Diana Ravitch's 'Why I Changed My Mind'

Diane Ravitch is a historian of education at New York University. She makes a very compelling, but extremely one-sided argument that educational reforms such as “No Child Left Behind” are causing students to have lesser opportunities in schools. Her argument is directed towards school boards, parents, and lawmakers who have the ability to change school and state policies on education. She wants those people to believe that the current school system is not effective in giving students a quality education and preparing them for life. Diane Ravitch’s argument brings up a question for readers: Is it beneficial for students when schools cut funding to non-tested subjects? According to Ravitch, most of the schools in the country, except for the ones in the most affluent communities base their

I critically analyzed one of Diane’s Ravitch’s chapter Teacher’s Accountability for the course EDUC 680. As I described earlier that according to DeMarrais and LeCompte (1998), schools and teachers are responsible for reproducing the stratification of social classes and so we should consider having a curriculum to meet the needs of the disadvantages students and fill in the gaps of the differential knowledge between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Similarly, the neoliberalist (Apple, 2004) claims that teachers and schools should be held accountable based on standardized tests scores of the students. In both the situations, the teachers and schools should be responsible to mitigate the differences in their knowledge formation and reduce the test scores differences between the advantages and disadvantages groups based on the premises that

Instead of giving children a quality education, “tests are used to make high stakes decisions about whether kids get promoted or graduate, or whether schools lose funding, or teachers lose their jobs, they narrow the focus of what teachers do in classrooms and limit the ability of schools to serve the broader needs of children and their communities” (Karp). The No Child Left Behind Act’s standardized test decides so many factors for teachers and students that it indirectly requires an ample amount of time to prepare for it, which hinders the time spent on giving students a real education. Teachers spend less time on giving students an education and more time on teaching them test-taking strategies in order to meet No Child Left Behind’s standards. The No Child Left Behind Act’s policies only rely “on an annual test, but single tests can be misleading. Every parent knows children have good and bad days” (Rothstein). The No Child Left Behind Act solely bases a school’s performance on a single, annual test. Test scores are not accurate if the results are not retested to ensure its legitimacy. Schools are labeled as a failing school and receive pay cuts for the performance on a single test per year if they are unable to meet proficiency standards. After the school receives punishment for failing to meet NCLB’s standards, it focuses more on the test than the education of its

In Reign of Error, Diane Ravitch covers her opinions on American education in public schools. Along with this, she gives multiple solutions to the issues that started in the education system in the 1980 's by the federal government and are still having a consequence on America today. Ravitch focuses in on the ineffectiveness of educational reforms and legislation put in place for teachers and school districts. For example, she states, "When evidence is lacking, we should not move forward with a sense of urgency. The reformers are putting the nation 's children on a train that is headed for a cliff." (3-4)

Being a present senior in highschool, I have often found myself wondering about the importance of the universally dreaded “standardized tests” which all students are forced to take. For many these standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT for example, were, or will be taken in one’s junior year of high school. Prior to these tests, countless amounts of preparation is forced upon students, limiting their abilities for educational diversity. Many education professionals are just as skeptical of this aspect of education in today’s society. Educational expert and highly credited author Diane Ravitch in her essay, “The Essentials of a Good Education,” directly addresses this idea, discussing not only the idea that these problems do in fact exist, but also suggesting that a change is imperative. Ravitch claims that education has become too solely focused on these test scores, which is creating a sort of robotic routine for all students. Throughout her essay, she utilizes many appeals to facts and statistics, accountability and emotion, and credibility, along with a strongly developed tone throughout in order to provide support for her claim which helps to prove the present state of our education system is not doing an adequate job in preparing students for the real world.

The purpose of this memo is to review and analyze the claims made by Diane Ravitch in her book, The Life and Death of the Great American School System, and to justly state if the authors claims are well-researched and based on facts or if her arguments and claims are biased and opinionated. More specifically, this memo will acknowledge the two central ideas of contemporary education reform today: choice and accountability. Advocates of school choice believe that it provides families with alternative options to choose their children’s education that works best for them while encouraging competition to better schools. However, opponents of school choice believe that it will erode the public school system until it is no more. Some argue that accountability is “the great cure” that will fix schools by testing and placing teachers accountable, this will encourage more effort and in turn promote student achievement. Others believe that too much accountability is the reason why our schools are failing. Ravitch seems to see choice and accountability as the main obstacles standing in the way of a thriving American school system. After much careful research, I have come to two conclusions. First, choice is not remedy to make education better; all that choice does is

After the implementation of the “No Child Left Behind Act” high risk standardized testing has become a pressure cooker of corruption in the United States due to often unrealistic expectations, abundant incentives, and harsh punishments placed upon educators and administrators, overall resulting in the essential need for reform. The concept that every student’s academic ability can be assessed by a single universal exam is a misguided notion.

