Education Historian
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Diane Ravitch is Research Professor of Education at New York University, a historian of education, and author of more than ten books—including The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (2003) and The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (2010). Ravitch served as Assistant Secretary of Education from 1991 to 1993 during the administration of George H. W. Bush. When she was Assistant Secretary, she led the federal effort to promote the creation of voluntary state and national academic standards. “From 1997 to 2004, she was a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the federal testing program. She was appointed by the Clinton administration’s Secretary of Education Richard Riley in 1997 and reappointed by him in 2001. From 1995 until 2005, she held the Brown Chair in Education Studies at the Brookings Institution and edited Brookings Papers on Education Policy. Before entering government service, she was Adjunct Professor of History and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.”
Ravitch, once a champion of charter schools, supported the No Child Left Behind initiative. After careful investigation, Ravitch changed her mind and became one of our country’s most well-known critics of charter-based education. She believes that “the privatization of public education has to stop.” In late March, Ravitch sat down with Bill Moyers on Moyers & Company to discuss the subject of privatizing of public schools—which has become “big business as bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity investors are entering what they consider to be an ‘emerging market.’” You can view a video of that program, Public Schools for Sale?, below the fold.
Public Schools for Sale?
SOURCES
Public Schools for Sale? (Moyers & Company)
Charter Schools Gone Wild: Study Finds Widespread Fraud, Mismanagement and Waste (Moyers and Company)
Diane Ravtich: Curriculum Vitae
FURTHER READING
A Look at Some of the Driving Forces behind the School Reform Movement and the Effort to Privatize Public Education (Res Ipsa Loquitor)
Charter Schools and The Profit Motive (Res Ipsa Loquitor)
From the ABC’s of Privatizing Public Education: A Is for ALEC, I is for iPad…and P Is for Profits (Res Ipsa Loquitor)
Elaine,
Public school/college is not about education, it is about redistribution of wealth.
Why are union teachers (when they’re not on strike) so afraid of free markets? Why are they horrified of professional scrutiny? How do they rationalize robbing the infinitely “deep pocketed” taxpayers?
*****
“Who’s being robbed? I live in Massachusetts. The tax rate on our former governor Mitt Romeny’s unearned income was less than half that of working folks’ earned income.
Why would a society want to educate its children? We should abolish public education. Too bad if your parents are poor and can’t afford to send you to school. It would be better if the United States emulated third world countries.
Why can’t young kids get jobs and pay for their schooling?”
If the Preamble and Constitution are anything they are self-reliance. Why don’t you start a pettiton that says your group wants to replace the Constitution with the Communist Manifesto. That would clarify much. Unless they are the same.
The last time I checked, parents were responsible for their children. There Is no need for any further discussion in which you hide behind children, unless, of course, it has, very honorably, to do with private orphanages. If you have children, take care of them. Where in the Constitution do you find a mandate that I take care of another man’s children? Did Jefferson write that? Also, that favorite refrain of illegal aliens, “keep families together,” I wholeheartedly agree with – DEPORT THE WHOLE FAMILY TOGETHER per the law. Thank you.
Alternatively, you can collectivize the entire “society” under the Communist Manifesto. I think that’ what Joe McCarthy told us you were doing. And you called him wrong. Talk about newspeak. Which is it? You are a patriotic American who believes in the Communist Manifesto?
Call me stupid.
So let me get this right. If an American citizen thinks that our Constitution is dynamic then that person isn’t patriotic, that person is a communist? I “appreciate” my country so much that I believe I am within my 1st Amendment right to describe the Constitution as a living one, not dead, dead, dead as Scalia said.
The people have the right to private property, general welfare (not individual) and “the blessings of liberty.” Now let me guess. Taking money from one man to give it to another is part of the right to private property and a “blessing of liberty.”
I’m right and I’m blessed.
Let’s see, you were told to promote general welfare, not individual welfare.
So let’s amend what we were provided in our foundational Constitution. That dudn’t make any sense.
It’s really easy to understand that FREEDOM was established by the Founders and for those of you who can’t grasp the concept of freedom, there are the Preamble and the writings of the Founders to clarify things for you. Self-reliance is self evident.
Madison did not expect any amendments after he covered everything with his Bill of Rights. Amendments were to be so rare as to be almost nonexistent. Who are you to go against Madison? Madison believed that amendments would eventually destroy the Constitution…I think we’re there.
You can amend but you can’t nullify. What’s your “new” idea that exceeds the merits of freedom and self-reliance? The Communist Manifesto.
Oops! I think I just exposed you. I think I just hit the nail on the head. I think I hit a nerve. You want to be a communist and live in the city of Delusion in the great state of Utopia, right?
Just about every amendment since the Bill of Rights should have been honored and celebrated as historic demonstrations of compassion, and then summarily rejected by the SCOTUS as entirely antithetical and unconstitutional.
The singular American failure has been the SCOUTS which should have been prosecuted long ago for dereliction, corruption and abuse of power through subjective, arbitrary and ideological decisions. The SCOTUS was supposed to be the literal, living breathing Constitution clarified by the writings of the Founders and the Preamble. It is impossible for the Constitution to be read and understood nine different ways. Decisions shall be by consensus lest intrigue exists.
