While not in the actual paper today, here is a letter I wrote that appears in the web version in response to a David Brooks' column about Diane Ravitch and Ravitch's answer to Brooks:
To The Editor:
David Brooks maintains that Diane Ravitch’s attack on current school reform strategies lies in her belief that “poverty is the real issue, not bad schools.” In her May 31 Op-Ed article, “Waiting for a School Miracle,” Ms. Ravitch asserted, “If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved.”
But many children do not come from such environments. The question remains: What specifically can schools do to fill this critical gap? That’s what I’d like to hear from her.
STEPHEN PRESKILL
New York, July 6, 2011
And here is what I actually sent to the Times before they edited it:
To the Editor:
There is no question that David Brooks exaggerates Diane Ravitch’s criticism
of testing. She says, and I agree, that assessments should be used to
improve teaching and learning and not to evaluate the quality of teaching
or to determine compensation.
Brooks maintains that Ravitch’s attack on current school reform strategies
lies in her belief that “poverty is the real issue, not bad schools.” In an
article from the May 31 issue of the New York Times she naively asserted
that “If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to
learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our
educational problems would be solved.”
But many children do not come from such environments. The question remains:
What can schools do specifically to fill this critical gap? That’s
what I’d like to hear from her.
Stephen Preskill
170 West End Avenue, Apt. 6S
New York, NY 10023
(The writer is chair of the Education Department at Wagner College on
Staten Island)
And here is what I wrote even earlier that the Times never acknowledged at all:
To The Editor:
In his July 1, 2011 column, David Brooks astutely critiques the
educational reform agenda of Diane Ravitch - the "nation's most vocal
educational historian” - by underscoring what she regards as the
irreconcilable tension between teaching's humane foundation and
testing's mechanistic orientation. Brooks concedes that tension but
shows that it can be reconciled by actually naming schools where
testing exists compatibly with a commitment to liberal education. He
seems to be saying that Ravitch’s knee jerk ideological reaction
against testing and accountability has blinded her to the possibility
that standardized assessment can co-exist with humane goals.
But what Brooks misses is the nuance in that tension. It isn’t simply
a matter of keeping tests, while remaining committed to a clear
mission and "an invigorating moral culture." Important questions still
remain: How much is testing emphasized? Which tests are used? And how
are they analyzed to improve instruction? Additionally, while it is
probably true that without some form of ongoing assessment, "lethargy
and perpetual mediocrity" result, when testing overwhelms other
activities and becomes the primary means by which success is measured,
what really matters is often forgotten. And what really matters, after
all, is supporting kids in becoming engaged, curious, effective
learners. Tests will capture some of this to be sure, but much of it
is still left up to educators who are passionate about what they are
doing and who model a love of learning.
Stephen Preskill
170 West End Avenue, Apt. 6S
New York, NY 10023
(The writer is chair of the Education Department at Wagner College on Staten Island)
And believe it or not, here is still another version of a letter I worked on responding to Brooks and Ravitch. Amazing, isn't it, how much work goes into generating one measly publishable letter.
To the Editor:
Yesterday, David Brooks focused his New York Times Op-Ed column on the reform agenda of the "nation's most vocal educational historian." This would be, of course, none other than Diane Ravitch. His take on Ravitch is not all that different from mine posted back on June 1, 2011, but his concise identification of what Ravitch considers to be the inherent tension in today's educational reform climate - teaching's humane foundation versus testing's mechanistic orientation - explains a lot. Brooks concedes that tension but then goes on to do something Ravitch rarely does. He actually names schools where testing exists compatibly with a commitment to liberal education. Ravitch, he seems to be saying, has reached a point where her knee jerk ideological reaction against testing and accountability blinds her to the possibility that such things can co-exist with humane goals.
I must say, Brooks is on solid ground with all of this. But what Brooks misses is the nuance in that tension. It can't simply be a matter of keeping tests, while remaining committed to a clear mission, recruiting a strong principal and maintaining "an invigorating moral culture." Important questions still remain and need to be given their due: How much is testing emphasized? Which tests are used? And how are they analyzed to improve instruction? Additionally, while it is probably true that without some form of ongoing assessment, "lethargy and perpetual mediocrity" result, the degree to which testing is allowed to overwhelm other activities and to become the primary means by which success is measured, can make all the difference between creating a healthy school culture and one that loses sight of what really matters. What really matters, after all, is supporting kids in becoming engaged, curious, effective learners. Tests can capture some of this, but most of it is still left up to teachers who are passionate about what they are doing and model a love of learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment