Donate now

Privacy Policy

Protection of privacy is our first concern, and SQE does not sell or trade information provided by its subscribers or supporters. Your information is used to process donations and newsletter subscriptions, and to contact you about upcoming publications and events.

feed iconSubscribe to our Blog

Follow Us
Follow SQESocQualEd
on Twitter

Please note Downloads require you to have the Adobe Reader installed, you can get it here for free Adobe.com

 

 
 
Society for Quality Education

When they say it’s not about the money….

September 02, 2011 by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) at 07:01 AM

A while back I wrote about the sudden conversion of Diane Ravitch from sensible education reformer to flaky supporter of the teachers’ unions (here). It’s always fun to speculate about the vagaries of human behaviour, and I have done my share of wondering what on earth was going on. Now comes a plausible hypothesis from my new hero and mystery solver Steven Brill (pp 304-305).

“From February 2010 through March 2011, Ravitch would make fifteen speeches across the country, according to a schedule found on her own website, to local, state, or national units of the teachers’ unions, plus nine to other groups - such as associations of local school boards or principals and a think tank founded by the NEA - that were also squarely in the anti-reform camp. During that time, Ravitch was listed by the Leading Authorities speakers bureau, which books speaking appearances, as charging a fee of $15,000 to $20,000 per speech, plus travel expenses.

“Asked if she charged the unions whose cause was given such a lift in her book, Ravitch said, ‘Don’t you charge for your speeches?’ (Answer: Not if it’s a group whose issues I am covering, or might cover, in any way as a writer.) Assuming that Ravitch didn’t get the sticker price for her speeches, but instead received an average of just $10,000 (which is what the Florida Education Association told me she was apid), that would mean more than $200,000 in little more than a year coming from the teachers’ unions and others opposed to reform.

“Ravitch told me in April 2011 that she had ‘an even fuller’ schedule of speeches slated for the reminder of the year, although she declined to say how many would be paid for by the teachers’ unions. ‘I was married to a wealthy man,’ she said, referring to Richard Ravitch, a successful construction company executive, real-estate developer, and banker, who served as New York’s lieutenant governor from 2009 to the end of 2010, and from whom she is divorced. ‘I live very comfortably. This is not about the money. I’m seventy-two and don’t need money. If I want to speak to a group I’ll do it for free or for a few thousand dollars if that’s all they can pay.’ (In an e-mail following this conversation, Ravitch told me that she was donating her speaking fees to a pediatric oncology program, dedicated in May 2011, in memory of her son, who had died of leukemia at age two.)”

Comments

It’s too bad that s. Ravitch doesn’t harbour more compassion for children and families who, because they can’t afford alternatives when it comes to education, are therefore suffering because of the teachers’ unions, and all the rest of the monopoly called free education.

Posted by Bev on 09/02 at 09:51 AM

Ravitch’s Disdain For Parents

Considering that she is a parent, and probably at 72 a grandparent, her disregard for the sovereignty of parents is puzzling and troubling.  I have never seen, nor have others shown, where she is even sympathetic to parents as needing to be instrumental in the education of their children.

She seems eager for parents to relinquish their children to the state education systems.

This really challenges her credibility as she seems immune to any reasonable views other than blindly supporting the machine of public education and all its agents.

She is also on the board of some Albert Shanker Institute.  Shanker was a past president of several American teacher unions, and always a socialist and never disavowed being called a Marxist.

I think her views are consistent with the colonial attitudes of many extreme leftists who think the state knows what’s best for children and society in general.

This reminds me of the articulated agendas of communism from the 60s.

From the US Congressional Record of 1963 these quotes about communist goals:

-  “Discredit the family as an institution”

-  “Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents”

-  “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.”

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Posted by Tunya Audain on 09/03 at 04:58 PM

Yes, I can see why Ravitch could definitely be pegged an extreme socialist, but like the rest of these hypocrites/champagne socialists I would bet $$ that if she had any more children, that they all went to private schools.

Posted by Bev on 09/03 at 07:27 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

Leave A Comment

Name:

Email (required but not displayed):

Emotions

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: The new New Orleans

Previous entry: The waste of our faculties