Diane Ravitch Analysis
To understand education reform, it is helpful use Jay P. Greene as a scope for reading Diane Ravitch. Ravitch is a former education reformer and now a prominent spokesman for antireform. In her book Reign of Error, Ravitch classifies education reformers as corporatists and profiteerists, recklessly associating major foundations (Gates Foundation, Broad Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation etc.), philanthropists, entrepreneurs, Wall Street hedge fund managers, US Department of Education, Barack Obama, Arne Duncan, Teach for America, and ALEC as the big bad players in education reform. Ravitch vilifies reformers by using polarizing language by classifying the as elitist and with her large platform, she casts a cynical one-sided
…show more content…
Venue shopping at the local, state, and federal level is a strategy reformers should use to maximize their power in influencing change. Henij references the advantages and disadvantages at each level that would benefit reformers when competing against the powerful vested interest that are already established. At the local level competing interests, teachers’ unions, are the strongest because they are the largest most powerful constituency focused solely on education. At the state level, they have more power, more constituencies, which weaken the influence of teachers’ unions, and can force district to comply. Ravitch hates reformers that give money to mayors because mayors have the power to make executive decisions. Ravitch supports school boards which rarely pass reforms, contain too much vested interest, and get elected by unions; while, reformers like mayors because they have bigger constituency and are typically more incentivized to reform education. The federal level is especially attractive because achieving change once means mass implementation across the country, and although it is harder to get stuff passed at the federal level, the interest forces are much weaker because the constituency is much bigger and more diverse. Therefore, if reformers what to maximize their chances at a successful reform they need to avoid venues where the vested interest have everything tied up, and search for areas that would work to their best
Venue shopping at the local, state, and federal level is a strategy reformers should use to maximize their power in influencing change. Henij references the advantages and disadvantages at each level that would benefit reformers when competing against the powerful vested interest that are already established. At the local level competing interests, teachers’ unions, are the strongest because they are the largest most powerful constituency focused solely on education. At the state level, they have more power, more constituencies, which weaken the influence of teachers’ unions, and can force district to comply. Ravitch hates reformers that give money to mayors because mayors have the power to make executive decisions. Ravitch supports school boards which rarely pass reforms, contain too much vested interest, and get elected by unions; while, reformers like mayors because they have bigger constituency and are typically more incentivized to reform education. The federal level is especially attractive because achieving change once means mass implementation across the country, and although it is harder to get stuff passed at the federal level, the interest forces are much weaker because the constituency is much bigger and more diverse. Therefore, if reformers what to maximize their chances at a successful reform they need to avoid venues where the vested interest have everything tied up, and search for areas that would work to their best