Diane Ravitch on No Child Left Behind

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting to me about Diane Ravitch is that as far as I can tell, she was never a classroom teacher.

I see she was superintendant of schools, and big in policy/think tank places -- but never an actual teacher??

I think anyone in charge of making any kind of educational policy should have a minimum of 5 years classroom teaching experience.

She's not a policymaker. She's a scholar who has studied and written extensively on the history of education policy in the U.S. And her views are not anti-teacher. She's concerned about the effects of NCLB on the educational opportunities offered in U.S. schools.

Ravitch is has been neither a classroom teacher at the level at which she is commenting nor is she a scholar. She is a commentator on the subject of education as we define eduation in the United States.

She has moved to a more palatable position on the subject of interminable testing to the exclusion of broadbased classical education; but she has yet to address the basic challenge of American education which is that Americans are by and large as a result of their narrow definition of education are and are viewed worldwide as basically anti-intellectual.

Hence we bumble around the world filled with good will but lacking in any real understanding of what is really going on in the cultures that are utterly intellectually alien to us.

Case in point --our last president shouting to the world after 9-11 that we were launching on a "Crusade" --all with any historical sense cringed, knowing he was unleashing a fury that had its roots in the seventh century. He obviously had not the least conception of what that crazy cry meant nor any idea that apart from enraging the so-called "infidel" the last crusade ended up sacking the most Christian city of the world at that time --Constantinople.

Do any of us truly comprehend what we have wondered into? Or what true education must be to engender real understanding?

Ravitch has a long way to go to be "scholarly" with respect to education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting to me about Diane Ravitch is that as far as I can tell, she was never a classroom teacher.

I see she was superintendant of schools, and big in policy/think tank places -- but never an actual teacher??

I think anyone in charge of making any kind of educational policy should have a minimum of 5 years classroom teaching experience.

She's not a policymaker. She's a scholar who has studied and written extensively on the history of education policy in the U.S. And her views are not anti-teacher. She's concerned about the effects of NCLB on the educational opportunities offered in U.S. schools.

Ravitch is has been neither a classroom teacher at the level at which she is commenting nor is she a scholar. She is a commentator on the subject of education as we define eduation in the United States.

She has moved to a more palatable position on the subject of interminable testing to the exclusion of broadbased classical education; but she has yet to address the basic challenge of American education which is that Americans are by and large as a result of their narrow definition of education are and are viewed worldwide as basically anti-intellectual.


Ravitch has a long way to go to be "scholarly" with respect to education.

I disagree. She has addressed curriculum often. And she is on the board of the Core Knowledge Foundation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting to me about Diane Ravitch is that as far as I can tell, she was never a classroom teacher.

I see she was superintendant of schools, and big in policy/think tank places -- but never an actual teacher??

I think anyone in charge of making any kind of educational policy should have a minimum of 5 years classroom teaching experience.

She's not a policymaker. She's a scholar who has studied and written extensively on the history of education policy in the U.S. And her views are not anti-teacher. She's concerned about the effects of NCLB on the educational opportunities offered in U.S. schools.

Ravitch is has been neither a classroom teacher at the level at which she is commenting nor is she a scholar. She is a commentator on the subject of education as we define eduation in the United States.

She has moved to a more palatable position on the subject of interminable testing to the exclusion of broadbased classical education; but she has yet to address the basic challenge of American education which is that Americans are by and large as a result of their narrow definition of education are and are viewed worldwide as basically anti-intellectual.


Ravitch has a long way to go to be "scholarly" with respect to education.

I disagree. She has addressed curriculum often. And she is on the board of the Core Knowledge Foundation.

It is no surprise that Ravitch is on the Core Knowledge Foundation board. There is that troubling "will it be on the test" mentality that is generated by this approach to education which Ravitch has until her recent u-turn espoused and promulgated.
There simply has to be more --fifteen year olds today are the twenty year olds of yesterday!
Too little, too narrow, too late (if ever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting to me about Diane Ravitch is that as far as I can tell, she was never a classroom teacher.

I see she was superintendant of schools, and big in policy/think tank places -- but never an actual teacher??

I think anyone in charge of making any kind of educational policy should have a minimum of 5 years classroom teaching experience.

She's not a policymaker. She's a scholar who has studied and written extensively on the history of education policy in the U.S. And her views are not anti-teacher. She's concerned about the effects of NCLB on the educational opportunities offered in U.S. schools.

Ravitch is has been neither a classroom teacher at the level at which she is commenting nor is she a scholar. She is a commentator on the subject of education as we define eduation in the United States.

She has moved to a more palatable position on the subject of interminable testing to the exclusion of broadbased classical education; but she has yet to address the basic challenge of American education which is that Americans are by and large as a result of their narrow definition of education are and are viewed worldwide as basically anti-intellectual.