“Mostly, they worry that common standards would reduce teaching to only a small range of testable information and would not produce the knowledge, flexibility and creativity needed. Buttressing this concern, the Center on Education Policy found that the emphasis on test-based accountability has indeed already narrowed the curriculum” (Mathis). Standardized testing has become a controversial topic recently throughout the nation because of the harsh, confined lessons teachers are being forced to give. According to a news article written by the New York Times, teenagers nationwide are taking anti-depressants to cope with test-related stress and teachers would rather retire than teach when the government seems to value testing over learning. Teachers

“…only twenty-two percent of those surveyed said increased testing had helped the performance of their local schools compared with twenty-eight in 2007” (“Public Skeptical of Standardized Testing.”). Furthermore the poll indicated an eleven percent increase, compared to last year, towards the favor of discontinuing the usage of students’ test results for teacher evaluations. William Bushaw, executive director of PDK International and co-director of PDK/Gallup Poll also stated, “Americans’ mistrust of standardized tests and their lack of confidence and understanding around new education standards is one the most surprising developments we’ve found in years” (“Public Skeptical of Standardized Testing.”). All in all, not only are these tests a concern for students, who are forced to sit through them, hoping to get a decent enough score to place into a class, receive their diploma, or even get accepted to the college of their dreams, but they are a concern for parents as well, who only want the best for their children and to see them succeed.

If asked, most people would agree that our nation is an adaptable nation. Over the years, the United States has adjusted to account for groups of people with a lack of rights such as colored minorities, females , and homosexuals. This country has tailored laws and altered how to operate economically and globally. As I do more research, I become increasingly frustrated with the state of the United States. My frustration is a byproduct of the failure in the educational system to progress and acclimatize just as the other areas of the country has progressed. In fact, it has contradicted any sense of adaptability and progression, instead it has regressed. Testing as means of evaluation, from the first intelligent quotient to the stress of today's ACT, has been on a major upswing. The emphasis on measuring students mostly, almost exclusively, through testing cripples students and the country as a whole.

By believing that instructors are the most important influence in a child’s education, teachers are given an unrealistic responsibility. Many policymakers believe that holding educators accountable for student success is the best way to improve public education. This asks educators to overcome these outside variables that are far outside of teachers’ control. Policymakers suggested linking teacher evaluations to student achievement, measured by standardized tests. This is not a beneficial way to hold teachers accountable because of the many outside factors that affect student achievement. A better way to hold teachers accountable is to stem out of a realistic perspective on what teachers can and should do for their students. Each part of society holds an important responsibility in increasing student achievement. Teachers should not be asked to be responsible for more than they can handle.

Countless of students are not being educated as well as they should be. The article argues, the wrong test can ineffectively evaluate quality of strong teachers. Therefore, those teachers become penalized. Whereas, the wrong test can fail to identify a weak teacher. As a result, the student is who suffers in the end. Secondly, the article discusses three primary purposes for the educational testing’s; compare, to instruct, and to evaluate. Comparison allows the educational system to identify score differences among students, whereas instructional testing is an ongoing evidence of a student’s level of achievements. Lastly, evaluation is to determine the quality of teachers. So, if the tests are appropriately implements, students can benefit. However, comparison has dominated the American education system.

The educational system in the United States has gone through many changes over the last century. These changes are a part of a constant movement toward educational excellence for every child in this nation. One of the most recent acts placed on public school systems by the government is to create more accountability for schools in order to ensure that all children are receiving the proper education. Part of this mandate is that public schools will require students to take tests in order to gather information about their academic achievement. Although educators and administrators claim that the mandatory ability testing programs being initiated in America’s public schools will hold students and teachers accountable for academic

system─ is on results. And while this focus on results is understandable (see, e.g., Schmoker, 1999, 2001), it is also important to consider the means by which the ends are achieved. The questions emerged: What was the effect of a political decision─ to demand public school accountability─ on pedagogical decision making? How might the demands of a new testing program affect how teacher teach and how children are expected to learn?

Neill gave the basic argument and theory of testing advocates. He revealed to Caref that “the basic argument is ‘accountability’ for students, schools, and educators… In theory, testing will show where the problems are, and sanctions will force educators to do their jobs better” (Caref 6). Advocates of testing accept as true that all