Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch

Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms Reviews

• 
  William Lawrence

  Everyone involved in education should read this book and it should be mandatory reading for all first year teachers in training. Ravitch traces the real roots of all of the fads and labels we hear today and puts the entire history of school reform in historical perspective. What this book does is reveal how little those who peddle reform ideas today really know about the people and ideas they celebrate. This book will have you thinking about how we ought to reform the schools of education.
• 
  Lucille

  I can never say too much about Ravitch. What I can say is this: She needs to read Larry Cuban's publication "How Teachers Taught" which was written BEFORE this, yet addresses so much of what Ravitch is missing. She only looks at how ideas were spread and the links between progressive education and how certain ideas were implemented. She fails to acknowledge racism altogether, and she also neglects addressing all the other factors that may have impacted implementation of progressive education. Ravitch wants to go back to the 1890s? Is that seriously her solution? We're trying to move forward here, not backwards. Sure, some movements and new ideas have flaws. But at least people are trying, and acknowledging that the system in the past was FAILING. Ravitch is a persuasive writer, and does raise some valid points. The evidence towards her arguments just isn't there though. And she knocks my man, John Dewey.
• 
  Andrew

  Education is an incredibly complex topic that many don't understand. This book is an outstanding journey through the history of the last 150 years of education. It looks in depth at the battle between "progressives" and "traditionalists." This book is a must read for any educator and I would highly recommend it to any parent who has a child in or entering public education.
• 
  Sharon

  Ravitch does an excellent job laying out the path of progressive education, as well as its many shortcomings. The book suffers a bit from not having a lot of data to back up the superiority of her prferred liberal education (even though I agree with her). I'm looking forward to reading her next book and seeing how her thinking has evolved.
• 
  Tricia Jennings

  Borrowed this from my Dad. Didn't realize it would make me happier to be homeschooling...
• 
  Gini

  Ugh! I FINALLY finished this! Diane Ravitch, I love you but you are a dry, dry writer.
  
  So much to say about this book, though.
  
  I think it should be required reading for every education reformer, everyone who thinks they have any idea about how they can 'fix' education. Before you have solutions or the answers, you need to take the long view of the problem--see it for how complicated it is, its historical context…..its humbling, and if there is anything that reformers/activists of all stripes need (or everyone, really) to be more successful, its the humility that hundreds of years of history and seemingly unsolvable problems will bring you.
  
  It is like the book of mormon of education. When I read the BOM, one of the main 'duh' themes is that society and churches and religions and peoples are all stuck in a pride cycle, and that its really important to evaluate your place and society's place in that cycle at any given time and figure out what you need to do to change things, while also learning the lessons of the past, recognize the pitfalls, etc. Left Back teaches you this same cycle exists in education reform and policy: whole language vs phonetics, progressive education vs traditional education, social activism vs social adjustment, fixed intelligence vs malleable intelligence…reformers could do with a history lesson before they start jumping up and down again because they've discovered the Next Big Thing, the answer to all our educational woes.
  
  One thing that really stood out to be is that teachers have often been caught between the back and forth between new pedagogies and curriculum. My experience in as a public school teacher was marked by my naive (and quickly dissipating) idealism, and I was confused and perturbed by other, more experienced teachers' general skepticism towards anyone offering solutions or curriculum changes. If you've been a teacher for 10 or 15 or even just 5 years, you have probably already undergone several curriculum changes and several complete revisions of general pedagogy and accepted schools of thoughts. After awhile, it has become a reformer's circus and you don't want to play anymore. Oh, new educational paradigm, is it? Supported by research, you say? Well I am sure that is just as perfect as the last half dozen things that were also guaranteed to revolutionize American public schools! Really, if you are a teacher, how can you be expected to believe these reformers? How are they different than the last 100 years of school reform?
  
  (I'm not saying they ARE the same as all their predecessors, but….there's a context here. You aren't a reformer in a vacuum.)
  
  On top of that, it is amazing how much we are all products of our time. It is so hard to escape the dominant ideas of your age in history. What is decided to be right and wrong and good for society in one decade is vilified in the next, and other than a very very tiny number on the margins, no one escapes that view. Even the margin people are often only defined in opposition to that view. For me, that makes me very very skeptical of anyone who purports to have answers or solutions, or anyone saying 'it's obvious.' It's not. It's never obvious, except in hindsight, and the funny thing about that is we keep moving forward through time, so there is always more hindsight to come, but never until after we need it.
  
  I mean, look at Diane Ravitch herself. In the 12 years since this book was published, she was essentially moved from the conservative/traditional/education reformer side of the fence to the progressive/social reformer side.
  
  And those were all my thoughts while reading this book.
  
• 
  Rachel

  Diane Ravitch's "Left Back" is a painstakingly thorough history of pedagogical trends in American public education. The book is, without question, a lot of work, but the careful reader will be rewarded with a much deeper understanding of the fascinating, infuriating, and often outrageous debates among pedagogical experts* and the ways that public schools have been affected by some of the most pivotal social, economic, and political changes of the 20th century (e.g., the great migration, the civil rights era, and 1960s counter culture).
  
