Customer Reviews

Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have personally known Brookings Institution education scholar Diane Ravitch for almost five years. She has become my most trusted adviser on education issues. We have debated frequently and disagree occasionally, but we are in complete agreement on the most important issue of all, the need to restore explicit and systematic instruction in American classrooms, at least as a choice for those educators and parents who fervently believe that traditional/classical education is best for children.

I have just completed reading her latest book, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, which is the culmination of a dozen years of research and writing. Although I am very knowledgeable about the history of the two opposing philosophies of education (progressivism vs. traditionalism/classicalism), Dr. Ravitch's book introduced new material to me on every page. This is a must-read book for all education professionals and education policy makers and I encourage parents to read this book so that they more fully understand the schools their children attend and the education their children are receiving.

The book provides detailed information about significant people throughout the 20th century who have influenced American education to this day. One thought-provoking chapter explains how leading progressivist John Dewey and project method advocate William Heard Kilpatrick were impressed with the progressive education in schools in the former Soviet Union in the early decades of the 20th century. Dr. Ravitch writes on page 209 that Dewey was convinced that "education was the key to social transformation, for he wrote repeatedly that the most significant aspect of the Russian Revolution was not political or economic but psychological, moral, and intellectual."

Another chapter explains the history of intelligence testing and how IQ scores have been used throughout the past century to prevent children from receiving an academic education. Another chapter discusses how a former Harvard president, James B. Conant, influenced the current state of high school education in America. Dr. Ravitch writes on page 364 that "Conant almost obsessively insisted that the schools must stand firm against parents who wanted their children to take academic courses even though they were not `academically talented.'...Counselors would have to be prepared to persuade `overambitious parents' that their child was not `academically talented.' To withstand `unreasonable parental pressures,' schools would have to insist upon `policy' - that is, a consistent bureaucratic defense of what was done and not done..."

Dr. Ravitch does identify problems that exist in American education, but her message is not a pessimistic one, but is a message of hope. By better understanding the history of American education in the past century, our American system of education will move forward in a positive direction for our children and our nation.

Since the death of Lawrence Cremin, Diane Ravitch has been the nation's premier education historian, especially adept at tracing and untangling the knotty history of philosophies, ideas and ideologies-and their influence on the policies and practices of our schools.

Left Back is her most important work yet, a magisterial account of the ideas-mostly bad ones-that for a century and more have persisted as the intellectual mainstream of the education profession, gushing forth from the ed schools and teacher colleges into hundreds of thousands of classrooms and touching the lives of tens of millions of children.

It is not, for the most part, a happy tale. It is more like a chronicle of folly, folly that has blindly and stubbornly persisted in the face of piles of research, tons of experience and oceans of common sense. Why and how it endured and spread and came to dominate the practice of education in America-to the immense disadvantage of our children, especially the neediest among them-is the main thrust of Left Back.

But this tale has heroes, too, men and women who swam against the stream's flow, who listened to common sense, heeded experience and paid attention to evidence. Their endurance in the face of heavy odds and sometimes heavy abuse is heartening to those in the year 2000 who persist in trying to revitalize American education despite the many forces arrayed against them.

Anyone who would understand how American education came to be the way it is needs to attend to the lessons imparted by this superb work of intellectual and educational history.

After over twenty-five years as a public school teacher/administator finally I am able to read something that speaks the truth! Ravitch's book is honest, thorough and refreshing. She has provided the reader with a detailed synthesis of the varied and many educational reforms of the past hundred years. She analyzes "the flavor of the month" reforms of the last century for what they really are - just another distraction; another diversion - that prevent the teacher from teaching. Bravo someone has finally told our story. Teachers read this book!

Diane Ravitch's LEFT BACK is a triumph-her best book yet. America's foremost historian of education-knows how to write, how to think and think deeply. Ravitch has an Orwell-like integrity and clarity in her writing and she gives credit where it is due to great writers and educational theories of the "Progressive" non-traditional perspective such as Theodore R. Sizer, Deborah Meier and Howard Gardner. One has a very real sense while reading LEFT BACK that the Age of Dewey is being eclipsed by a rising new sun with a positive, intelligent vision for better schools for all the children. What is at stake is no less than the survival and success of our country, our civilization and our Democracy for as Ravitch compelling writes " the society that allows large numbers of its citizens to remain uneducated, ignorant or semi-literate squanders its greatest asset, the intelligence of its people" and "knowledge built up by the human race over many centuries {is} a precious heritage that must be taught to each succeeding generation in order for progress to continue."Ravitch's highly readable tale explains that the decline of American education in general and public schools in particular is a very real fact. Some of the blame, surely, is due to wrong-headed educational policies and an unwillingness by educational leaders to identify failures or to take responsibility for them.

