You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
A review by dreesreads
The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch
2.0
What a frustrating and infuriating book.
Diane Ravitch was an instrumental member of the team that supported No Child Left Behind. Now she says she sees NCLB--its obsession with scores, its punitive nature--was just a bad idea. And she claims she has changed her ways.
I agree with so many of Ravitch's points: students are "not spending time on thoughtful writing, critical reading, scientific experimentation, historical study" (228); "Tests cannot measure what matters most in education, like ability to raise questions, seek alternative explanations, to think differently, to pursue knowledge on its own" (226); "We may be training (not education) a generation of children who are repelled by learning, thinking that it means only drudgery, worksheets, test preparation, and test-taking" (231); Since 1983 "we know that many of our kids leave school knowing little about social studies, geography, literary references..." (223). Yup, exactly.
I am one of those people who is dealing with a monster school district (LAUSD) that is OBSESSED with testing. Last year I was in a local elementary school auditorium that had huge pieces of "art" (pre-cut letters glued onto paper)on the walls, celebrating academic subjects--reading, math, testing! Our school district uses Open Court for reading. This is a curriculum that consists of a timeline and script. Every day in every elementary school in the district, 2nd graders will be "learning" the exact same sight words. Teachers are not allowed to teach. TO a large extent, music, art, and foreign language have been turned into "enrichments"--meaning, you pay through the nose for afterschool babysitting (to 6pm!) and your kid will be taught (not by teachers) the stuff they learn so much faster when in K-8. But then when they get home they have to do their homework--yes, including the kindergarteners--and eat dinner.
Our kids are in charter schools.
You would think Ms Ravitch would like charter schools--well, she used to. She has decided that choice is bad. She also has no clue how charter schools work in the state of California, where we are. She thinks they can "discharge laggards, enforce a tough disciplinary code, offer free afterschool enrichment, and get financial support from corporate sponsors" (136). I don't know what planet she's living on, but it isn't mine. Yes, charters here definitely attract motivated parents--you have to apply to a lottery. But they cannot enforce volunteer codes or any extra-tough behavioral codes, they are public schools. There is limited afterschool enrichment--and it sure isn't free. There are no corporate sponsors, just parents working their ASSES off. Maybe a small grant from a local group.
She spends chapter 7 discussing how, in spite of their (supposed) advantages over regular public schools, charters' scores really aren't any higher than those regular schools. In chapter 6 she discussed how schools were teaching to the test and removing subjects (art, music, history, literature) that weren't tested (107). That, in fact, some students are so taught to a certain test they can't succeed on a different test on the same subject matter (160).
Here's the thing, Ms Ravitch. My kids' went to one charter school K-4. (We are moving them to another, which features a language immersion program but no music--both of my kids seem to have strengths in language, and both have favored their language classes at school 1.) So, their school does not have sky-high test scores. I don't care. Because they don't use those stupid pre-programmed readers. They studied folktales and fairy tales, learned to knit, to play the pentatonic flute, had class plays, took 2 foreign languages, studied violin in 4th grade, gardened, and cooked. With no homework until 2nd grade, and reading was not taught until 1st grade.
Yet Ms Ravitch would say this charter school is not "successful" because their scores are not significantly higher than the local schools. But they are not pushing kids, and they are teaching them to love learning, and they are introducing them to different subjects. Ms Ravitch says this is what is needed (chapter 9), but she dismisses all charters without high scores. Huh?
Page 228: "The best-informed and most affluent parents make sure to enroll their children in schools with small classes, broad curriculum in liberal arts and sciences, well-educated teachers, and well-maintained facilities."
Well, I would argue that some of us who want to think we are well-informed but nonetheless cannot afford that perfect private school. We have charters. She is partly responsible for this horrible situation, and has created a system that has no interest in teaching our kids. You know, regular kids. Not particularly driven, but quick on the uptake. Not disruptive, not aggressive. The kind that get put in the corner to shut up and do their work and get decent scores while the teacher spends all his/her time on the script with 30+-odd kids in the class who are disruptive, are on meds, are behind, have aides, and need more help than 1 teacher can give.
Charter schools are what we have. And she wants to take them away. What a horrible woman.
**If anyone cares, I truly think Bill Gates' opinion (206) that all kids should go to college, while also saying that education should be relevant to kids, is largely the problem. Schools have gotten rid of their vocational programs. Not everyone is going to go to college, ever! Not every is cut out for it, not everyone wants to. But school districts have removed auto shop, home ec, art, business, even typing. I think ALL kids should learn to change oil and a tire, how to make a roast, how to understand compound interest. This should start in jr high, to help kids find their strengths, and help them map out their futures. IF you know you're going to be a plumber like dad, memorizing vocabulary for a test makes you WANT to drop out. I mean really. Is this really rocket science?
