By John Thompson.

Part 1 of this review.

Part 2 of this review.

This post completes a three part series of reviews of The Wisdom and Wit of Diane Ravitch that seeks to hold both Diane Ravitch and corporate school reformers accountable for their analyses, recommendations, and predictions about school improvement. I have sometimes challenged Ravitch, questioning the use of terms like “corporate reform” and “privatizers,” but a careful reading of this new anthology confirms the pattern I have repeatedly witnessed. When she and I disagree, history repeatedly proved me wrong.

Since I have invested so much time trying to communicate with reformers, I wish I could identify mistakes in Ravitch’s writing that we could acknowledge, rectify, and use as an opportunity for a dialogue with test-driven, charter-driven reformers. But, whether you agree or disagree with Ravitch, there is no doubt that she is a meticulous scholar, and I found no such errors.

On the other hand, as the history of school reform unfolds, it becomes harder and harder to explain how sincere and smart reformers could have persisted so long, defending such a reality-free ideology of disruptive transformation. I used to keep revising my diagnoses, each time attributing the Billionaires Boys Club’s disastrous experiments to a greater and greater capacity for hubris. Now, I even have to accept Ravitch’s harshest judgments. She also acknowledged the sincerity of most of the reform movement’s leaders, while explaining why disruptive innovation “doesn’t produce better education, but it produces profits.” Nearly two decades after NCLB, I must agree with Ravitch’s explanation, “Maybe that is the point of disruption.”

Now that Betsy Devos, a funder and an advocate of Michigan’s “choice” campaign, is the Secretary of Education, we should see that state’s outcomes as a prime case study, documenting the legacy of corporate school reform in that state, as well as predicting future outcomes if we cannot find a new method of school improvement. Ravitch cites an Education Trust study which shows:

Among the 2015 NAEP results highlighted in the report:

• Michigan ranked 41st in fourth-grade reading, down from 28th in 2003.

• The state ranked 42nd in fourth-grade math, down from 27 in 2003.

Also, I wish I could disagree, but we owe it to our students to join with Ravitch in admitting, “Don’t like Betsy Devos? Blame the Democrats.”

Of course, we can’t fully explain Devos and Trump by documenting how liberals and neoliberals pushed for test and punish, and privatization, long after those unworthy tactics cratered. Ravitch also cites Gordon Lafer’s description of the role of the rightwing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), in engineering “a revolution of falling expectations.” School reformers of both parties started by winning political victories by taking tough stands against unions, progressive education policies, and the professional autonomy of teachers. Democrats who pushed corporate reform were slow in starting to admit the unintended negative consequences that came from treating students as if they were lab rats. But many are now speaking the truth about Devos and Trump that applies equally to their movement.

Ravitch also offers solutions, albeit through suggesting approaches that were once seen as common sense. First, she offers a pretty traditional, vision of public schools. After witnessing the multiple ways where “‘disruption’ is a disaster for children, families, schools, and communities,” as well as the terrible damage done by creating cultures of competition, it seems to Ravitch that we should stop “thinking about children, teachers, and schools the same way we think about sports teams.”  We should not see schools as a culture which inevitably produces winners and losers. Instead, she asked, “What if we thought of schools as if they were akin to families?”

Second, Ravitch would draw upon the wisdom of Pasi Sahlberg and learn from Finnish schools. Students in Finland are “free from the testing obsession.” They benefit from “bright, cheerful schools where students engaged in music, dramatics, play, and academic studies.” Finnish teachers benefit from collaboration and professional conversations, and are guided by intrinsic motivation as opposed to bonuses and fear of firing. Also, teaching is advanced by a system that addresses students’ problems early before they spin out of control. Ravitch noted that “50 percent of students receive attention from specialists in the early years of schooling.”

Thirdly, Ravitch’s witty response to the repeated call for 21^st century skills (often by reformers who have turned schools into Model T assembly lines) was to propose a “Partnership for 19th Century Skills:”

This partnership will advocate for such skills, values, and understandings as:

The love of learning

The pursuit of knowledge

The ability to think for oneself (individualism)

The ability to work alone (initiative)

The ability to stand alone against the crowd (courage)

The ability to work persistently at a difficult task until it is finished (industriousness) (self-discipline)

The ability to think through the consequences of one’s actions on others (respect for others)

The ability to consider the consequences of one’s actions on one’s well-being (self-respect)

The recognition of higher ends than self-interest (honor)

The ability to comport oneself appropriately in all situations (dignity)

The recognition that civilized society requires certain kinds of behavior by individuals and groups (good manners) (civility)

The ability to believe in principles larger than one’s own self-interest (idealism)

The willingness to ask questions when puzzled (curiosity)

The readiness to dream about other worlds, other ways of doing things (imagination)

The ability to believe that one can improve one’s life and the lives of others (optimism)

The ability to speak well and write grammatically, using standard English (communication)

Ravitch invited readers “to submit other 19th century skills that we should cultivate assiduously among the rising generation.” How should we contribute to happier lives and a better world for our students? Do we need to see the complete defeat of corporate school reform before we can restore these qualities in classrooms?