The Guru par excellence of American educational theory is the celebrated and almost universally praised John Dewey. Ravitch shows that this demigod of Progressive Education had feet of clay and a narrow vision. John Dewey dismissed critics who called for a defense of academic rigor as "reactionaries in politics and economics". Dewey's colleagues William Kilpatrick, George S. Counts and Boyd H. Bode had an even narrower vision. Yet these are the men who were leaders in the educational field in the first half of the twentieth century and whose works are still avidly studied and quoted in schools of education around the nation as if they were gospel, negative evidence from the real world notwithstanding.

It is sobering to read of Kilpatrick demonizing the noble and wise Robert Maynard Hutchins as "stand{ing} near to Hitler" essentially because Hutchins held opposing views and was, at the same time( infuriatingly), a successful author and educator as President of the University of Chicago. It is sobering to read of Dewey's praise of the Soviet Union, and his reticence in opposing the `brutal pessimism" of educational "experts" like Lewis Tearman. Tearman, like many other devotees in the intelligence testing movement, perverted Alfred Binet's humanistic ideas and flirted with eugenics and xenophobia. Chillingly, Tearman even advocated poor Blacks and Hispanics " should not be allowed to reproduce." Ravitch details Tearman's popularity and influence in the educational field and his debates with the unsung William Bagley and the independent thinker Walter Lippman. Ravitch details this still relevant and largely untold tale of debate concerning the very nature of equality, freedom and educational opportunity.

Other heroes in Ravitch's book are W.E.B. Du Bois and Kenneth B. Clark. Ravitch makes it clear that despite the tragic intellectual denouement of the alienated and embittered Du Bois, his ideas and writings are vital not only for the study of educational practices but for the promise of a better

future for America's poor and minority children. Clark was a Cassandra of his time when he charged that lowering educational standards to retain children was a fatal shift from rigorous, formal instruction to custodial care. Yet as Ravitch points out the 60's was not a renaissance of standards in education as the word "requirements" became anathema, retention and social promotion flourished.

Of course, critics of Ravitch's work might dismiss this book as a polemic against public schools and a manifesto for privatization and voucherism. But Ravitch, a product of Houston's public schools, hardly mentions vouchers in her book because she knows that vouchers by themselves are no answer, without accountability and a professional corps of professional quality teachers. Ravitch knows many approaches and many kinds of schools can be successful and writes "the fundamental factor in education was the quality of classroom teachers."

Ravitch's primary concern is the quality of education for all America's children.

Ravitch's LEFT BACK makes a compelling argument that American schools have lost their way by falling into three fundamental errors to which this reviewer would like to add a fourth.

The first error is thinking that schools, can remedy all of society's dilemmas and difficulties. Some things can't be cured instantly and must surely be endured even as they are alleviated or contained.

The second error is the (undemocratic) belief that we must write off cohorts of underperforming students as incorrigible. Developing the extraordinary talent of ordinary people from anywhere is the essence of America's greatness.

The third error, and perhaps the most dangerous error gripping American schools, is the notion that schools can "minimize (or ignore) the transmission of knowledge" in favor of utilitarian training in trades, computers and mere socialization. As Ravitch writes "Technology can supplement schooling but not replace it; even the most advanced electronic technologies are incapable of turning their worlds of information into mature knowledge, a form of intellectual magic that requires skilled and educated teachers."

The fourth error would be not reading LEFT BACK. As Arthur Schlesinger, jr. has said " No one should hold forth on the problems of American schools without reading this valuable book - and that goes for presidential candidates, too."

LEFT BACK is an important book, a good book, perhaps even a great book, that should become required reading at all universities and schools of education. If public education is to survive it must make room for vigorous self-criticism and opposing points of view from great men and women like Isaac Handel, William T. Harris, and the fair-minded Diane Ravitch herself.

