This is a guest post by Diane Ravitch, in response to "A Pedagogy of Practice" by Kathleen Porter-Magee.
When I say that poor kids should have the same school advantages as rich kids, I am not referring to unstructured classes and open classrooms, to balanced literacy or constructivist math.
I am speaking about classes of 15 students, instead of classes of 25-30. I am speaking about schools that have a program rich in the arts, rather than schools that focus intently on preparing for the next state test of basic skills. I am speaking about schools where children study history and read biographies and trade books, engage in debates, discussions, and projects, not just read banal textbooks. I am speaking about schools that teach science and have working laboratories for experiments and demonstrations. I am speaking about schools that teach great literature and engage vigorously in discussion of controversial topics.
I am speaking about schools that have the resources to keep their facilities up to date and spotless and to provide students with access to current technology.
I am speaking about schools that treasure their teachers, treat them with respect, give them the autonomy to teach as they think best.
I am speaking about schools that view education as a way of thinking and knowing and doing, of schools that seldom if ever administer standardized, multiple-choice tests. I am thinking of schools that have the luxury of teaching children to be thoughtful, independent, responsible, resourceful, and curious. I am thinking about schools where love of learning is more important than test scores.
That is my idea of the best education, the kind that our elites want for their children. Why should we not want it for all children? Are we preparing future factory workers or future citizens?
- Diane Ravitch