A brief confession: had I known about Diane Ravitch's role in one of the most ludicrous educational mandates in our nation's history, I most likely would not have given her ideas nearly as much credence as I found myself doing. I read a few of her pieces linked on the Washington Post's education blog, “The Answer Sheet”, last week. Then, in a quest for more of her work, I stumbled across another recent post about a review of the update she added to the new paperback edition of her best-selling book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System. My eyes seemed almost to scan right past the mention of her role as assistant secretary of education in the administration of George H.W. Bush, and how she was a "prominent supporter of No Child Left Behind when it was implemented by Bush's son" during his presidency. At once my heart sank. Here was a woman who had written all the right words about school reform - at least in my limited reading of them. About how charter schools are viewed through a rose-colored lens. About how merit pay for teachers is both largely uneffective and doomed to fail. And, of course, about how standardized testing has driven our nation towards a narrowed curriculum of teaching to the clearly-biased tests. How could the same set of views be produced out of the same mind? How could such a sublimely interesting and relevant book come from such divergent schools of thought?
Such a dichotomy of beliefs comes from change, obviously. Ravitch’s opinions of the tenants of NCLB changed with time, and an influx of negative information surrounding the implications of the policy. She gained perspective and that perspective pushed her towards a search for answers in the face of a growing sense of dread about our nation’s educational policies, its teachers, its social understanding of schooling, and its failure to address many of these problems. My confidence was renewed, if it ever really left. I feel like Ravitch’s book is a great example for our students as well as our politicians and state governing bodies. Changing your mind is okay – especially when you do so in the face of new or further information. Isn’t this along the lines of the scientific method? In my freshman and sophomore English classes I have an open revision policy, meaning if a student turns a paper in on time and doesn’t get the grade he/she wants they can revise it for a better score (pending a brief conference with me before initiating the process.) I want my students to learn from their mistakes and better themselves – mostly as writers but the lesson sometimes goes further than that.
The review of Ravitch’s book goes on to talk about how the author gets grief for pointing out problems but not offering solutions. It then quotes a lengthy passage from her book about what makes a school successful – concluding with the idea that if reforming schools was easy, it would already be done. There are many factors that go into a high performing school – culture, personalities, curriculum, etc. – but most likely high performing schools are combination of many things. In other words, there is no black and white answer to reform. We know this. And yet we continue to focus on black and white answers to the problem. We want our students to be critical thinkers, and yet our means of school reform continue to focus on teachers and tests. This is the irony of an educational reform movement that wants answers packed tightly into a fill-in-the-proper-oval format. It cannot work that way. We must understand that a change of opinions is a good thing, one that can open up a dialogue to a new understanding. Much like we want our students to do on a daily basis in our classrooms.
We’ve recently begun critically analyzing op-ed articles in my sophomore English class. Students have read various articles from doing away with extraneous personal items to whether or not legalizing drugs could solve the border war issue that plagues many cities in the southwest. At first my students tried to recite back to me the facts of the article, questioning only what they knew they could readily answer based on the text’s given opinions. However, over the course of the last few weeks, many of them have begun to challenge the text, and see that there is more than one way to propose a solution to problems. They are also seeing, I hope, that just because they don’t agree with another’s viewpoint, it doesn’t mean that they should hear it out. And this week, I shared with them my most recent example of recantation. I told them about Ravitch and her changing perspective, and how their ideas may do similar things over time. I know that mine certainly has as well, and I view that as a good change.
