Part 1: Ravitch versus Rhee & their contrasting theories of change

If you like a good ed policy fight, then you know Diane Ravitch. Even critics like The New Republic call her "the education world's most prominent intellectual." She's a famous historian, best known for her writing on New York City's public schools. She used to be considered on the right wing of education policy -- she worked in George H.W. Bush's Ed Department, among other gigs -- but switched sides and is now a staunch "anti-reformist." 

You also have likely heard of Michelle Rhee. The founder of The New Teacher Project turned DC Public Schools' chancellor, Rhee has, in many ways, taken over the public space that Ravitch used to occupy in reformist circles. In her current job as head of StudentsFirst, she has been vocal about how American public education stacks up against other countries.

If you need a more detailed introduction to these women, I suggest the following:

• For Ravitch, Kevin Carey wrote a profile in The New Republic, "The Dissenter." To get both sides, also check out the rebuttal by Diana Senechal. 

• For Rhee, Clay Risen's "The Lightning Rod" in The Atlantic is a good starting place. Richard Whitmire also wrote an biography of her, The Bee Eater. If these are too complimentary for you, well, just read Ravitch's blog.

Ravitch recently published an op-ed on CNN that, predictably, is both critical of Rhee and garnered a lot of attention in edublogging world. It's also one of the shorter things that Ravitch's written that's not a tweet. (Admittedly, she tweets a lot.) I wanted to fully excerpt her work this time (only 1/3 of the article today; parts 2 & 3 are coming in the next few days) I think this article is representative of so many published that are meant to defend the status quo. This comes at the expense of grappling with the complicated reality of teaching kids who are least served by the way our system has been run for decades.

Given that I've read a lot of Ravitch's work (it's impossible to get out of a respectable graduate program in education without doing so), I thought her op-ed was beneath her standards. Judge for yourself below, but I thought her points were slipshod and the writing sloppy. I also disagree with a lot in Ravitch's article in the NY Review of Books, but at least it was better put together. It's obvious here that Ravitch just despises Rhee and dumps everything in the rhetorical toolbox on her. 

My bias: I'm much more sympathetic to Rhee. She's gotten a lot of the big things right (improving teacher quality is critical to improving student achievement; the DC public schools were a complete mess when she took over and needed a radical overhaul) with only a few misses (I wouldn't have invited a film crew to watch me fire someone; I wouldn't have let a TIME magazine photographer take a picture of me with a broom). 

The flaws I see in Rhee are mostly of style; Ravitch is wrong on the substance. I can see why these two people are at crosshairs: they have contrasting theories of change. Rhee's is built around bringing in top teacher talent and empowering parent choice. Ravitch's seems to be that our education system should stay pretty much the way it is until the U.S. has Finland's poverty rate. 

****

Here we go. Ravitch:

A few days ago, CNN interviewed former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee about American education. Rhee, predictably, said that American education is terrible, that test scores are flat, and that we are way behind other nations on international tests.

It would be nice if Ravitch would actually quote Rhee saying that all of American education is terrible. Since she didn't, I watched the video in question. What Rhee said is that public education by and large serves low-income kids poorly. This is true.

Ravitch: 

I disagree with Rhee. She constantly bashes American education, which is one of the pillars of our democratic society. Our public schools educate 90% of the population, and we should give the public schools some of the credit for our nation’s accomplishments as the largest economy and the greatest engine of technological innovation in the world.

It's true that America's done many things well during past few decades. However, when 70% of Metro Nashville graduates aren't college-ready, that tells me either one of two things is happening:

• 70% of MNPS graduates don't have the ability to go to college and be successful
-or-
• Our public schools are systemically failing huge chunks of the population.

Rhee doesn't bash American education as a whole. She bashes a system that treats brilliant teachers the same as terrible ones and perpetuates a cycle of poverty rather than offering kids a way out. 

In the NAEP statistics Ravitch cites below, Rhee's other point is proven: test scores pretty much are flat.

It’s time to set the record straight. The only valid measure of academic performance in our schools is the federal test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP has been testing American students since the early 1970s.

The NAEP test scores of American students are at their highest point in history: for black students, white students, Hispanic students, and Asian students. 

The same NAEP report card Ravitch cites also says the following: 

The 25-point score gap between White and Black students in 2011 was not significantly different from the gap in 2009....The 24-point score gap between White and Hispanic students in 2011 was not significantly different from the gap in either 2009 or 1992.

This is textbook example of missing the forest for the trees. Back to Ravitch:

They are at their highest point in history in fourth grade and in eighth grade, in reading and math.

By a single point -- the trend has essentially flatlined for the past decade. Check out the graph: (h/t NAEP)

I wouldn't hang my scholarly reputation on that sort of upward trend, but maybe we have different standards. 

Ravitch:

As for the international test scores, which Rhee loves to recite to knock our public schools, she is obviously unaware that our nation has never had high scores on those tests. When the first international test was given in 1964, our students ranked 11^th out of 12 nations.  Yet our nation went on to become the most powerful economy in the world.

In the 50 years since then, we have regularly scored in the bottom quartile on the international tests or at best, at the international average. Clearly, the international scores do not predict our future as we are the dominant economy in the world despite the scores.

What is Ravitch trying to prove here? Is there some sort of negative causation between international tests and economic growth that the world's economists have never told us about? I wasn't aware that international tests were meant to predict a nation's economic future; I just thought they were meant to provide some sort of comparative analysis of K12 systems worldwide. Ravitch uses them for the former; Rhee, the latter. You tell me which one is using the data as intended. 

Of course, there is some connection between the public education system and the health of a nation's economy. However, it's complicated because, as Ravitch inadvertantly illustrates, it's hard to draw causation between large-scale tests and macroeconomic analysis. 

In any case, the real scandal in American education -- and what Rhee talks about constantly -- is the achievement gap between wealthy versus poor students and white and Asian students versus Hispanic and black students. This is proven by the very NAEP scores Ravitch cites. 

This gets to the core of my issue with Ravitch: the effect of her current advocacy is to defend the system that's given us these indefensible results. 

Rhee unapologetically proclaims that these results are unacceptable because they're hurting tens of thousands of kids. She pushes for radical change on their behalf. Ravitch essentially argues that it would be worse to change than do something about these results. 

At the end of the day, Ravitch is pushing for radical complacency. 

I'll comment on the rest of the article tomorrow.