Diane Ravitch was an instrumental member of the team that supported No Child Left Behind. Now she says she sees NCLB--its obsession with scores, its punitive nature--was just a bad idea. And she claims she has changed her ways.
I agree with so many of Ravitch's points: students are "not spending time on thoughtful writing, critical reading, scientific experimentation, historical study" (228); "Tests cannot measure what matters most in education, like ability to raise questions, seek alternative explanations, to think differently, to pursue knowledge on its own" (226); "We may be training (not education) a generation of children who are repelled by learning, thinking that it means only drudgery, worksheets, test preparation, and test-taking" (231); Since 1983 "we know that many of our kids leave school knowing little about social studies, geography, literary references..." (223). Yup, exactly.
I am one of those people who is dealing with a monster school district (LAUSD) that is OBSESSED with testing. Last year I was in a local elementary school auditorium that had huge pieces of "art" (pre-cut letters glued onto paper)on the walls, celebrating academic subjects--reading, math, testing! Our school district uses Open Court for reading. This is a curriculum that consists of a timeline and script. Every day in every elementary school in the district, 2nd graders will be "learning" the exact same sight words. Teachers are not allowed to teach. TO a large extent, music, art, and foreign language have been turned into "enrichments"--meaning, you pay through the nose for afterschool babysitting (to 6pm!) and your kid will be taught (not by teachers) the stuff they learn so much faster when in K-8. But then when they get home they have to do their homework--yes, including the kindergarteners--and eat dinner.
Our kids are in charter schools.
You would think Ms Ravitch would like charter schools--well, she used to. She has decided that choice is bad. She also has no clue how charter schools work in the state of California, where we are. She thinks they can "discharge laggards, enforce a tough disciplinary code, offer free afterschool enrichment, and get financial support from corporate sponsors" (136). I don't know what planet she's living on, but it isn't mine. Yes, charters here definitely attract motivated parents--you have to apply to a lottery. But they cannot enforce volunteer codes or any extra-tough behavioral codes, they are public schools. There is limited afterschool enrichment--and it sure isn't free. There are no corporate sponsors, just parents working their ASSES off. Maybe a small grant from a local group.
She spends chapter 7 discussing how, in spite of their (supposed) advantages over regular public schools, charters' scores really aren't any higher than those regular schools. In chapter 6 she discussed how schools were teaching to the test and removing subjects (art, music, history, literature) that weren't tested (107). That, in fact, some students are so taught to a certain test they can't succeed on a different test on the same subject matter (160).
Here's the thing, Ms Ravitch. My kids' went to one charter school K-4. (We are moving them to another, which features a language immersion program but no music--both of my kids seem to have strengths in language, and both have favored their language classes at school 1.) So, their school does not have sky-high test scores. I don't care. Because they don't use those stupid pre-programmed readers. They studied folktales and fairy tales, learned to knit, to play the pentatonic flute, had class plays, took 2 foreign languages, studied violin in 4th grade, gardened, and cooked. With no homework until 2nd grade, and reading was not taught until 1st grade.
Yet Ms Ravitch would say this charter school is not "successful" because their scores are not significantly higher than the local schools. But they are not pushing kids, and they are teaching them to love learning, and they are introducing them to different subjects. Ms Ravitch says this is what is needed (chapter 9), but she dismisses all charters without high scores. Huh?
Page 228: "The best-informed and most affluent parents make sure to enroll their children in schools with small classes, broad curriculum in liberal arts and sciences, well-educated teachers, and well-maintained facilities."
Well, I would argue that some of us who want to think we are well-informed but nonetheless cannot afford that perfect private school. We have charters. She is partly responsible for this horrible situation, and has created a system that has no interest in teaching our kids. You know, regular kids. Not particularly driven, but quick on the uptake. Not disruptive, not aggressive. The kind that get put in the corner to shut up and do their work and get decent scores while the teacher spends all his/her time on the script with 30+-odd kids in the class who are disruptive, are on meds, are behind, have aides, and need more help than 1 teacher can give.
Charter schools are what we have. And she wants to take them away. What a horrible woman.
**If anyone cares, I truly think Bill Gates' opinion (206) that all kids should go to college, while also saying that education should be relevant to kids, is largely the problem. Schools have gotten rid of their vocational programs. Not everyone is going to go to college, ever! Not every is cut out for it, not everyone wants to. But school districts have removed auto shop, home ec, art, business, even typing. I think ALL kids should learn to change oil and a tire, how to make a roast, how to understand compound interest. This should start in jr high, to help kids find their strengths, and help them map out their futures. IF you know you're going to be a plumber like dad, memorizing vocabulary for a test makes you WANT to drop out. I mean really. Is this really rocket science?