consequences for their failures was really interesting. Also, I'm happy to be more informed about the history of vouchers & charter schools. Clearly, Al Shanker was a visionary hoping competition could improve the whole education system and the implementation of this vision (like many) has been problematic.

Where I differ from Ravitch is when she offers her own education as a model of excellence. She falls into the trap many educators and education activists fall into, which is "when I was in school..." and then tell a story about the "good old days" of "high standards". She recalls the days of reading classics and watching teachers order recalcitrant students to the principal's office--while claiming little of either thing happens today. Not only do I find her assessment of YA problematic, but I take issue with her & others who exult their own experiences without analyzing the context--their access, their lower, their privilege.

Also, for someone who is critical of the value we place on test scores, she implicitly honors them as benchmarks without questioning who makes the tests or what is on it. Perhaps I missed something along the way, but in my eight years of teaching in NYC public schools I have never heard of NEAP, the national test she cites often to show how state initiatives and charter schools have failed students. Maybe this is why she chose to write The Reign of Error & maybe she addresses it there. I value her voice and I value her as a model of critical thinking & the courage to admit error in judgment. I just think understanding the effects of policy doesn't necessarily mean you're ready to make curriculum decisions. 3.5