No Simple Solution

The article by Diane Ravitch that we read over the weekend was really intriguing to me. We have talked a lot about the points made in the article already, such as No Child Left Behind, lowering/raising standards, and what defines literacy proficiency. Ravitch says, “the law permitted every state to define ‘proficiency’ as it chose” and as a result “many states announced impressive gains” under NCLB. This seems ludicrous to me because it gives the state the power to manipulate the public’s perception of its school performance, much in the same way that the Federal Reserve can manipulate the value of a dollar (I think it applies). Even though the states were reporting “80-90%” proficiency, the numbers according to federal testing were much less. The “hundreds of millions of dollars” that went into test preparation, are seemingly wasted. “Dumbing down” standards does not make students smarter or more prepared but instead only gives the illusion of academic improvement.
Something that I am not so familiar with is the charter schools that are mentioned in the article. According to USCharterSchools.org, “Charter schools are innovative public schools providing choices for families and greater accountability for results.” Despite the claims of charter schools, Ravitch asserts that “there is very little performance difference between” charter and public schools. Similar to the manipulation of standards and results, charter schools “represent tinkering around the edges of the system.” Regardless of the potential success of charter schools, they “do nothing to improve the system that enrolls the other 97%” of students. I suppose the question then is, assuming that there is no feasible solution, are the efforts already made worth the investment or should the money for education reform be spent elsewhere?
One thing that I think Ravitch could restate or claim in a different way is her assertion that “What we need is…a coherent curriculum that prepares all students.” As we have learned, this is nearly impossible because every student is different and most come from vastly differing backgrounds. Such a curriculum would bring us right back to where we began with some students performing exceptionally well in a system that suits them and others performing poorly. Maybe there is no solution that fits everyone. In that case, we will have to drastically change our approach to finding an education solution. More departments would have to be put in place to more properly micromanage different areas where students need help. For a complicated problem, there is usually no simple solution.