Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It seems like Ravitch's big fear is that the emphasis on more and more teaching will weaken what she sees as the main mission of American education -- insuring that students understand that capitalism and capitalist democracy is the best possible system and that alien notions like class war, revolution, socialism, and communism should be rejected. I had intended to write the emphasis on more and more testing -- not teaching. Sorry for the typo. Glenn Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Just to clarify... an emphasis on more testing is no better than an emphasis on more teaching. The kind of testing they want done is exclusively about job skills not about education... The humanities don't enter into any of it. And testing is a piss poor measure of learning. Sometimes these things take time to sink in and sometimes they sink in only in those areas to be tested for as long as they'll be tested. The testing emphasis is simply a scam... Maybe the only bigger scam are student evaluations ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I agree Glenn but I stillthink this is a significant piece not only because where it published but also the content. Between these two factors it represents a very telling attack on the American Educational reform movement as defined by NCLB and Race to the Top. As you have pointed out, glenn, it is also important to work out exactly where the attack is coming from. Ravitch is a conservative and in Gramscian terms she would be a traditional intellectual. That means she wants to preserve the high culture and views the world of capitalism with dismay and even horror. Thus she seems to especially regard the depredations of vulgar capitalists like Bill Gates with fear and scorn. What Ravitch is playing out, probably in a state of unawareness, is the drama between conservatism and right wing radical libertarianism. So far the conservatives have been soundly trounced. But Ravitch is a heavy hitter and the very successes of Duncan and Gates in radically changing American education are alarming more and more people. She wants a distance between the world of business and the world of schooling. That distance she thinks allows a world of sweetness and light to flourish. In some ways she can usefully be regarded as channelling Matthew Arnold. Lots of issues here such as what should be the attitude of we Lefties towards conservatives and behind all this the real questions of our time - Is a non-capitalist modernity possible and what would it look like? comradely Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It's not just that she wants the space between the immediate needs of business and schooling, but she sees education as an essential feature of the infrastructure that makes capitalism work as it has in the past. The problem with the current spate of reforms is that they are essentially premised on the idea that education must be cost-effective in some sense immediately evident in profit terms. Capitalist management always tends to be very limited in terms of its ability to recognize a problem not immediately in front of them. It might be wisest to think about this as part of the general decision to have austerity and budget cuts at the price of painting a bridge . . . or other cost-cutting decisions that will ultimately involve severe costs in the long run. ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 6/1/11 7:46 PM, Mark Lause wrote: It's not just that she wants the space between the immediate needs of business and schooling, but she sees education as an essential feature of the infrastructure that makes capitalism work as it has in the past. The problem with the current spate of reforms is that they are essentially premised on the idea that education must be cost-effective in some sense immediately evident in profit terms. This relates to the question that has preoccupied me for some time, namely the seeming incapacity of the contemporary ruling class to be able to act in its own long-term interests around a range of questions such as infrastructure, environment, education, etc. Ravitch would seem to be committed to the New Deal project while the social basis for such a project disappeared long ago. Interesting contradiction. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I think louis is correct. Though I see her as an important ally in the fight against the commodification of childrens education. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 6/1/11 7:46 PM, Mark Lause wrote: It's not just that she wants the space between the immediate needs of business and schooling, but she sees education as an essential feature of the infrastructure that makes capitalism work as it has in the past. The problem with the current spate of reforms is that they are essentially premised on the idea that education must be cost-effective in some sense immediately evident in profit terms. This relates to the question that has preoccupied me for some time, namely the seeming incapacity of the contemporary ruling class to be able to act in its own long-term interests around a range of questions such as infrastructure, environment, education, etc. Ravitch would seem to be committed to the New Deal project while the social basis for such a project disappeared long ago. Interesting contradiction. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/ernestleif%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Mark wrote: It's not just that she wants the space between the immediate needs of business and schooling, but she sees education as an essential feature of the infrastructure that makes capitalism work as it has in the past. Hi Mark Ok. So I see her as a traditional intellectual while you are seeing her as an organic intellectual for a period of capitalism which has passed. You are probably right. Certainly in her 2001 article* A different kind of education for black children* she does talk of the need for an education which prepares students for a changing economy. Still for me there is still a strong whiff of the Matthew Arnold about her. If one reads carefully the black children article then one can see a very interesting dialectic at work I think. Ravitch is classically liberal and non-racist in her analysis of the problem in the