Diane Ravitch applauds the Gates Foundation’s decision to shift the focus of its educational philanthropy, while reminding us that their effort to transform high schools into smaller learning communities is a cautionary tale of seeking a “magic bullet” solution. “We must give the Gates Foundation and its founders credit for their honest self-scrutiny,” Ravitch writes on Forbes.com. ”Most proponents of education reform defend their ideas against all critics, regardless of what evaluations show.”
“The press for small schools, now taken up by almost every big-city district, has diverted our attention from the need to strengthen curriculum and instruction, beginning in elementary schools. Whether a school is small or large, the essential questions in education cannot be ignored: What should students learn? How should they be taught? Are classes too large, especially for struggling students? Are teachers well-prepared in the subjects they teach? Do teachers have the resources they need? Do students arrive in school ready to learn? Until we answer these questions, the size of schools is not a relevant issue.
It’s good news, Ravitch concludes, that Gates is pledging to devote its attention to what happens in the classroom. “The first thing it will learn is that there are no quick fixes. If it targets its dollars wisely, exercises a measure of humility, and continues to evaluate its efforts rigorously, it can make a positive difference,” she says.
How the term “no quick fixes” ever became applied to schools is a mystery. Reforms are binary. Either they do something to improve student learning (most often measured by test scores) or they don’t.
So it doesn’t matter how thoughtful the Gates Foundation is in spending its money, if the reforms don’t effect improvements in student learning then that spending will be considered unwise.
So does anyone think that any of the programs being developed by the Gates Foundation will result in improvements in classroom instruction and thus student learning? If so, which ones?