Ravitch has a long way to go to be "scholarly" with respect to education.

I disagree. She has addressed curriculum often. And she is on the board of the Core Knowledge Foundation.

It is no surprise that Ravitch is on the Core Knowledge Foundation board. There is that troubling "will it be on the test" mentality that is generated by this approach to education which Ravitch has until her recent u-turn espoused and promulgated.
There simply has to be more --fifteen year olds today are the twenty year olds of yesterday!
Too little, too narrow, too late (if ever).

Core Knowledge is about curriculum, not assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting to me about Diane Ravitch is that as far as I can tell, she was never a classroom teacher.

I see she was superintendant of schools, and big in policy/think tank places -- but never an actual teacher??

I think anyone in charge of making any kind of educational policy should have a minimum of 5 years classroom teaching experience.

She's not a policymaker. She's a scholar who has studied and written extensively on the history of education policy in the U.S. And her views are not anti-teacher. She's concerned about the effects of NCLB on the educational opportunities offered in U.S. schools.

Ravitch is has been neither a classroom teacher at the level at which she is commenting nor is she a scholar. She is a commentator on the subject of education as we define eduation in the United States.

She has moved to a more palatable position on the subject of interminable testing to the exclusion of broadbased classical education; but she has yet to address the basic challenge of American education which is that Americans are by and large as a result of their narrow definition of education are and are viewed worldwide as basically anti-intellectual.


Ravitch has a long way to go to be "scholarly" with respect to education.

I disagree. She has addressed curriculum often. And she is on the board of the Core Knowledge Foundation.

It is no surprise that Ravitch is on the Core Knowledge Foundation board. There is that troubling "will it be on the test" mentality that is generated by this approach to education which Ravitch has until her recent u-turn espoused and promulgated.
There simply has to be more --fifteen year olds today are the twenty year olds of yesterday!
Too little, too narrow, too late (if ever).

Core Knowledge is about curriculum, not assessment.

Implicit in the heavily standardized content of CK is the apprehension (expressed by many educators) that there is over testing to assure that facts are properly inculcated. How else?

It would be interesting to have Ravitch re-visit Core Knowledge with her new aversion to over-testing, to evaluate its premises that a student must have ingested a prescribed set of material at each stage regardless of what stage they as individuals are in or ready for.
E. D. Hirsch, the generator of CK he often stated) was reacting to progressive Education methodology, but did he swing that pendulum too far. Again, what does Ravitch have to say about this train coming down the tracks?

It has a lot that is valuable in emphasis on content, but It misses a lot of stations on the way to adulthood is what appears!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ravitch is has been neither a classroom teacher at the level at which she is commenting nor is she a scholar. She is a commentator on the subject of education as we define eduation in the United States.

She has moved to a more palatable position on the subject of interminable testing to the exclusion of broadbased classical education; but she has yet to address the basic challenge of American education which is that Americans are by and large as a result of their narrow definition of education are and are viewed worldwide as basically anti-intellectual.

Hence we bumble around the world filled with good will but lacking in any real understanding of what is really going on in the cultures that are utterly intellectually alien to us.

Case in point --our last president shouting to the world after 9-11 that we were launching on a "Crusade" --all with any historical sense cringed, knowing he was unleashing a fury that had its roots in the seventh century. He obviously had not the least conception of what that crazy cry meant nor any idea that apart from enraging the so-called "infidel" the last crusade ended up sacking the most Christian city of the world at that time --Constantinople.

Do any of us truly comprehend what we have wondered into? Or what true education must be to engender real understanding?

Ravitch has a long way to go to be "scholarly" with respect to education.

Would that our last president had actually had a basic knowledge of FACTS, to even have familiarity with the history behind the term "CRUSADE". The lack of knowledge of basic facts in our country is astonishing.

BTW: Kids at Core Knowledge schools learn about the Crusades as part of the Grade Four Social Studies Curriculum (here's the outline). I don't know what my kid in a MD public school will be taught abot the Crusades. Social STudies isn't tested by the state in MD so it doesn't get taught all that much!

III. The Spread of Islam and the “Holy Wars”

Teachers: Since religion is a shaping force in the story of civilization, the Core Knowledge Sequence
introduces children in the early grades to major world religions, beginning with a focus on geography
and major symbols and figures. In the fourth grade the focus is on history, geography, and the
development of a civilization. The purpose is not to explore matters of theology but to understand
the place of religion and religious ideas in history. The goal is to familiarize, not proselytize; to be
descriptive, not prescriptive. The tone should be one of respect and balance: no religion should be
disparaged by implying that it is a thing of the past.

A review of major religions introduced in earlier grades in the Core Knowledge Sequence is
recommended: Judaism/Christianity/Islam (Grade 1) and Hinduism/Buddhism (grade 2).

