# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read Chapter 6 "NCLB: Measure and Punish" and Chapter 7 "Choice: The Story of an Idea".

Chapter 6 started with a very strong point that I had not known before reading. "No Child Left Behind" was co-opted from the Children's Defense Fund's idea of "Leave No Child Behind", which aimed to lift children out of poverty. From reading this book and with my experience as an educator, this seems to truly be the way to help children do better in school. When life outside of school is difficult, it makes it extremely hard to focus on school. The data shows over and over again that socioeconomic status is the number one predictor of student success. Though there are exceptions to that rule, it doesn't make it any less important to help children (and really all people) out of poverty.

The remainder of Ch. 6 focuses on the pitfalls of NCLB. Firstly, it was based on the Texas educational system that seemed to have improved education but really pushed poor performing students to drop out of school all together. The expectations to improve every subgroup of students made it extremely difficult to see where things were going well. When given choice, students chose to stay at their home schools even if the school was "failing". Instead of helping students "Adult interests were well served by NCLB. the law generated huge revenues for tutoring and testing services, which became a sizable industry. Companies that offered tutoring, tests, and test-prep materials were raking in billions of dollars annually from federal, state, and local governments, but the advantages to the nation's students were not obvious" (p. 107). NCLB was not for students, it was for business.

Chapter 8 also focuses on the co-opting of a well meaning idea. Albert Shanker suggested in the late 80s "that groups of teachers should be able to run their own schools within regular schools and to pursue innovative ways of educating dissaffected students" (p.127). This sounds fantastic to me. Having teachers solve localized problems and have them working with the students they already have. Shanker's idea was the basis for charter schools, but again, this idea was used as a way to privatize and monetize the education system. Charter schools on average do no better than traditional schools. Most of the schools that perform higher than traditional public schools either use tactics to only keep high performing students, or they use archaic disciplinary systems and long school hours, or both. Many charter schools perform lower than their traditional public school counterparts. Charter schools end up funneling talented students from neighborhoods and the funding required to educate other students. It seems to me to be a way of further separating the haves and the have-nots.

# data[].attributes.body
For this discussion, I chose to read Chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 8 discusses how education shifted to this idea of accountability. The first thing that stood out to me is that politicians were looking to see if schools were “getting a good return” (p. 157) for the tax dollars that were invested. This statement shows the attempt to really simplify the process of education. Although this ROI idea may work in a traditional business sense, education is different. Testing is not the answer when it comes to seeing if education is “working”. The chapter also mentions the fact that standardized tests are typically only administered once a year. Although Ravitch points out the issues with testing at the beginning and end of the year (which I agree with), at least there is the ability to see growth with individual students. Expecting all students to be at the same level that is calculated by one test that takes nothing else (such as the stressors the test itself causes) into account simply doesn’t make sense. Ravitch also pointed out that those that voiced this and protested against the tests were labeled by politicians as “fanatics”. This is still the case. Those that go against the political agenda are dismissed and labeled as rebelling against what is best for students.

Chapter 9 introduced the author’s favorite teachers, Mrs. Ratliff. This chapter made me think of my own favorite teacher - my fifth grade teacher, Mrs. Burnette. She had many of the qualities of Mrs. Ratliff, but with a softer side. She valued each of us and was determined to shine a light on the brilliance of each student in her room. I also considered how one’s favorite teacher is truly dependent on what he or she needs. One student may need to be pushed or believed in while another may need to be nurtured or given a safe place. Ravitch also struck me when she questioned if Mrs. Ratliff would be considered great by today’s standards. I thought of Mrs. Burnette - how she gathered postcards from her summer travels to teach us about every place she visited, how she developed our vocabulary through poetry, and how Fridays were reserved for creativity. Would she have survived the “accountability” measures of today and, if so, would she still have been my favorite teacher? Have we valued conformity so much that individuality - within teachers and students - is now a negative? It feels like we are doubling down on these accountability measures, even without any proof that it is working. I am not sure of the way out or if the people making decisions are even interested in getting there.

Ravitch, D. (2016). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Basic Books.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to read Chapter 3, "The Transformation of District 2" and Chapter 8, "The Trouble with Accountability" for this week's book club readings. I was fascinated by the way in which both chapters built off of each other in their description and development of testing and accountability.

