Diane Ravitch Long Ago Stopped Being Decent. Or Thoughtful. Or…: One shouldn’t be surprised that the once-respectable education historian engaged in another case of intellectual charlatanism last week when she linked to a screed written progressive scribbler Yasha Levine claiming that efforts by families to use Parent Trigger laws to take control of failing schools — especially the successful effort by families in Adelanto, Calif., to take over McKinley Elementary School — were nothing more than some conspiracy by wealthy people to supposedly undermine public education that has been propped up by National Public Radio and the parent of Education Week. After all, Ravitch has long ago proven that she will embrace even the most nonsensical and inaccurate piece so long as it supports the defense of traditionalist thinking. And the piece by Levine, which essentially attempts to smear the good names of fine reporters such as EdWeek‘s Sean Cavanagh and that of the education publication itself (which has always disclosed quite prominently the various philanthropies, both reform-minded and traditionalist, which support some of its coverage), does exactly what Ravitch wants even if Levine goes so far as to intimate statements by reporters as being endorsements of particular subjects they are reporting when they aren’t so.
It is even less shocking when Ravitch argued that Parent Trigger laws should no longer be called such because it supposedly evokes imagery of last December’s massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Certainly Parent Revolution was right to paraphrase legendary lawyer Joseph Welch’s famed question to the infamous Joseph McCarthy during the U.S. Senator’s 1954 investigation into alleged Communist infiltration into the armed forces, when it asked Ravitch had she no decency left. But it has been clear since Ravitch’s last attempt to link the Newtown Massacre to the battle over the reform of American public education that she will behave indecently and shamefully so long as it allows her to continue her effort to be the Camille Paglia of education without the latter’s ability to be both provocative and intellectually challenging at the same time. As Dropout Nation has stated over and over again, Ravitch doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
One can understand why traditionalists, who often engage and encourage such craven anti-intellectualism, cast their lot with Ravitch. What should be questioned is why do some reformers, especially conservative-leaning types with whom Ravitch once shared common cause, still give her any credence. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, for example, gave Ravitch a prominent spot in its recent video on the 30th anniversary of the Reagan Administration’s release of A Nation at Risk. [Your editor offers more thoughts related to the video below in item three.] Some rallied to Ravitch’s side two years ago, criticizing Kevin Carey for rightfully exposing her charlatanism and honestly questioning whether her change of heart was related to her anger with former New York City chancellor Joel Klein over his decision to not hire partner, Mary Butz, for a post in the city’s department of education). I know that it is hard to admit at times that some longstanding friends and allies no longer deserve respect or consideration. But after so many years of Ravitch engaging in the kind of rhetoric unbecoming of any public intellectual — especially in the education policy arena — one would think that it is time to cut the proverbial cord.
Will the Indiana Common Core “Pause” Bill Actually Stop the Hoosier State from Implementing Them?: This is the question raised by the passage last week of House Bill 1427, which includes language that would stop the state’s board of education from enforcing implementation of the reading and math curricula guidelines, and require the Hoosier State’s education department to review whether Common Core matches up to the standards tested on the state’s ISTEP exams. Why is it a question? For one, districts and charter schools aren’t prohibited from continuing their own implementation of the standards; this is especially true for districts and charters that have already rolled out Common Core curricula in the early grades and have planned to roll out the standards to be instructed in secondary grades next year. Chances are that most districts will proceed with implementation because it has been in the works for some time.
This likelihood will force Common Core foes, who have argued that they oppose the standards because the state’s embrace of them violate their mythical belief in local control, to actually show whether or not they truly support districts proceeding on their own. Your editor believes that Common Core foes are hardly any more concerned with local control — which, given that Indiana’s constitution, like all state constitutions, charges the state with providing education (and relegates districts as mere arms of government charged with enforcing the state’s will), doesn’t exist — than they are with whether the Hoosier State’s poor and minority kids are provided high-quality curricula. But if they accept districts proceeding on their own, then I will be surprised.
