Should we absolve Diane Ravitch of her earlier decisions?
[I’m going to state up front that I’m just thinking out loud here. Some of you are not going to like that I even dared to ask this.]
Diane Ravitch: eminent educational historian, former United States Assistant Secretary of Education, New York University professor, and policy-influencer.
Diane Ravitch: author of The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, by far the sharpest analysis of P-12 textbooks and curricula that I’ve ever read.
Diane Ravitch: former proponent of the No Child Left Behind Act, standardized testing, charter schools, and market-based school reform.
Diane Ravitch: current critic of the No Child Left Behind Act, standardized testing, charter schools, and market-based school reform (in her most recent book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education).
With publication of her new book, many are hailing Dr. Ravitch as one of public education’s great heroes and advocates. I confess that I’m struggling with this. She’s done nearly a complete 180, reversing her position on numerous policy fronts. What she now condemns are issues for which she not only advocated but helped implement during her tenure at the United States Department of Education. And now she thinks they’re all bad.
Should she get a free pass? Should past critics absolve her of her earlier decision-making?
After all, many believe that, thanks to her and others, the negative impacts on students and schools have been substantial, resulting in significant long-term harm to our educational system and society.
After all, it wasn’t like the reasons that she cites now for her reversal weren’t raised as red flags back then. Take a look at the past writings of Alfie Kohn, Susan Ohanian, and others. All of the criticisms that she raises now were cited long ago, at the time of her decision-making.
And so I ask…
What should we do with Diane Ravitch? Welcome her back into the fold of public education advocates? Do we just say, “Oh, hey, glad you now see the light. Thanks for joining us!” Or do we continue to condemn her for past actions, believing that current contrition is not enough?
Your thoughts on this?
Sharon Salzberg, world-renowned mindfulness leader, teaches meditation at Big Think Edge.
- Try meditation for the first time with this guided lesson or, if you already practice, enjoy being guided by a world-renowned meditation expert.
- Sharon Salzberg teaches mindfulness meditation for Big Think Edge.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
The 21st century is experiencing an Asianization of politics, business, and culture.
- Our theories about the world, even about history or the geopolitics of the present, tend to be shaped by Anglo perspectives of the Western industrial democracies, particularly those in the United States and the United Kingdom.
- The West, however, is not united. Canada, for instance, acts in many ways that are not in line with American or British policies, particularly in regard to populism. Even if it were united, though, it would not represent most of the world's population.
- European ideas, such as parliamentary democracy and civil service, spread across the world in the 19th century. In the 20th century, American values such as entrepreneurialism went global. In the 21st century, however, what we're seeing now is an Asianization — an Asian confidence that they can determine their own political systems, their own models, and adapt to their own circumstances.
They didn't know it, but the rituals of Iron Age Scandinavians turned their iron into steel.
- Iron Age Scandinavians only had access to poor quality iron, which put them at a tactical disadvantage against their neighbors.
- To strengthen their swords, smiths used the bones of their dead ancestors and animals, hoping to transfer the spirit into their blades.
- They couldn't have known that in so doing, they actually were forging a rudimentary form of steel.
Can sensitive coral reefs survive another human generation?
- Coral reefs may not be able to survive another human decade because of the environmental stress we have placed on them, says author David Wallace-Wells. He posits that without meaningful changes to policies, the trend of them dying out, even in light of recent advances, will continue.
- The World Wildlife Fund says that 60 percent of all vertebrate mammals have died since just 1970. On top of this, recent studies suggest that insect populations may have fallen by as much as 75 percent over the last few decades.
- If it were not for our oceans, the planet would probably be already several degrees warmer than it is today due to the emissions we've expelled into the atmosphere.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.