The Wrong Kind of Education Reform

David Kirp:

The case for market-driven reforms in education rests on two key premises: The public school system is in crisis, and the solution is to let the market pick winners and losers. Market strategies--high-stakes teacher accountability, merit pay, shuttering "failing" schools--are believed to be essential if public schools are ever going to get better. And these maxims underlie the commitment to charter schools and vouchers. Freed from the dead hand of bureaucracy and the debilitating effects of school board politics, the argument runs, schools are free to innovate.

If you follow education debates, you've heard that again and again. Here's what's new: A spate of new books undercuts both propositions, simply decimating the argument for privatizing education.

Since The Death and Life of the Great American School System, her 2010 best-seller, Diane Ravitch has been the most prominent critic of the market-minded reformers. Americans love apostates, and the fact that, as assistant secretary of education in the first Bush administration, Ravitch acknowledged that she had "fallen for the latest panaceas and miracle cures and drunk deeply of the elixir that promised a quick fix," has given her considerable credibility. Now she pops up everywhere, keynoting national conventions, urging on teachers at an Occupy the Department of Education rally, being profiled flatteringly in The New Yorker, deluging her supporters with emails, and sparring with ex-D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, the darling of the privatizers, about how to "fix" education.

Posted by Jim Zellmer at September 11, 2013 12:54 AM
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas