Business principles won't work for school reform, former supporter Ravitch says

[tonysam]

Her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, is on my purchase list.

From further in the article:

In her book, Ravitch writes: "I wanted to believe that choice and accountability would produce great results. But over time, I was persuaded by accumulating evidence that the latest reforms were not likely to live up to their promise. The more I saw, the more I lost the faith."

Ravitch resolved to write the book in 2007 to overcome what she called an "intellectual crisis." Its title echoes the classic 1961 critique of urban planning by Jane Jacobs, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities."

...

Ravitch, he said, wants to "re-empower" the public school system. "The same evidence has turned me into a radical who wants to blow up the system," he added.

No Child Left Behind is an easy target because it lost political luster years ago. Ravitch also attacks the constellation of forces driving reform today. She says major education philanthropies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, rely too much on business principles to improve schools.

More

[FBaggins]

1. This wouldn't happen to be due to the fact that...

...business and school aren't the same thing?

Now... I'll be the first to say that there are SOME aspects of "business" that can work, but what we have seen recently isn't an example of that category.

What the author misses, however, is that this isn't just an example of "business principles" - it's an example of government-run-business principles - which is worse.

What we have seen recently is essentially the President of the United States trying to determine who can and can't teach... and then acting on it without a means of review of error-correction.

One "business principle" that carries over quite well (IMO) is the notion that a micro-managing CEO is incredbily inefficient... and in this case poor management does not result in lost dollars... but rather lost lives.

[mike_c]

2. I've said for years that the biggest, most insurmountable difference...

...is in the fundamental nature of the "products" produced by educators and the role that "consumers," i.e. student's, serve in making that product whatever it is.

The main thing that educators provide is opportunity. Until the day comes when we have the technology to open students' heads up and directly tinker with their brains, rewiring, installing associations, whatever-- until that day comes, ALL learning is ultimately up to the student, not the teacher. All educators can do is provide opportunities to learn-- good opportunities, bad opportunities, but in the end, it's what the student does with the opportunity, what students CHOOSE to do with the opportunities that matters most.

Applying the business and manufacturing analogy, going to school is like buying a car, but having it arrive as a big box filled with random pieces, parts, tools, and raw materials. For your $25 large or whatever, you get an opportunity to make a vehicle, if you want to follow through and realize the opportunity. THAT is what education is like. It's a terrible way to run a business, but it illustrates nicely why running a business is a terrible model for education. The two pursuits are fundamentally different. In business, you buy a discrete product and have the right to judge the quality of your purchase by comparing it to other manufacturers' products. Further, you buy it specifically because YOU cannot or will not make it yourself, whether opportunities present themselves or not. Most of us just want the end product-- we want to buy our car already designed and assembled, thank you.

There is no analogous product offered in school. In education, the consumers-- students-- are offered an opportunity to create their own product, but whatever they create is their work, not the "manufacturer's." Comparing their outcomes to someone elses' has much less to do with the teachers who provide the opportunities than it does with the students who actually create the outcomes-- some will do well because they are conscientious, or curious, or otherwise motivated, while others will daydream and stare out the window all day, and do little with their boxes of pieces and parts. Sure, one can argue that it's the teacher's responsibility to at least TRY to interest those students, but again, there just isn't any good, matching analogy in business to draw management wisdom from, except maybe an imaginary car salesman whose job is to promote the idea of building the best car you can from your box of manufacturing flotsam, rather than actually selling completed cars.

The business model simply has no "business" in schools.

[tonysam]

3. I couldn't agree more

Education is a public service--NOT a business and cannot be run on business models. Until people recognize this simple fact, no real reform will ever happen.

[YvonneCa]

4. I posted last November about this...

here:

Duncan (and Obama) are following someone who has totally missed the point. He ..


Posted by YvonneCa in Education
Wed Nov 04th 2009, 11:12 AM


...said: "When I was at Bertelsmann, we were constantly focused on how to incentivize the workforce, inject increasing accountability, deciding where to substitute technology for human capital. "

The workforce in schools is the STUDENTS...not the teachers. THAT's the bottom line and it's why we keep failing at trying to fix schools. Teachers are a part of middle management, as APs and principals are. We have to be on the same team to manage our students' academic growth. EVERYTHING these NYC reformers are doing misses that point and it's CRITICAL to fixing schools.

I agree with the need to fix our schools to compete globally. I understand that requires big changes....go for it.

I do not...and never... have opposed the goal. AND I want Obama to be the President that 'gets it done right.' But these guys are WRONG. They are focussing on the wrong thing, and we in education know it. THAT's why teachers keep speaking out...not because we oppose the goals.

[mike_c]

5. well said....

I do not...and never... have opposed the goal. AND I want Obama to be the President that 'gets it done right.' But these guys are WRONG. They are focussing on the wrong thing, and we in education know it. THAT's why teachers keep speaking out...not because we oppose the goals.

Politicians make a living manipulating and twisting public perception, and scapegoating is always easier than the hard work of achieving understanding and finding real solutions. It's no surprise that political leadership misses the mark so thoroughly and consistently. But after they miss the target over and over and over, it's way easier to just blame the teachers-- whose voices are raised against ill considered meddling-- with opposing the very goals they work for every day.

[YvonneCa]

8. I just wanted to add that your post is excellent. I was...

...interrupted by the phone in the middle of posting. :)

[donco6]

6. I'd go even further.

Like the analogy - but it's still too closely tied to a factory (you pays your dime, you gets your box). The whole function of school is too closely intertwined with the community it springs from to ever related it to a factory. It's more like an organism. If the organism is ill, it can show up in crime, vandalism, economics . . . or school performance. You can't treat the body's illness by focusing on the finger alone.

Although there are some fingers I'd like to flash at those still supporting NCLB -

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. +1

Thanks mike!