Karen, “There can be no freedom without choice.”
Steve, What you have to realize is there are people who do not appreciate this country, are embarrassed to be US citizens, and feel obliged to apologize to the world for our shortcomings. Lord yes, we are far from perfect. But, I have been to 3 continents and this is where I want to live. Hell, we have children from Central America crossing mountains and deserts to come here by the thousands. This is where people from around the world want to live. Our Constitution is @ the core of why people want to live her. It provides freedom and opportunity.
Race to the top, promoted by the bottom feeders.
Annie:
I believe the Constitution allowed for those changes to take place. Lets see, oh I just cant think of it, oh yes:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Personally, I am in perpetual gratitude for what the founders did for us, in all of recorded human history, our government was the first to say people have a right to their own life. That it doesnt belong to the state or to a prince but to the citizen himself.
I believe in individual liberty as an absolute right. Sure we have to follow laws but proper laws expand and protect individual rights.
Steve – good point.
The Constitution is not a “living document” malleable to changing mores. It is static, which is why there is a system to amend it.
Taking away charter schools takes away choices. It is a sad fact that there are failing public schools. Unless you are wealthy and can afford a private education, right now charters and home schooling are the only other options, other than moving.
My local public school has problems with bad teachers and violence. It is low performing. A neighboring city’s public school has worse problems with gangs. My local charter school is top performing, with zero violence.
Gee . . . tough decision.
I guess people who want to take choices away from parents think they would be helping kids out by forcing them to attend these poor performing public schools, where bad teachers cannot be fired.
Kellam,
If a bank had no vulnerabilities, why was it robbed 100 times. Because there are bad guys out there. Seriously?
You’d better check Madison. He didn’t want amendments but would accede grudgingly if it were proven that the government was abusing its power against the people. He went on to cover what needed to be covered by writing the Bill of Rights. There were no amendments until God told “Crazy Abe” to nullify the whole Constitution. Oh yeah. To paraphrase old “Crazy Abe,” “To hell with the right to private property, the right to divorce of people in a union, and let’s start an internecine war against our political opponents.” “Hell, yeah.” “I can do that, even in the absence of a quorum.” “I’m not one branch, I’m the whole damn tree.”
How about those Prohibition histrionics? Madison would have loved that. Actually, his greatest fear was that the Constitution would be destroyed in the act of amending it. He didn’t want amendments; he didn’t need amendments.
Don’t confuse corruption, perversion and Bernanke’s (i.e. bankster, the very definition of corruption) “evolution” of the Constitution with legitimate and imperative amendments, keeping in mind that Madison wanted none and believed none were necessary or appropriate, period.
If everyone in history saw the Consitution as so sacred as to be untouchable, the Amendments would never have happened.
Bob,
Nothing at all wrong with being loyal to the Constitution, but worship is another thing altogether. What I’m pointing out here is that it is cult like to adhere to anything absolutely. Absolutism is dangerous.
Annie: “What I see is a Cult of the Constitutionalists.”
And loyalty to the constitution is a bad thing how?
Nick,
I know. I never cease to be amazed by the willful ignorance demonstrated by so many citizens that are lucky enough to live in this Nation yet take little or no time to actually learn our history.
Color me simple, but I’ve always believed that regardless of one’s party affiliation or political views, to be an American and not be in awe of the Constitution is to not understand it.
“In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example . . . of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.” James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792
“Annie
If the Constitution had no faults, why was it amended 27 times?”
Because the Founders knew it would need to be changed. They knew they were not perfect and couldn’t foresee what the Republic would face in the future.
Therefore they built in a mechanism to change it as the Republic grew and faced new challenges.
They key is they built in a LEGAL way to change the law, through amendments.
The fact they made the document amendable speaks to the brilliance of the Constitution as well as the men who endeavored to craft it.
Steve, Don’t waste your time. Cultists are impervious to history, logic, facts, or reason.
“Annie
The Constitution was written by fallible man, not Divine God.”
Do you not recognize your hypocrisy?
You applaud and encourage the actions of a single man that willfully abuses the power of his office and violates the law to expand government’s reach and authority.
You then saw the Constitution was written by fallible men.
That’s why THEY WROTE IT! They knew they were fallible. They knew all men are fallible.
“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” James Madison
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.” John Adams
So John,
Would one be a communist if they agreed that it is constitutional to tax the citizens beyond government operations? How are you defining government operations? Would it be unconstitutional to give subsidies to Exxon and other large corporations because they are not involved in government operations?
OK, now I’m truly done, sorry again Elaine.
If the Constitution had no faults, why was it amended 27 times? What I see is a Cult of the Constitutionalists.
Annie – the Constitution was not amended 27 times. The first 10 really count as one.amending process. One amendment is to correct the horrid legal and social problems brought on by another amendment, which was brought to us when women got the vote and men were still in France fighting WWI. One was to set up the income tax. One was a repeat of one that went out with the first ten but was turned down, direct election of Senators. Etc, etc., etc.