Rain of Errors

Claim: Rolling back education reform will improve outcomes for students, especially poor students.

Reality: There is no evidence for this claim.

The most frustrating thing about Diane Ravitch’s new book, Reign of Error,  isn’t the way she twists the evidence on school choice or testing, or  her condescending tone toward leaders trying to improve educational  outcomes, or her clever but disingenuous rhetorical arguments. No,  what’s most frustrating is that we education reformers have left  ourselves exposed and vulnerable to her attacks by overselling, and  underthinking, our own ideas.

Truth be told, there are parts of  the school-reform agenda today that are easy pickings for our opponents.  Chief among these is the move to create prescriptive, top-down,  statewide teacher-evaluation systems based largely on classroom-level  test-score gains. Akin to Obamacare, it’s an idea that seems appealing  at first blush (let’s recognize our best teachers and fire our worst!)  but quickly devolves into a Rube Goldberg nightmare, with state  officials trying (for example) to figure out how to link gym teachers’  performance to reading scores.

Fixing schools, especially from  afar, is difficult, treacherous work, yet those of us in the reform  community have tried to turn it into a morality play between good and  evil. “We know what works, we just need the political will to do it,”  goes the common refrain. Balderdash. We know that some things  work better than others, and we also know that powerful interest groups  (especially the unions) are wedded to the status quo. But anyone with  half a brain or more than five minutes of experience also knows that  people are complicated, schools are even more complicated, and education  is a people-and-schools business. There are no easy answers.

Into  these waters wades Ravitch, the repentant reformer, the double agent.  She knows the weaknesses in our arguments because she was once one of  us. And she exploits them piece by piece.

Which is not to say that  she’s fair-minded or even-handed. She’s neither. For instance, she  turns the overwhelming evidence that school vouchers generally benefit a  great many recipients (while harming none) into a statement that  students failed to experience “dramatic” gains. Guess what: No  interventions in education (or the rest of social policy) would meet  that daunting standard.

But her book is not a complete disaster  for reformers. Far from it, in fact, for Ravitch walks into a trap of  her own devising. She acknowledges in the introduction that her last  effort, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, failed to offer a positive plan for improving student outcomes. So she sets about to offer one in Reign of Error.  In describing it, however, Ravitch commits the exact same errors for  which she lambastes reformers. She oversells the evidence; she fails to  consider likely unintended consequences; she doesn’t think through  implementation challenges. The skeptical, hard-nosed (if biased and  data-slanting) Ravitch of the first half of her book turns into a  pie-in-the-sky dreamer in the second half.

Consider her “solutions”:

1. Provide good prenatal care for every pregnant woman.

2. Make high-quality early-childhood education available to all children.

3. Make sure every school has a “full, balanced, and rich curriculum.”

4. Reduce class sizes.

5. Provide medical and social services to the poor.

6. Devise actionable strategies and specific goals to reduce racial segregation and poverty.

(She  lists five other “solutions” that simply amount to rolling back  reforms: Ban for-profit charters and charter chains; eliminate  high-stakes standardized testing; don’t allow “non-educators” to be  teachers, principals, or superintendents; don’t allow mayoral control of  the schools; don’t view education as a “consumer good.”)

So what would a hard-nosed, data-honest Ravitch say about these six ideas?

Claim: Reducing pre-term births (via better prenatal care) would improve the  life chances of half a million children in the United States every year.

Reality: The government already provides prenatal care to poor women through  Medicaid and other programs. One reason the United States has an  unusually high number of pre-term births is that it has an unusually  high proportion of babies born to young, unwed, uneducated mothers who  are less likely to take advantage of quality prenatal care. Solving that  problem requires changing a culture that shrugs at 14- or 16- or  18-year-olds’ getting pregnant (often not for the first time). Ravitch  says not a word about those complexities (or anything else about  family-structure woes).

Claim: Early-childhood programs have abundant research to support them.

Reality: Most of the evidence for pre-school comes from a few boutique programs  that were unusually effective and expensive. They served a handful of  exceptionally needy young children. High-quality evaluations of Head  Start show few gains, or gains that fade out after a few years.  Evaluations of newer large-scale programs (like those in New Jersey,  Oklahoma, and Texas) suffer from “selection bias” problems — we don’t  know whether the children enrolled in them might be different in  important ways from their peers who didn’t enroll. In other words, the  research on pre-school is a lot like the research on charter schools: We  can find examples of high-quality programs that get great results, and  we can find plenty of the other kind, and we don’t yet know how to take  the great ones to scale.