first pages of the article. She also gives a useful distinction between education for social adjustment and education for social advancement. The former provides an education for low paid jobs. She is for education for social advancement clearly, but she does not spell this out or think through what it would mean in the real world of contemporary capitalism. So it becomes a kind of cliche, like something you would find in a fortune cookie or like something the Dalai Lama would say. Yes we all clean our teeth every day and we are all for education for social advancement. However the bourgeoisie will die in a ditch (hopefully) before they will let any class advance beyond them, so education for social advancement has unstated but very powerful limitations set around it. Liberals have nothing to say here. It is when Ravitch comes to talk of the Counter culture in the 60s that her link to the Arnoldian tradition becomes clearer. Like Arnold in Hyde Park she is terrified of the *jacquerie*. That is probably what drove her to the Reagan camp. Whatever the case now she is faced with the triumph of those forces she worked for. The radical libertarian right could not give a damn for the cultural heritage. Ideologically they also cannot recognize the existence of such as thing as a 'public good'. There is only private profit and that is the alpha and the omega of their interest in education. Can a conservative liberal like Ravitch lead the counter attack? Capitalism needs an education system based on the premise it is a public good. But it is highly doubtful if capitalists can be brought to see that need. There is a distinction of levels here and as Lou has pointed out we do seem to have a dearth of capitalists who can even begin to think of the notion of a public good. comradely Gary T Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ravitch will always be connected in my mind with Albert Shanker, the anti-communist cold-warrior who supported the Vietnam War and led a racist strike in 1968. Ravitch worked at the New Leader magazine, associated with the SDUSA, Shanker's party. She is currently a board member of the Albert Shanker Institute, and received the UFT's John Dewey award in 2005. During his tenure as UFT and then AFT President (when I was a member of both), Shanker was a big proponent of guns AND butter, the belief that we could -- and should -- spend generously on the military and social programs at the same time. Shanker was a big supporter of Henry Scoop Jackson, the Washington State Democratic Senator from Boeing, known for his avid support for increased military spending. Ravitch is a perfect fit for the Albert Shanker Institute, devoted to promoting the glories of American democracy. The Institute's Education for Democracy statement -- signed by such luminaries as Ted Kennedy and war criminal Bob Kerry -- quotes a section of Ravitch's book, The Language Police, which blames American textbooks for being too critical of U.S. occupations and not anti-communist enough. Here's what Ravitch says: The textbooks published in the late 1990's do ... contain a coherent narrative. It is a story of cultural equivalence: All of the world's civilizations were great and glorious, all produced grand artistic, cultural, and material achievements, and now the world is growing more global and interconnected The textbooks sugercoat practices in non-Western cultures that they would condemn if done by Europeans or Americans. Seemingly, only Europeans and Americans were imperialistic. When non-European civilizations conquer new territories, the textbooks abandon their critical voice Some texts present Mao as a friendly, inclusive leader who listened to the peasants and won their support, just like our politicians. Most texts point out the Communist Party killed one million landlords and that at least 20 million Chinese people died because of a famine caused by Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward. Some mention the humiliation of teachers and professionals during the Cultural Revolution. But it often seems as though these were just unfortunate events that occurred while Mao and the Communist Party were successfully transforming China into a modern industrialized society Students who read these texts might well conclude that the Chinese Communist program had its ups and downs, its good policies and its bad policies (just like ours), but overall produced great gains for the Chinese people. It seems like Ravitch's big fear is that the emphasis on more and more teaching will weaken what she sees as the main mission of American education -- insuring that students understand that capitalism and capitalist democracy is the best possible system and that alien notions like class war, revolution, socialism, and communism should be rejected. I don't see her as an ally of the left. Glenn Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Diane Ravitch op-ed piece on education reform
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Glenn Kissack gkiss...@nyc.rr.com wrote: It seems like Ravitch's big fear is that the emphasis on more and more teaching will weaken what she sees as the main mission of American education -- insuring that students understand that capitalism and capitalist democracy is the best possible system and that alien notions like class war, revolution, socialism, and communism should be rejected. I don't see her as an ally of the left. Well, materialists have to leave the discussion of intentions or motives to the psychics. In materialist terms, we have crappy policies and practices in place...and proposals for crappier policies and practices. The question we face is the old one...Which side are you on? If anyone thinks finds anything remotely progressive in the current tsunami of proposals that put the emphasis on more and more teaching, I suggest they haven't thought about it much more than my pet gerbil Arnie Or do we have Marxists here who seriously think that the problem in the auto industry is that auto workers don't make enough cars, earn too much money and have too much job security (which protects the lazy and worthless workers)? Just as it's the old question of which side are we on, the solution's also the old one...of hanging together or hanging separately. ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
