Introduction
In the past few decades, the notion that the American school system disintegrating has spread widely amongst the populace. It is based on the performance of students on specific standardized tests. The statistical information on the performance of students in various schools was then taken up and studied by historian, professor and former U.S. assistant secretary of education Diane Ravitch. She is one of the extremely few people who took up the duty of documenting the changes that the American public school system has been undergoing. She has published several books; the most recent being Reign of Error, she delineates the entire arc of the reform movement. However, it all started with the book, A Nation at Risk, of 1983, through the No Child Left Behind campaign of former President George Bush to the plans that were set by also the former president, Barack Obama (Behind, 2001). In her publications, she mentions all the important participants and explains their connections and moves concerning the education system of the country. In this paper, her latest book will be reviewed for a better understanding of how the public-school system is deteriorating and how her suggestions can be implemented.
Summary and Concerns
As stated in the introduction, the past few decades have been difficult for the American public-school system as there have been rumors circulating that it is falling apart. Very few people such as Ravitch engaged in the task of collecting all the statistical information on the performance of students on the standardized examinations (Ravitch, Marchant & David, 2014). The primary purpose of studying the data collected is to interpret the failures that spread the myth. In her book, she stated that apart from students who are from low-income neighborhoods as they demonstrated struggling results, the rest of the student population was satisfactory. She further says that the misconception of the public-school system failing is what inspired former president George Bush to bring about the No Child Left Behind policy. The policy was designed to increase student performance by threatening to close any that did not ensure that 100% of their students demonstrated competence on the standardized tests (Fusarelli, 2004). This brought about charter schools in communities that were affected by the government closure of their regional public schools. They promised communities that they could save their children by presenting parents with a choice (Bhattacharyya, Junot, & Clark, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The most important part of the book is the understanding of how charter schools operate and how they changed with time. In its initial phase, charter schools were small groups of public teachers who desired to try a new strategy of teaching struggling students (Ravitch, 2013). They would be allowed to start their public school of a specified period and then share their findings on how to deal with struggling students with the original school. However, according to Ravich what happened is that for-profit companies started chains of charter schools that operated on a profit basis hiring the cheapest teachers available. This in mind, for each child taught they received public funds to continue with the initial design plan of charter schools. This effectively drained the funds to local public schools resulting in poorer performances ( Ravitch, 2013). With specific legislation in place, charter schools are exempted from federal oversight allowing them to operate without public regulations. Ravitch’s data identified that the majority of these charter schools performed with similar results as the public schools they replaced. With the closure of low performing government schools continuing, the millions in funding were all funneled to the private schools that are yet to prove their worth.
Though the reforms that were implemented targeted teachers for being the source of low student performance, it completely ignored other social factors such as poverty. Low-income has been found to be highly correlated to poor student performance and in the second half of the book gives her detailed opinion on what she thinks should happen (Ravitch, 2013). Currently, the American public-school system is undergoing privatization with for-profit companies teaching on the basis of making money as well as receiving funds from the government (Verger, Fontdevilla, & Zancajo, 2016). Instead, Ravitch suggests that more should be done for public schools such as increasing investors, improving services for low-income communities; the curriculum should be made resonant and extensive. Finally, teachers should use the most important tests with the sole purpose of diagnosing students in need of more attention (Earl, Hargreaves, & Ryan, 2013). Though her vision is complex and costly as compared to the currently used model by the government, the beneficiaries are the communities as they are able to receive quality rather than quantity. Ravitch’s vision is based on having more qualified teachers who receive training frequently on new teaching mechanisms and the obligation the public shares of educating the next generation. Her book provides a more in-depth understanding as to how things operate in the education system as well as after completing school (Ravitch, 2013). She expands on why people spend a lot of time on test preparations and also why securing jobs over the past few years has become more difficult. The picture she presents to the readers is clear to the extent that suggestions can be added to those that she made over the matter.
