Mind the Gap: Session 2

“Mind the Gap”: Session 2

1.  Chapter one:  In recounting her journey through many educational reforms, Diane Ravitch makes a number of provocative statements.

Choose two, quote them, and personally respond.

“Those who make policy are most successful when they must advance their ideas through a gauntlet of checks and balances, explaining their plans, submitting them to a process of public review, and attempting to persuade others to support them”.

While I tend to agree with the statement above as it pertains to the well being of the public education system, this also seems to be the definition of bureaucracy. During the review process, everyone would want to chime in to make sure that their special interest was protected. This would also seem to explain why a) it takes so long for any policy to be adopted and b) why the ‘pendulum keeps swing from one political side to the other. Education policy in the US currently seems to be like a giant jigsaw puzzle, where the shapes the color of the pieces are all the same (can it ever be properly assembled?)

As I read through this book I am beginning to think more and more that federal education policy should be a broad framework, allowing the states a great deal of latitude.

“… I began ‘seeing like a state,’ looking at schools and teachers and students from an altitude of 20,000 feet and seeing them as objects to be moved around by big ideas and great plans”

(I took ‘state’ in this context to mean nation-state)

Overall I found Ravitch’s tone in Chapter One to be somewhat apologetic. She has realized that she has made some mistakes along the way and apologized for (or at least justified the change in her position) them, “I kept asking myself why I was losing confidence in the reforms. My answer: I have a right to change my mind.”

The quote above seems to underscore that Ravitch realizes the enormity of the responsibility that the federal government has with regards to education. It’s one thing to ponder, study, criticize and comment on what others are doing or have done, but it is something else entirely to be the one making that policy for a nation of 300 million people. How could anyone expect to make significant change for all 60 million students, especially over the last 20-30 years when federal policy seems to be saying the we must please all of the people all of the time, (NCLB is a good example of this belief)

2.  Chapter two:  On page 16, Ravitch gives a brief definition of a well-educated person.  How would you characterize a well-educated person?

What should any well-educated person know in today’s world?

(I have no idea where “page 16” was in my e-book. In addition, there is no qualifying what a well-educated person is demographically. How old? What ethnic background? What socio-economic group? And so on.)

A well educated person should be one that has command his/her language (written, oral and reading) and should be fairly versed in what his/her society as deemed as meeting the requirements (math, literature, social norms) for their age group, taking in to consideration a person’s ability to access the tools necessary to achieve these goals.

In my world a well-educated person also has a inclusive perception of the world around him/her (encompassing all religious, ethnic, socio-economic, etc). In short any well-educated person must be both “book smart” as well as “street smart”.

To me, there is an underlying premise that all citizens of a society should never stop learning, never stop improving who they are. Only then can they be productive members of their community.

3.  Thinking about the class discussion on the book, what stands out for you?  What would you have liked to say that you did not say?

Thus far I am saying pretty much whatever I happen to have on my mind with regards to the text. I enjoy the discourse and appreciate the comments from the class. I certainly do not agree with everything said as we all come from different places and therefore have a different perspective on teaching, education and such, (obvious I know),

4.  Choose one gap you listed from your subject area and identify 3 resources: a web site, an article, and a book that can help you fill that gap.  List these and discuss what you learned from one of these.

I have a weakness or a “gap” in my knowledge of Jacksonian Democracy. I am reading The Reign of Andrew Jackson: A Chronicle in the Frontier of Politics, have read Limits of Political Engagement in Antebellum America: A New look at the Golden Age of Participatory Democracy (an article from the Organization of American Historians) and have visited the website “The American Presidency Project”, (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1824)

The website provided me with a fact that I was quite surprised by. Vote turnout between 1824 and 1828 increased by some 70 percent, which was quite a large increase over a short period of time. What was the cause for an increase of this size? Was it simply population growth? Was it a newly found responsibility to vote? Were more people allowed to vote?

5.  Your annotations of resources are meant to be both scholarly and brief.  In the blog, discuss in detail why/how any two of these articles were useful to your topic/question(s).  Consider such things as listing specific information you learned that you didn’t know before; how this new learning leads to other questions or sources; why this writer was convincing; whether you would seek this writer out for other articles he/she has written, and anything else you’d like to state in a blog that others can learn from and read.

I have found that with the 4^th of July holiday, I am running a little behind with regards to this question. Stay tuned as I will follow up and revise here shortly.

6. Meg, did you do anything special for the 4th? OK, something more relevant. You have seen my questions regarding Jacksonian Democracy. How would you narrow the topic, given the context of the end product that we will be producing?

I viewed the following blogs...


Ashley's
Marcy's
Alex's