I received a lot of responses to the ?Pedagogy of Practice? post I wrote the other day. Many were positive. Among the more critical was Diane Ravitch, whose responses on Twitter and Flypaper indicated that I was misrepresenting and distorting her views.
In this post, I'm going to try to explain why I believe the characterization of her position is accurate and why it matters to this larger debate.
My post on Wednesday was focused not on particular curricular preferences, as Diane's response seems to suggest, but rather on the idea that we are overcomplicating the debate about closing the achievement gap. Ultimately the achievement gap is rooted in a ?practice gap,? where disadvantaged students have been exposed to far less content (reading, vocabulary, etc.) than their peers. Urban education organizations (KIPP, AF, Uncommon, TFA, etc.) make tough decisions everyday that are focused on trying to maximize every moment in the school day in an attempt to close that gap.
This process of maximizing every moment (what I called ?a pedagogy of practice?) creates a distinct sense of urgency that permeates the school culture. And that culture is not often shared by schools without this driving mission to close the achievement gap. (It doesn't need to be.) This theory of action and the school models it encourages is not without its critics, which is why it is worthy of debate.
I assume that the quote that Diane thought distorted her views was the only one that mentioned her name:
A lot of education activists?like Alfie Kohn and Diane Ravitch?like to argue that urban schools should copy the instructional practices of elite private schools. They look inside these small, often unstructured classrooms and wonder if this isn't the path to success.
In her rebuttal, Diane said:
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.
One response to this vision was provided by my colleague Chris Tessone, who wrote: ?Diane has just described KIPP DC's schools.?
But based on her Twitter feed, I believe what Diane has in mind in her vision of excellence is more Dalton or Sidwell Friends than KIPP DC.
Sidwell Friends is a beautiful school, the exemplar of all the things that Diane values. But despite its roughly $32,000 per student tuition (not including fees) I believe it would not come close to getting the results a great KIPP or Uncommon Schools school achieves year in and year out in its quest to help America's poor children climb out of poverty. They don't have the small classes, the science labs or the fancy facilities, but what the best among them do have is consistently strong teaching and an overriding focus on making the most of every minute. And that makes all the difference.?
Closing the achievement gap is possible, but it requires a sense of urgency that permeates everything teachers and students do. Then, and only then, are schools able to devote the time they need to things like discussion, while also ensuring mastery of the core skills that students do not have when they walk in the door.
In her post, Diane describes a vision for the kind of education she wants?it's a vision I know that many education leaders share. The problem arises when urban educators try to make that vision a reality given the very real constraints they face every day. Without a discussion of hard choices?How can you get students to the point where they can read and understand great literature without first addressing the fact that they are 3 or 4 years below grade level? Etc.?the vision feels less like a solution to the real life problems we face and more like a heartfelt desire that all children in America live like the upper class who attend our most elite private schools.
In the end, the gap between Diane's vision and the reality in many of America's urban schools arises from consequences of the very real and very tough choices that urban education leaders struggle with and have to make every day as they work to pave a path out of poverty for their students. These are challenges that leaders of elite private and public schools simply don't have to face.
Of course, you can quibble with the choices these urban school leaders make. Is it right to devote a disproportionately large block to reading instruction or should you equalize time spent in each class so that ELA and, say, history are equal? Should you begin foreign language instruction earlier? Etc. You might not like the solutions that some educators have adopted, but you can't argue with the practical, roll-up-your selves attitude and seriousness of purpose they have brought to trying to close the gap.
But to debate the issue on its merits, you first need to acknowledge that education is the best hope our poorest students have for escaping the cycle of poverty. And then, you need to engage in a debate of the actual choices being made by the leaders of urban schools to address these gaps and whether there is a better way?within the school walls and given the constraints that urban educators face every day?to help students beat the odds on their way out of poverty.
And that's a debate worth having.