Beginning with Chapter 3, I was enthralled by the growth which District 2 made. However, I was shocked by the achievement gap between White and Asian students and African American and Hispanic students. This gap made me think a lot about my own school as well and how race and socioeconomic status can play such a large role in "performance" yet can so easily go unnoticed in the data. When discussing Lois Weiner's 2001 Education Week article on District 2, Ravitch (2016) writes, "the research team had ignored District 2's racial and social segregation and taken a cheerleading role, 'promoting reforms they have aided in implementing and assessing.'...District 2's alleged success, she maintained, was a function of demography, not pedagogy" (p. 47). Ravitch (2016) also noted that District 2 had an enrollment of 75% White and Asian students, while the city as a whole was only 27% White and Asian at the time (p. 47). While District 2 did see great gains during this time, it is imperative that we acknowledge who made those gains. This leads me to Chapter 8 and the role of testing as accountability for schools and districts.

As I began reading Chapter 8, I was struck by this quote, "The local school may be a good school with strong leadership, a rich curriculum, and dedicated teachers, yet get a low score because it enrolls many children who are poor or have disabilities or don't speak English" (Ravitch, 2016, p. 160-161). Similarly to what I have mentioned above when discussing Chapter 3, we again see that racial and ethnic backgrounds along with socioeconomic status and level of ability all play a role in school/district/state test scores. This is also something I have witnessed first hand at my own school. Additionally, these test scores are giving only a sliver of insight into student abilities and school site's levels of education. These tests are not acknowledging the growth a student with limited English proficiency may have made over the course of the school year. They could have made incredible gains, as I have seen happen in my own classroom, yet they are still deemed "insufficient," "at-risk," or "underachieving." The goal of accountability should not be defined by test scores, it should be, "to support and improve schools, not the heedless destruction of careers, reputations, lives, communities, and institutions" (Ravitch, 2016, p. 174).

# data[].attributes.body
In chapter two, “Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement” Ravitch discusses how meeting standards and objectives was no longer the main objective of learning. Instead, teachers were focused on teaching for the test and the ability to pass a test was a measure of what students were learning. History, science, and the arts were no longer a major focus of the curriculum. Tests should be used to measure what the student has learned from the curriculum. Students are tested on an arbitrary set of standards that someone higher up has deemed necessary.
I found that I agreed a lot with this chapter. As a former special education teacher, I was required to give my students standardized tests based on their age rather than cognitive ability. It was frustrating for the students and for me. They didn’t understand the content because it was way over what they were academically able to do. It took hours to complete assessment and was reported in their IEP but what did it really say? Nothing. Of course a student with a cognitive age of two is not going to be able to write their name. I knew this, the parents knew this, but I was still required to use the assessment to determine eligibility for services. 
Ravitch continues the discussion regarding NCLB in chapter six stating, “NCLB requires states to promise that they will reach an impossible goal, the states have adopted timetables agreeing to do what they can’t do, no matter how hard teachers and principals try. Most have stretched out the timetable— putting off the biggest gains for the future— to stave off their inevitable failure” (p.104). Students were set up for failure from the very beginning. Why have an arbitrary timeline that everyone knows won’t be reached? It is impossible to say that every third grader will be proficient in XYZ without taking into consideration the environment the child comes from, the teachers in the classroom, resources that are available to the child, etc. To say that the nation as a whole should reach specific milestones means the reform effort was already set up for failure before it even started. 

Ravitch, D. (2010). Death and life of great american school system : How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.

# data[].attributes.body
I read Chapter 2 "Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement" and Chapter 8 "The Trouble With Accountability". Both of these chapters validated so many of the things that I see as an educator and as former student of the NCLB era.

I think one of the primary statements that Ravitch makes is what is so obviously missing from NCLB and "A Nation at Risk". She states that NCLB "ignored the social and economic circumstances of children's lives, pretending that they didn't matter" (2016, p. 18) and that ANAR "failed to address the most important causes of low test scores -- poverty, inequality, racism, and segregation." (p.31). This consistent disregard for these issues have pervaded our social and politcal landscape. Educators are consistently blamed for the poor performance of the most marginalized students, as if these teachers are able to take care of every need for every child in their classroom. I happen to work at a very privileged school, and it amazes me how so many teachers and administrators take credit for our high test scores without acknowledging the affluence and education levels of the families that we serve. Without acknowledging where privilege is and is not we won't be able to actually fix the education system. Now, eight years after the publication of The Death and Life of The Great American School System, we are seeing the increased effects of this even after decades of teachers and students sounding the alarm.