Suggestions
Diane Ravitch paints a clear picture as to why privatization is not the best way to solve the situation the nation is experiencing regarding the public-school system. She proposes in detail that prekindergarten programs should be expanded, this will introduce children to the ecstatic thrill of playing and learning at the same time (Ravitch, 2013). Moreover, extensive medical and mental health requirements should be provided. This allows students to have a care and guidance they need as they pursue their education, this, in other words, means that every public school should have a qualified nurse, psychiatrist, and counselor (Ravitch, 2013). The classes should be smaller, and testing should be diagnostic rather than standardized showing what the child needs concerning educational assistance.
She states that considering the nation prefers international comparison; she picked Finland and how their public-school system operates. The system is built on the basis that she recommended unlike what is actually in place (Ravitch, 2013). However, she states the main difference why the two developed nations’ schooling systems are not similar is the social limitation. While Finland has less than 5% of its students from low-income communities, the American percentage is higher at 23%. Another attribute of Diane Ravitch is her boldness in naming people who she finds responsible for the privatization of the American public-school system (Ravitch, 2013). From the political standpoint, there was an element of frustrations in the schooling system, in that individuals like Arne Duncan, Joel Klein, Bill Gates, Wendy Kopp and Michelle Rhee with their barrels of money intended on privatizing the public-school system are responsible for her strategies not being able to be implemented. She has also appreciated other influential figures in the political scene who have noted the dismantling of public schools and offered support where needed (Ravitch, 2016).
Moreover, to focus more social and environmental aspect, she clearly stated over and over that, “Our urban schools are in trouble because of concentrated poverty and racial segregation,” which to her is a toxic mix (Ravitch, 2016). With the demonstration given previously of Finland and The United States of America, it is clear that Finland has a better-funded education system which allows them to implement costly strategies to the issue of public education (Berliner, 2013). This has resulted in the high literacy rates and exemplary performance of students in their public schools. America, on the other hand, has a higher percentage of both low-income communities that has resulted in increased violence in the respective areas (Darling ‐ Hammond, 2007). This provides an environment that is not suitable for educating students thus the weak performance of students from poor communities (Berliner, 2013). Additionally, the teaching faculty of such institutions has developed attitudes and assumptions that have lowered the quality of education they offer. This can be regarded as one of the main reasons the government stated that teachers are to blame for low performances from students.
Though the paper has mostly focused on the negative aspects of Diane Ravitch’s book, it should be noted that there are privately owned as well as non-governmental institutions in place that are trying to improve the public-school system or on the contrary ‘replace’ should be under the government watch, they should not completely take over the schooling system (Ravitch, 2013). By government implementing some of Ravitch’s suggestions, we will uplift our schools. Nonetheless, the results are not expected to be only just game-changing, but also provide the needed platform that can inspire others to do more to educate the nation's children.
Conclusion
The book Reign of Error, Diane Ravitch directly and factually calls out the privatization movement taking place in the nation as a hoax and danger to the school system. This action is the primary fuel to the myth of the failing public school system she has over the years demonstrated that the main problem is the system and not the teachers or the facilities. With reduced funding to public schools and more funding in charter schools, public schools are left to fend for themselves as educational demands increase. Though the suggestions she has provided are costly, they are beneficial to the communities and their children.
References
Behind, N. C. L. (2001). No child left behind. Title III: Language instruction for .
Berliner, D. (2013). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s youth. Teachers College Record , 115 (12), 1-26.
Bhattacharyya, S., Junot, M., & Clark, H. (2013). Can you hear us? Voices raised against standardized testing by novice teachers. Creative Education , 4 (10), 633.
Darling ‐ Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education , 10 (3), 245-260.
Earl, L., Hargreaves, A., & Ryan, J. (2013). Schooling for change: Reinventing education for early adolescents . Routledge.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational policy , 18 (1), 71-94.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America's public schools . Vintage.
Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education . Basic Books.
Ravitch, D., Marchant, G. J., & David, K. A. (2014). The leader of the resistance: An interview with Diane Ravitch. The Teacher Educator , 49 (3), 166-174.
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The privatization of education: A political economy of global education reform . Teachers College Press.
