The New York Times
homepage is currently featuring a story on the educational historian Diane Ravitch
. While it is exciting to see educational news featured so prominently, after reading the article I don't have a strong sense of what is at stake. I understand that Ravitch left some of the organizations that she was once affiliated with, and I understand that she is questioning some of her own positions. But, I do not understand the significance of this. Instead of articulating what positions Ravitch held and why these positions are significant, and then showing what her new positions are and why they are–or might be–significant, the author associates Ravitch with the right through a description of her 2 year tenure as Assistant Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush (her work for the Clinton administration is not mentioned) and then associates her somewhat with the left(?) by closing with a description of superintendents applauding her. What are we to make of this; how is a reader to respond to this type of reporting? While I think there is certainly a story here, this article doesn't tell it. Instead, it asks us to draw on half-thoughts and bias to reach generalizations that don't come anywhere near the story that is lurking somewhere in here waiting to be told.