Once again, Diane Ravitch demonstrates why she is one of America's most respected educators. Now as communities turn to local control over the educational process, this book is a must read for all parents, educators and taxpayers who continually are asked to fund "new" education reforms. This book does not allow education to be a designated political "hot potato" - instead Ravitch introduces fresh thoughts with a blend of realistic history as a foundation. Buy a copy to read and then supply your local school board officials with an additional copy!

For the layman who is interested in gaining insight about the thinking, and decisions that have gone into educating our children, this book is an absolute must. For the uninitiated, who haven't a clue about where the ideas for educating our children came from, this book is the place to go.

Diane Ravitch pulls no punches in this book. She goes right after the social engineers who tried to manipulate children into following a certain career path, instead of preparing them to face multiple choices. She does not believe that intelligence tests are the final arbiter of a childs ability to progress.

In this book, I learned about the history and philosophies of leading educators, and the influence of their policies on education in this country. And I learned more about these issues than I had been taught in 16 years of public school and college.

This book is a gold mine of information; and no, I don't know the author, nor am I being paid to write this. I just love this book!

Dr. Ravitch has written a book that is both fascinating and upsetting. That the so-called progressives have been able to push into practice unproven, sometimes even ludicrous school reforms would be unbelievable if it were not still happening. Dr. Ravitch takes the reader along those many murky pathways that have led to the present-day problems in our public schools. She encourages a return to systematic instruction and curricula based on knowledge, rather than process. Whereas she does not object to innovation, she believes that new ways must be proven before they are used on our children. Hopefully, this book will inspire the right kind of reform in our schools.

Diane Ravitch's Left Back is at once the very best and the very worst of historical writings about education.

Here is one of America's greatest and most prolific authors in the field of education revisiting the historical roots upon which we have built our troubled public school system. But what she has written are, in fact, two books: One that gives us a technicolor view of 19th century education followed by another -- a clearly monochromatic view of the 20th century. No matter Ravitch's well established conservative political leanings, which I share, her attacks on the liberalist-socialist activism attributed to John Dewey's followers are all too often inaccurate by omission. Even those of us who share Ravitch's political values find it difficult to accept that everything bad in education was foisted upon us by liberals, and all that is good stemmed from our own conservative values and philosophy. Grown-ups have learned that life is seldom this simple. Why hasn't Ravitch?, her readers might wonder.

Not only is Ravitch's recounting of 19th century education beautifully researched and very well written -- it is captivating, often joyful reading for anyone interested in the field of schooling. Few people write in this field with the style, flair and energy of Diane Ravitch.

Unfortunately, John Dewey comes into her narrative toward the end of the 19th century -- at which point Ravitch deftly switches from historian to opinionated storyteller. Suddenly her view of education changes from technicolor to monochrome as she examines the liberalist driven beginnings of progressivism brought about by John and Alice Dewey's successful Lab school at the University of Chicago in 1896. Her command of fact and historical detail are masterful and her writing clear, but so is her mission to discredit the philosophical model and the professional qualifications of thousands of dedicated and thoughtful educators.

No one sets out to read Ravich without expecting her to attack progressive ideas and practices -- for she has done that well for many years. But in Left Back, Ravitch has written a work so large and encompassing that it may well be the culmination of her career -- and so it is all the more disappointing that she falls prey to speculation and thrid hand evidence of progressive methodologies, practices or outcomes.

Her view of progressivism, its methodologies, practices and philosophies is so distorted as to be unrecognizable to those of us who lived through its heyday here at The Ohio State University. Image of Excellence, the politically-charged history of Ohio State's progressive school, is a troubling case history of political witch-hunting in education. Is the witch-hunt at Ohio State what Ravitch wants us to take away from her work? Shall we drive all the pinko socialists out of education?

Worse yet, Ravitch derides the entire progressive era as destructive to both profession and students -- absent any evidence of appropriate research into the lives led by people schooled in either the traditional or progressive models. Would one judge the quality of food only by its preparation and never by its eating? I think not.

None of this argues against Ravitch's many citations of the errors, miscalculations and failings of progressives -- only that her monumental historical retrospective fails to assess the failings of progressivism against the failings of traditionalist schooling.

If Ravitch's intent was to add yet another book to her collection of politically motivated attacks on what she portrays as weak minded progressives she has clearly succeeded.

But if her intent was to help her readers to understand where we are in education today, to separate fact from fiction, and to shed light on the darkness that engulfs our schools, she has clearly failed.