  Left Back is definitely recommended reading for anyone wanting to make sense of the current battles over education "reform." It provides enormous insight on why there are so many weaknesses in the public education system in the first place, including the historical disadvantaging of already disadvantaged students, the anti-intellectual resistance to teaching academic subjects,** the long absence of rigorous curricular standards, and poorly trained teachers. Despite her exposure of these many fault lines, Ravitch's attention to the theoretical and ideological debates influencing reform efforts throughout history exposes the dangers of reform narratives and policy prescriptions that focus on a narrow set of variables, pedagogical or otherwise, intended to fix all that ails our system of public education and our society more broadly. Ultimately, Left Back is a reminder to policy makers and the public that we need to think about education in a more measured, common sense, and democratic way. As a society, we need to ensure that every student has access to a rigorous, rich curriculum and well-trained teachers; value education for its contributions to individual intellectual growth and value intellectual growth and wisdom as important social resources; and be mindful of what schools are realistically able to achieve and what is outside their capacities.
  
  *Confession: I found myself thinking frequently that the professoriate is a plague on the general welfare of society and that all schools of education should be closed, but I think we in the Academy have mostly recovered our good sense since the mid-20th century.
  
  **Seriously, WTF? Face plant, etc.
• 
  Benny Boo

  Ugh! I am reading this for one of my classes. If you have insomnia this is the tome for you!
• 
  Linden

  Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch (2000)
• 
  Laura Tortorelli

  Write a review...Everyone who has children or plans to have them or who teaches should read this book.
• 
  Steve

  A well researched history of our public education system. Ms. Ravitch knows her subject and is quite thorough. Can public education be repaired? She seems to think so. I'm not so sure.
• 
  Tim

  Well researched, cited, and written. I found it gripping, and best of all, I have more perspective to continue reading about the various pedagogical movements within their historical context.
• 
  Adam

  Very thorough history of education in the United States. Very sad to see the cyclical decisions that continue to be made despite the obvious failures of the past.
• 
  Lauren Nolan

  I really wish Ravitch had given us more of her own opinions throughout this book. While it is valuable information, it is terribly dry.
• 
  Chase Parsley

  Last night I finished education guru/historian Diane Ravitch’s “Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform” and I feel like taking a shower. The feeling of filth comes from reading about the last 100+ years of hare-brained, magic-bullet school reform ideas, many of which damaged students’ ability to be educated. Each movement offered new ideas, some of which had some good elements to them, but Ravitch makes the convincing case that most of them were misguided and/or harmful. The lesson: everyone ought to be extremely suspicious any time a new “fad” comes out with huge promises. When in doubt, stick to the basics: organized, qualified, and enthusiastic teachers, a balance of teaching knowledge and skills, and rigorous standards.
  
  Some thoughts/highlights:
  1) Diane Ravitch recaps her thesis at the end of the book: “The three great errors demonstrated in these pages are, first, the belief that schools should be expected to solve all of society’s problems; second, the belief that only a portion of children need access to a high-quality academic education; and third, the belief that schools should emphasize students’ immediate experiences and minimize (or even ignore) the transmission of knowledge” (465-66). AMEN!
  
  2) Along with education scholars like William C. Bagley and E.D. Hirsch, Ravitch understands the value of knowledge. “Knowledge is power, and those who have it control the debate and ultimately control the levers of power in society” (451). I could not agree more!
  
  3) Ravitch is hard on Thomas Dewey. His ideas, along with others, largely led to the “Progressive” Education movement. He was also taken in by far-Left solutions (praised the early Soviet system for a time). The Progressive Movement realized that making school fun and giving students experiences is valuable, but it also granted far too much freedom to students and claimed to do more than it could.
  
  4) By the 1930s, the “John Jones letter” (276) – encapsulated how Progressivists felt that schools were teaching students useless facts and no life skills. This is a key debate – should schools teach skills or academics? Ravitch makes that case that both have value, but academics and the growth of knowledge is key in life (and in our democratic government) and should never be dismissed.
  
  5) The book “Summerhill” in 1960 was about the pedagogical “Liberation Movement.” It was a TOTAL farce. These schools had no authority at all…one student was in school 12 years without ever attending a lesson! It was all about letting the children do whatever they want, in hopes that having fun would somehow educate them. Elements of this were common throughout the 1960s and ‘70s and lots of elective classes replaced classes that academically mattered.
  
  6) The “Nation at Risk” (1983) US government report changed education politics. True, the report may have expected too much from teachers and schools, but by this time it was clear that standards were needed. It is worth mentioning that today, teachers are much more qualified (higher level of education achieved) and standards are much more entrenched (often overly so).
  