A. Islam
• Muhammad: the last prophet
• Allah, Qur’an, jihad
• Sacred city of Makkah, mosques

• “Five pillars” of Islam:
Declaration of faith
Prayer (five times daily), facing toward Makkah
Fasting during Ramadan
Help the needy
Pilgrimage to Makkah

• Arab peoples unite to spread Islam in northern Africa, through the eastern Roman empire,
and as far west as Spain.
• Islamic Turks conquer region around the Mediterranean; in 1453, Constantinople
becomes Istanbul.
• The first Muslims were Arabs, but today diverse people around the world are Muslims.

B. Development of Islamic civilization
• Contributions to science and mathematics: Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Arabic numerals
• Muslim scholars translate and preserve writings of Greeks and Romans
• Thriving cities as centers of Islamic art and learning, such as Cordoba (Spain)

C. Wars between Muslims and Christians
• The Holy Land, Jerusalem
• The Crusades
• Saladin and Richard the Lion-Hearted
• Growing trade and cultural exchange between east and west

http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/480/CKFSequence_Rev.pdf

[Anonymous]

And FWIW I'd be thrilled if 4th graders were tested on their basic knowledge of the Crusades, and tested on art and music, and science, in addition to basic knowledge of math and language arts. I don't think there's anything wrong with testing kids to see how much they have learned each year on some common standards -- just don't make the tests math and reading only.

[Anonymous]

Just an observation re the curiculum for 4th. grade Core Knowledge.
Kids at that age do not have a clue of what that is all about
and should not be expected to.

I was reminded of an instance which precipitated a lot of laughter when I was in grad school and our ,major prof was a wondrous medievalist, so great even those who were his grad students attended the classes he taught to undergrads. He was not to be missed. It was reminiscent of European schools where if the prof was great you just stayed for years in his thrall as it were.

This day, a young man asked, "When did the bourgeoisie first begin to rise. I memorized the Rise of the Bourgeoisie in the fifth grade, and then again in the eighth grade and then again in the eleventh. Prof. when did the Bourgeoisie first begin to rise?"

Our fave prof struggled for control. He wanted just to laugh out loud. he turned to the board and continued to struggle. He was a prince and would not ever embarass a student, but it just struck him how kids at so many levels just down these niblets of info without ever having the faintest idea of what the heck it is all about. CK is right --nned to know but not at this age. Too much just stuffing into immature minds (really memories) and spoils them for real study when they are ready. Seems lot of guilt built into this somehow--the kind of multi-culturalist stuff that can be so awful and even unwittingly condescending

It still goes on. Serious, really good history and Soc Studies is a high school class The problem of course is it is seldom really taught well even then.

Very few of us have any conception whatever of what that curriculum you describe is all about. The poor soldiers we send don't know an iota about what those cultures are all about, how dangerously pervasive tribes and religions and philosophies are and how centuries before their own country even existed these people were warring on plains and deserts, back and forth in ways not even they themselves understand.

I was in Iran at Persepolis when they celebrated its 2500th. birthday (of Persia) which of course is what Iranians are, Persians. That history alone is staggering.
When did the Bourgeoisie first rise, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just an observation re the curiculum for 4th. grade Core Knowledge.
Kids at that age do not have a clue of what that is all about and should not be expected to.

What you don't expect kids to learn, you won't expose them to. You will sell them short.
And then they will have no chance of learning the events and history you didn't think they were capable of understanding.

Personally I expect 9 and 10 year olds to be able to locate countries on a map and be familiar with basic aspects of ancient and modern history. Be familiar does not mean being able to master concepts at an adult level of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just an observation re the curiculum for 4th. grade Core Knowledge.
Kids at that age do not have a clue of what that is all about and should not be expected to.

What you don't expect kids to learn, you won't expose them to. You will sell them short.
And then they will have no chance of learning the events and history you didn't think they were capable of understanding.

Personally I expect 9 and 10 year olds to be able to locate countries on a map and be familiar with basic aspects of ancient and modern history. Be familiar does not mean being able to master concepts at an adult level of course.

I've taught the 4th grade CK Sequence including the units on Islam, Medieval African Kingdoms, and Europe in the Middle Ages. My 4th graders thrived on it. No one was worried about testing. We just immersed ourselves in stories about kings, sultans, knights, and monks, castles, legends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've taught the 4th grade CK Sequence including the units on Islam, Medieval African Kingdoms, and Europe in the Middle Ages. My 4th graders thrived on it. No one was worried about testing. We just immersed ourselves in stories about kings, sultans, knights, and monks, castles, legends.

Thanks for this perspective! While I never taughtthe CK sequence, I did teach 5th graders ancient cultures through EUrope in the middle ages and can also confirm that they were highly interested and engaged in the topics. I'm sure that when they go on to revisit the age in middle or high school, their background knowledge of the basic names, dates, and events will help them be able to understand the more complicated issues.