Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to American Public Schools 1

Diane Ravitch. Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to American Public Schools.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.
As reviewed by Ted Odenwald

Education historian Diane Ravitch recognizes the need for change in America’s schools; in fact, she welcomes it. However, she finds that the privatization reform movement is now threatening the very existence of the public schools. The movement, she argues, is founded on faulty premises about the present state of our schools. These reformers, armed with instruments of measurement that are wielded more as weapons of threat or reward, according to Ravitch, are primarily motivated by greed and are indifferent to both the desires of the community and the societal ills that doom many of our students.

The author’s argument against the privatization movement is direct and powerful. Through a conspiracy of misrepresentation, these reformers have sought to transform the public schools into an entrepreneurial sector of the economy. “They pursue their goals by privatizing education, lowering the qualifications for future teachers, replacing teachers with technology, increasing class size, endorsing for-profit organizations to manage schools, using carrots and sticks to motivate teachers, and elevating standardized test scores as the ultimate measure of education quality.”

According to these reformers, our schools are in decline. “Not so,” says Ravitch. The schools have changed: exceptionally challenging programs such as AP and IB are available for the strongest students—programs not available in America’s “golden age of education”; a much greater number of students with special needs have been detected; a much larger number of students do not speak English; and a much larger number of students of troubled family backgrounds have been identified. In fact the results of the National Association of Education Progress exams have been higher than ever; these are “no stakes” tests which measure both what students have learned and where learning areas have been weak. But these tests are not used to evaluate individual students or teachers. “To the extent that they matter, test scores are rising.”

Ravitch claims that reformers’ contentions that the achievement gaps are widening are disingenuous, as these critics ignore “social and economic conditions that cause systematic disadvantages.”

She claims that striving for high standardized test scores is in itself destructive. “For more than a quarter of a century, the American public has been besieged by politicians and pundits claiming that American schools are disaster areas because we are not at or near the top of the …standings in [international] test scores.” Buying into this thinking, the federal government has “muscled” into the realm of education using money as the stick and carrot for states to force districts to adopt “The Common Core” standards—and to evaluate educators’ performance through the teachers’ ability to raise scores on standardized tests.

Ravitch is appalled that a government dedicated to educational improvement would embrace testing that measures rote memorization and test-taking strategies, while ignoring the qualities for which our schools are admired world-wide: an autonomy of individual school districts through the country to adapt curriculum to the respective environments; the fostering of independent, creative thinking, or the “cultivation of a certain spirit: ambition, inquisitiveness, independence, and…the absence of a fixation on testing and test scores.” Experiences with “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top” have provided basic lessons: tests are most valuable when there are no stakes attached (rewards and punishments); a good evaluation system should ask students to demonstrate and explain what they know and can do—not simply pick a right answer; testing shouldn’t determine what is taught and learned; and testing shouldn’t prioritize skills over school studies.

The author refutes the attacks launched by politicians and for-profit businesses, who are trying to displace public schools. She responds to each of the claims. For example, these critics argue that teachers determine test scores, and therefore, the scores reflect teacher effectiveness. Ravitch says that this claim is based on the myth that great teaching “can overcome the influence of family, poverty, disability status, language proficiency, and individuals’ levels of interest and ability.” These scores, she says, largely reflect whom the teachers teach, not how well they teach.

Ravitch confronts many strategies proposed by reformers. One claim by politicians and reformers is that merit pay will improve achievement. But this “carrot,” according to Ravitch, will “destroy collaboration for a healthy school,” demoralizing staff because of the challenges of administering the program fairly. Some reformers propose virtual schools that would bring “the promise of personalized, customized learning to every student….” She calls virtual schools “cash cows” for their owners, but poor substitutions for real teachers and real schools. These programs would offer low teacher salaries and heavy class loads. Admitting the value of computers in the classroom, Ravitch wonders, “Given the nature of the political process, the question today is whether education technology can be recaptured by educators to benefit students, not investors and stockholders.”

The author argues for several changes that should improve the public education system—changes that should work because they address the real challenges to education:
1) Good prenatal care must be provided for every pregnant woman. Risks of learning disabilities are greatest for those not cared for before birth.
2) High quality early childhood education must be available for all children. While socio-economic level is important, early education “closes the gap.”
3) Every school should have a full, balanced, and rich curriculum, including the non-tested subjects.
4) Class sizes must be reduced to improve behavior and achievement.
5) Ban for-profit charter schools; ensure that charter schools collaborate with public schools to support education for all children.
6) Provide medical and social services for poor children so that they can keep up with their advantaged peers.
7) Eliminate high-stakes exams; provide opportunities for students to show what they know and can do.
8.) Insist that teachers, principals, and superintendents be professional educators.
9) Public schools should be run by elected board members.
10) Devise strategies and specific goals to reduce segregation and poverty.
11) Recognize that public education is a public responsibility not a consumer good.

“The issue for the future,” claims Ravitch, “is whether a small number of very wealthy entrepreneurs, corporations, and individuals will be able to purchase educational policy in this nation, either by funding candidates for local and state school boards, for state legislatures, for governor, and for congress, or by using foundation ‘gifts’ to advance the privatization of public education.” She does not disagree with the idea that the public schools can benefit from reform. But “Genuine reform must be built on hope, not fear; on encouragement, not threats; on inspiration, not compulsion; on trust, not on carrots and sticks; …on support and mutual respect, not a regime of punishment and blame.”

Ravitch concludes by stating her belief that for school reform to be productive and lasting, it “…must rely on collaboration and teamwork among students, parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and local communities.”

Ted Odenwald and his wife, Shirley have lived in Oakland for 43 years. He taught HS English at Glen Rock High School for all of those years plus one more. Now he is enjoying time spent with his family, singing in the North Jersey Chorus and quenching his wanderlust. Ted is also the Worship Leader at the Ramapo Valley Baptist Church in Oakland.