In Chapter 8, Ravitch continues to communicate the issues of testing based accountability. Ravitch paraphrases Robert Linn that "NCLB... assumes that if school A gets better results than school B, it must be due to differences in school quality" (p. 163). This lead to test scores being used to fire teachers and administrators as well as close schools. Ravitch mentions school closures in like 50 in Chicago in 2013 (p174). That same year, I was shocked when the high school I lived across the street from in Philadelphia closed its doors. It turned out that Philadelphia had closed 24 public schools that year. To avoid closures and other punitive measure, many schools and districts used test score enhancing tactics like funneling students into special education to get them more accommodations on the tests, or charter schools applying different methods to only allow high achieving students into their schools. There has also been widespread cheating on these tests. Ravitch cites that Daniel Koretz "demonstrated that the problem with high-stakes testing -- that is test based accountability-- is that it corrupts the tests as measures of student learning" (p. 170) and Richard Rothstein claimed that "schools began paying less attention to students' health, phyiscal education, civic knowledge, the arts, and enrichment activities" (p. 171).

I think my favorite idea that I read this week of Ravitch was that "The goal of accountability should be to support and improve schools, not the heedless destruction of careers, reputations, lives, communities, and institutions" (p. 174). I wish we were able to work in a system that did this. What would our education system and country look like if we used testing as a way to identify people and communities that needed more support?

References

Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great american school system (Revised and Expanded Edition). Basic Books.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi group! I chose to read Chapters 1 (What I Learned About School Reform) and 2 (Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned into the Testing Movement) of Ravitch’s book. I found the information Ravitch offered to be interesting and eye-opening, even as someone that experienced these events as a student and teacher. As I was reading, it struck me how the progression of education from bipartisan to highly politicized came into play. It was also interesting to read about how well-intentioned people took stances that lacked a true understanding of educational communities. It was easy to see how those decisions left us with quite a mess today.

In Chapter 2, Ravitch wrote about the development of national standards of which she was leading the charge. The information about Lynne V. Cheney in particular stood out to me. Ravitch wrote that Lynne very publicly criticized the standards for being “the epitome of left-wing political correctness” (p.19). This became a very publicized political dispute and future politicians distanced themselves from National Standards due to the controversy. This reminded me of what is currently happening in Florida. The history standards have become highly political  and teachers are going through a “re-training” of how to teach Civics. A quick Google search will show the passion and anger behind the new history standards in that state, especially in how the state has decided to teach slavery and the denial of an AP African American course. In Florida, as well as in Tennessee where I currently live, there is a push for privatization, an active voucher program, and leadership that publicly criticized teachers and teacher unions. As I was reading Ravitch, I thought of all of the brokenness in education. I wondered if the developers of programs like No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the authors of A Nation at Risk (among others) would have made the same decisions if they can see what it led to today.

Ravitch, D. (2016). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Basic Books.

# data[].attributes.body
For this week, I read Chapter 2, "Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement" and Chapter 6, "NCLB: Measure and Punish." Both chapters lent themselves well to the other. There were many great insights made by Ravitch (2016) as she broke down NCLB and its effect on both the standards movement and the testing era we have been living in for so long.

What stood out to me the most in both of these chapters though was the lack of attention NCLB, "A Nation at Risk," the standards, and standardized testing movements, placed on the actual students being educated in our school systems. In explaining the report, "A Nation at Risk," Ravitch (2016) writes, "The report failed to recognize the growing number of American children who had high needs...All these children needed a good education, but raising standards and improving curriculum were not enough to change the conditions of their lives" (p. 32). This feels so relevant to me as a current teacher as it is similar to what I still see now with our students. There is such a great emphasis put on data and raising test scores, that the actual child behind the scores is being forgotten about. Their needs are being left behind while the school system tries to use them as a number to improve as opposed to a child seeking to learn. In Chapter 6, Ravitch (2016) explains about NCLB, "Companies that offered tutoring, tests, and test-prep materials were raking in billions of dollars annually from federal, state, and local governments, but the advantages to the nation's students were not obvious" (p. 107). Again, such a substantial emphasis was, and continues to be, placed on how to make test scores look better, no matter how much money that took away from the government and education for our children. Yet, little to no emphasis was, nor continues to, be put on the students sitting in classrooms. There appears to be a huge discrepancy between improving education via standardized testing and actually improving education outcomes for the students right in front of us.

Ravitch, D. (2016) The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books, New York, NY.