Those seeking the comfort of another political attack on John Dewey's legacy will be happy with her work. Those expecting to find new ideas or insight into the problems facing America's public schools from one of America's great writers in education will surely be disappointed.

-- Robert Butche, Historian, The Ohio State University College of Education

Left Back is a magnificent book, and everyone concerned with education owes Diane Ravitch a debt of gratitude for having written it.

The book's theme is the so-called "progressive education" movement and how for the past 100 years it has deprived students from all socio-economic groups, but especially poor students, of the rigorous academic education that would help them advance in society. However well-meaning the advocates of progressive education may have been, they have caused terrible harm by holding an array of destructive views, from poisonous social determinism at one end (black students are probably going to grow up to work in menial jobs anyway, so there's no point in teaching them abstract academic subjects that they will never need) to loony naturism at the other, under which children should never be taught about anything that they don't ask to be taught about. (And if they never ask, that's fine; they can just play for twelve years.)

Ravitch's writing is unfailingly smooth and well-ordered, and more than fifty pages of detailed endnotes will allow curious readers to follow up on any of the topics she examines.

Although Left Back confines itself to K-12 education, I found many parallels to what has gone on in higher education as well, particularly since the 1960s. Higher education has been infected with many of the ideas Ravitch describes by way of student affairs and residence life departments that oversee undergraduate life outside the classroom. Academic faculty at most universities abrogated their responsibilities for student welfare a generation ago, and the social and educational consequences have been disastrous.

My copy of Left Back was given to me by a kind student who knew of my interest in university reform, and to her I am grateful. If you want to do good for your own neighborhood and your own local schools, buy a few copies of Left Back and start passing them around. Teachers, parents, politicians, and school board members should all read it and take it to heart. It will help them spot the next vacuous fad and the next new-and-improved brand of educational snake oil.

... In a recent Seattle Times special on computers in schools, a U.W. professor of educational technology is quoted as saying that American culture no longer values "traditional book-based learning" and that teachers must adapt to the fact that "deep and sustained thinking" will no longer be central to students' development. The authors of two new books would doubtless see this as further evidence that education "experts" tend to view schools as establishments for teaching social adjustment.

Historian, scholar, educational policy analyst, and former Assistant Secretary to the Department of Education Diane Ravitch shows, in "Left Back," that such anti-intellectual attitudes are typical among the progressive theorists who have dominated 100 years of education reform in America.

The premise of Ravitch's argument is that the real job of our schools is teaching students to think well. Everyone, regardless of origins or social status, finds pleasure and satisfaction in a developed mental life, but even more important is the fact that democratic self-government requires clear, independent, knowledgeable thinkers. According to these authors, the proper function of schools is to serve such ends, but competing demands have weakened school programs and blurred their proper focus on developing children's minds.

Ravitch traces our present conflicts about the purpose of schooling to various (sometimes contradictory) movements she groups under the rubric of "progressive." Originally an educational philosophy that advocated building on children's interests and preparing students for a wide range of life's activities, progressivism split into divergent efforts to center schools on such concerns as vocational training, social reform, interpersonal skills, or "scientific" placements of children with normal IQ's in nonacademic tracks. To make such changes, says Ravitch, progressive theorists attacked the common curriculum that offered everyone the benefits of a liberal arts education.

Progressive campaigns were not wholly successful but, Ravitch says, they diluted academic programs and lowered standards. And the best progressive methods, such as individualized instruction, creative learning activities, and motivation through student interest, came to be used as ends in themselves instead of as means of achieving worthy intellectual purposes.

Above all, excellence in education requires excellent teachers. But though Ravitch is stern about improving teacher credentials and performance, she never mentions the possibility that where teaching is mediocre it's because low salaries and poor working conditions prompt many superb candidates to avoid the profession.

Yet teacher salaries now rank the lowest among those of highly literate college-educated workers..., and Seattle high-school teachers are typically assigned 150 students--an impossible number to teach adequately, let alone well. Better salaries and smaller classes would be expensive and would require leaders to inspire greater public respect for teachers, but would do more in the long run to improve education than the attempted quick-fix of standardized tests.

Still, though Ravitch's history sometimes overstates the case against progressive education it illuminates the origins of the more benighted claims we hear about the purpose of schooling, while offering effective counterarguments. In telling how American schools were shaped in the past by the decisions of human beings, Ravitch tells us, too, that our decisions today can make a difference.