Another issue is that the passed bill itself, which has not yet been signed into law (and may not be), may specify Common Core, but it doesn’t essentially restrict the reform-minded state board of education from cutting and pasting from Common Core, call them Hoosier State college and career-ready standards, and proceed with implementation as they see fit. Supt. Glenda Ritz herself opposes the standards, but she is outgunned by the board. Ritz may also face pressure from the National Education Association’s Hoosier State affiliates as well as from other traditionalists who support Common Core standards to move ahead with either quickly approving Common Core or crafting standards that essentially mimic them. Expect one of the board members — especially David Shane, an appointee of former governor Mitch Daniels — to start the ball rolling to the annoyance of Common Core foes throughout the state.
As a result, Common Core foes, including state Sen. Scott Schneider, would have to go back to the drawing board again and state specifically in legislation that no college and career-ready standards of any kind resembling Common Core can be implemented. This would expose Common Core foes to accusations — especially from Democrats looking for anything to latch upon for political advantage in next year’s general election — that they are not concerned with reforming the Hoosier State’s education system.
Meanwhile the ban on the use of Common Core tests developed by the PARCC and Smarter Balanced coalitions won’t work all that well either. Why? Because Indiana can simply ditch ISTEP tests with exams from ACT, which are aligned with Common Core standards. Alabama already took this step last month when it decided to take a similar approach. Again, HB 1427 doesn’t restrict the state board of education or Ritz from taking that step. While Indiana’s exit from PARCC would hurt that coalition, it won’t mean a stop to Common Core implementation on a national level.
Certainly Common Core foes view the move in Indiana as a victory of sorts. But it may be Pyrrhic in nature. And if they were being thoughtful, they would even realize this isn’t a victory they want. Common Core foes may have actually given supporters of the standards an opportunity to implement them in a stealth way. And not in their favor.
Beltway Reformers’ Diversity Problem, A Nation at Risk Edition: One of the oddest things about watching events orchestrated by Beltway reform outfits is the lack of diversity among those selected as panelists for the events. It isn’t unusual for a think tank to manage to hold a panel on stemming achievement gaps that don’t include someone black or Latino on it, or for a policy shop to hold an event on the nation’s Parent Power activists without including those parent activists working on the ground as Connecticut Parents Union President (and DN Contributing Editor) Gwen Samuel. Your editor, in fact, has at least on one occasion, admonished one policy think tank for failing to include those in the movement whose skin isn’t pale or pink on its panel; I expect to do so again at some point this year. Yet it continues for various reasons, much of which I suspect those of us who are black and Latino have heard before (especially in other discussions about diversity) and find to be pure hogwash.
So it wasn’t so shocking that the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s retrospective on the 30th anniversary of A Nation at Risk didn’t include anyone black or Latino among the array of talking heads. One can certainly understand that Fordham wanted to put some focus on folks such as the think tank’s boss, Checker Finn, who helped shaped the report. But given that the video also featured Michelle Rhee and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, neither of whom were even on the scene when the Reagan Administration released the report three decades ago, it is hard to understand how Fordham couldn’t have included Black Alliance for Educational Options co-founder Howard Fuller (who was advancing reform since before A Nation at Risk was published.) or Rod Paige, one of Duncan’s predecessors as federal education secretary. There’s also no reason why Fordham couldn’t have included Heather Harding of Teach for America, CNN commentator and school principal Dr. Steve Perry, Harding’s boss at TFA, Elisa Villanueva-Beard or James Ferg-Cadima of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The Fordham video lost an opportunity to provide additional perspective on the consequences of the nation’s education crisis on poor and minority kids to which A Nation at Risk called so much attention, challenges that remain now.
[Someone on Twitter suggested yours truly. But I’m not in this for myself. So it could have been anyone.]
At the end of the day, Finn and his number two, Mike Petrilli, both men of good will, can choose to put anyone on their panels or invite anyone to participate in videos as they so choose. Same is true for every other Beltway think tank and advocacy shop. Your editor also doesn’t suggest a mindless quota on the number of minorities on each panel; that doesn’t actually do anything to expand the range and depth of conversations. At the same time, Finn, Petrilli and their counterparts need to keep in mind that a movement that is geared toward transforming education for all children — especially those from poor and minority households — would do well to make sure that they bring in those in the movement who are from the communities whose children are in most need of systemic reform. It would help bring the movement more supporters from those communities, especially among those in neighborhoods plagued by failing schools who want change, but are suspicious of a movement that doesn’t see enough of people like them within those ranks.