  7) Starting in the 1980s and still going, the Multiculturalism movement took center stage. But should it be about teaching a variety of cultures/regions, or should it focus on victims of history? This has been an ongoing debate as people have different ideas about what is should mean.
  
  8) The Self-Esteem Movement (circa 1970s-80s) was horrible – praise/complimenting can be dangerous and not teach life lessons! The idea was to constantly praise all students and not let them feel negative emotions.
  
  9) Finally, as a history teacher I really appreciated Ravitch’s support of teaching history. “…history teaches judgment, reasoning power, culture, social efficiency…good citizenship.” (84)
  
  10) “Social studies” was created, basically out of thin air, in 1918 by the “Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education” committee with “good citizenship” as the goal. It de-emphasized history, knowledge, and encouraged more current events and life skills. Does this debate sound familiar? I have always thought that learning history should come first, discussing current events, etc. second. Possessing a foundation of knowledge is key to critical thinking and needs to come first.
  
  11) The attempt to implement US-wide History standards died in a 1994 political debate. In a 99-1 Senate vote, the standards were condemned (with a Louisiana senator as the lone opposition vote because he wanted an even stronger condemnation). Everyone felt that hey were biased and focused on the bad parts of US history, etc. Ravitch makes a point: “(it brought up) questions about how national standards could ever be devised without running into an ideological minefield.” This was a fascinating debate for all history teachers/fans out there!
• 
  April

  I learned so much from this book. I will never look at education the same way again.
  
  In the early 20th Century educational authority shifted from parents, teachers and school leaders to the scientific experts in the new schools of education. This book gives a fascinating view into how we start with good practices that work, then all fall prey to the bad ideas of experts and fads/trends…we’re like the guinea pigs of their “science.” Some of these bad ideas were…
  
  1. The influence of teaching colleges meant the loss of educated teachers because they are trained in pedagogy rather than possessing depth in any particular subject area.
  2. We lost trained minds and disciplined wills to not forcing children to learn anything boring or disagreeably hard (think Dewey and Rousseau)
  3. Social Reform was of more importance than the intellectual development of children.
  4. IQ tests (and the “science” behind them that considered intelligence innate and immutable) were used to educate only the smartest white kids for college…progressive educators argued that the bookish curriculum blocked social progress and that it was unfitted to the hordes of immigrant children crowding into the urban schools who needed vocational and industrial training, not algebra and literature.
  5. Schools used to be 1st-8th grade with the same rich classical knowledge-based curriculum for all. When they added junior highs, the idea was to have electives available so that students could be sorted for college-tracks and vocational-tracks starting in the 6th grade. But a strong foundation of knowledge of the academic curriculum is always most beneficial and critical to the students from the least educated families because they are not “picking up” knowledge at home.
  6. We lost Greek and Latin - what is utilitarian about these languages?
  7. We lost history to social studies and English to language arts which were both subjects invented to be more applicable to the present.
  
  If the trendy people want to shut you up, they just label you “conservative,” “far right,” “against children,” “unscientific,” “outdated,” “undemocratic,” “connected to conspiracy theories,” etc…
  
  I totally loved William Bagley and his resistance to all the education hype. He believed there is so much to be gained by studying the accumulated wisdom of the centuries, and it’s the job of the schools to pass on this priceless heritage to each succeeding generation in order for progress to continue. For this to happen, every classroom should have a well-educated, cultured teacher.
  
  Love these quotes from the end of the book:
  
  “The society that allows large numbers of its citizens to remain uneducated, ignorant or semi-literate squanders it’s greatest asset, the intelligence of its people.”
  
  “A society that tolerates anti-intellectualism in its schools can expect to have a dumbed-down culture that honors celebrity and sensation rather than knowledge and wisdom.”
  
  (And this is just me, but I see so many parallels with how education fads have infected the church and the dumbing down of Christians as we value pragmatics over the knowledge of what we believe.)
• 
  NCHS Library

  Publisher's Description: For the past one hundred years, Americans have argued and worried about the quality of their schools. Some charged that students were not learning enough, while others complained that the schools were not furthering social progress. In Left Back, education historian Diane Ravitch describes this ongoing battle of ideas and explains why school reform has so often disappointed. She recounts grandiose efforts to use the schools for social engineering, even while those efforts diminished the schools' ability to provide a high-quality education for all children. By illuminating the history of education in the twentieth century, Left Back points the way to reviving American schools today.
• 
  Kevin

  An interesting read to crack open the historical connotations of “progressive” education throughout the 20th century in America. Also some interesting snippets on the so-called “Reading Wars” in the later chapters. But given that it was published in 2000, “Left Back” is already outdated in some ways and requires the reader to continue to draw throughlines from what Ravitch has written to the present day—through the intervening 20 years of American educational reform.
  
• 
  Marina

  I had to read it for my dissertation research. A lot of info about our schools' obsession with reforms is packed into this book. Ravitch's books definitely put things in perspective.