Claim: Since the advent of No Child Left Behind, many schools have cut back on every subject that was not tested.

Reality: NCLB led to some modest declines in the time allocated to history and  science in elementary schools (surely not a good thing). But the  well-rounded, content-rich schools that Ravitch desires (as do I)  haven’t existed en masse for decades. Ravitch wrote a whole book (Left Back)  explaining why this is so — and it had to do with the education  profession’s commitment to progressivism and romanticism, not because of  more recent testing and accountability regimes. She wrote another whole  book (The Language Police)  that vividly explains why so much that passes for history and  literature in our schools is banal and not worth learning, and yet  another book (What Do Our Seventeen-Year-Olds Know?)  showing how little of it they were learning long before NCLB was even a  gleam in George W. Bush’s eye, indeed long before he became governor of  Texas.

Claim: The benefits of class-size  reduction are so large that the cost is well worth it, in terms of  higher achievement levels, higher graduation rates, and lower  special-education referrals.

Reality: The  evidence indicates that class sizes must be reduced dramatically — to 15  students or fewer — in order to get an impact, and even then it matters  only for the very youngest students in the very earliest grades. Yet  class-size reduction is costly in more than just dollars: By expanding  the teacher work force, it makes it that much harder to maintain high  standards for entry into the profession (another goal Ravitch asserts),  meaning it could actually reduce achievement. (That was California’s  experience in the 1990s.) In other words, there are trade-offs at work.

Claim: Wrap-around services, like after-school programs, will close the achievement gap.

Reality: There is no evidence for this claim. For instance, a Brookings Institution study of the Harlem Children’s Zone — one of the few reforms that Ravitch  likes — found its students performing on par with peers from charter  schools that did not provide wrap-around services.

Claim: We need a new push for school desegregation in order to narrow racial achievement gaps.

Reality: There’s some evidence indicating that integrated schools have a  positive impact on the achievement of minority students, especially  blacks. But does Ravitch forget her book The Troubled Crusade,  which described the disastrous history of forced desegregation? There  is no political support to refight the busing wars of an earlier  generation. The recent trend toward gentrification in some cities  creates some new opportunities for integrated schools, but these will be limited. Yes, it would be  nice if all schools were integrated; it would also be nice if all  children had two parents at home. It’s not going to happen. Many  low-income and minority students will continue to attend racially and  socioeconomically isolated schools for the foreseeable future; the  challenge is to make those schools as effective as possible.

Improving  schools and helping disadvantaged children escape poverty are heroic  challenges. They are complex undertakings with loads of uncertainty and  potential for missteps. Some proposed solutions will actually make  things worse. If Ravitch’s bromides push education reformers toward  greater realism, that would be healthy indeed. But who will push Ravitch  and her new friends toward greater realism on the anti-poverty agenda?  America’s kids are waiting.

—–

Michael Petrilli is Executive Vice President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, D.C.  This review first appeared on National Review Online.

Leave a reply

Recent Posts

IdeaLab

Moynihan and the Modern American Family at 50

By Gerard Robinson | Senior Fellow, CUNY Institute for Education Policy “The gap between the Negro and most other groups in American society is widening. The fundamental problem, in which this is clearly the case, is that of family structure.” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1964) “If the misery of the poor be caused not by… Read More

Director's Perspective

An Open Letter On School Accountability

Below you will find the outline of some thoughts on educational accountability. The topic has become one of the central issues in contemporary reform efforts in American education, with particularly heated debate over efforts to measure the effectiveness of teachers through test scores as well as classroom observations. But the issue is wider than this,… Read More

Reports from the Field

Institutional Commitment to Civic Education: Public Montessori Secondary Schools

By Katie Dulaney | Lakewood Montessori School Even as we hold schools increasingly accountable for student achievement, we rarely seem to judge schools for their performance in citizenship preparation, an inauspicious “accountability gap” for a democracy. -Michael Johanek and John Puckett, “The State of Civic Education” (2005) Education leaders across the political spectrum – from… Read More