I know that it's about a month old at this point, but I'm finally caught up on my New Yorker reading so I've finally had a chance to read the profile of Arne Duncan. On the whole, I thought it was pretty interesting and encapsulated a lot of my ambivalence about the guy and his agenda. Some things I'm totally on board with. Others, less so.
What I'm totally opposed to, though, is the kind of ridiculous journalism that slips in lines like, "In the fight over education in America today, there, roughly speaking, two major camps: free-market reformers, who believe that competition, choice, and incentives must have a greater part in education; and liberal traditionalists who rally around teachers’ unions and education schools." (For the record, that's the author of the article, not Duncan speaking.)
In other words, there are people who want to help kids learn through a competition-based reform model and there are people who are union-loving, education-school-promoting, failing-school-allowing defenders of the status quo. At least with the "roughly speaking" phrase there's the chance that some other camps might exist.
I've written about this before, but it doesn't make me any less angry to see. School reform doesn't necessarily mean charter schools and teacher incentive pay. It just doesn't. It can also mean reducing class sizes, reworking curriculum, promoting the community school model, and a host of other efforts taking place across the country. For whatever reason, our journalists just can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that there could be a whole lot of different reform ideas out there and that people who don't think charter schools are the answer might not be in favor of keeping everything exactly the same.
Unspeak lives, even in the pages of the New Yorker.
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Change We Can Believe In
Not content with just reforming education through the Race to the Top fund, President Obama has come out swinging again on education. This time, he's talking about rewriting the No Child Left Behind law. At the risk of repeating what's already been on about 1,000 edublogs, way to go.
At this point, it's pretty clear that No Child Left Behind, though well intentioned, has some serious flaws. It's over-reliance on standardized tests is a huge example of that. So what does Obama do? He sets out to deemphasize standardized tests in determining which schools are succeeding and which are failing. If this really happens, it could lead to a huge shift away from the skill, drill, and kill methodology that's become pretty much a necessity in the NCLB era. Let's move away from the high stakes tests and toward a more complete measure of student and school performance.
Arne Duncan said, "We want accountability reforms that factor in student growth, progress in closing achievement gaps, proficiency towards college and career-ready standards, high school graduation and college enrollment rates."
Yes we do.
At this point, it's pretty clear that No Child Left Behind, though well intentioned, has some serious flaws. It's over-reliance on standardized tests is a huge example of that. So what does Obama do? He sets out to deemphasize standardized tests in determining which schools are succeeding and which are failing. If this really happens, it could lead to a huge shift away from the skill, drill, and kill methodology that's become pretty much a necessity in the NCLB era. Let's move away from the high stakes tests and toward a more complete measure of student and school performance.
Arne Duncan said, "We want accountability reforms that factor in student growth, progress in closing achievement gaps, proficiency towards college and career-ready standards, high school graduation and college enrollment rates."
Yes we do.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Arne and the Community
On Thursday morning, I was fortunate enough to be part of a group that got to hear a speech by Education Secretary Arne Duncan at a Children’s Aid Society conference on community schools. It’s kind of hard to know where to start because he touched on so many different points (though seldom went into any real depth). That said, let me give it a try.
But first, I have to say how much I love the idea of community schools. Check out that CAS link above. The basic idea is that schools should also serve as community centers that are open after school to serve both kids and members of the community. Further, schools should be partnering with all sorts of social service providers to address all the components of being a child in poverty, not just the academic issues. Count me as one who’s 100% with that.
You can count Duncan too, based on his speech. Given that he was speaking to a room full of community schooling advocates, I suppose that’s not terribly surprising, but it was sure nice to hear someone in charge really seem to get the idea that there’s a lot that needs to be done to really help educate kids. As he said, “We’re fighting a tremendous number of battles as a society.” No kidding. As I’ve often written, the host of issues surrounding kids in poor communities goes far beyond what we think of as traditional educational issues. If we want to make a difference, we’ve got to look beyond the traditional classroom roles.
Part of the reason for moving beyond the traditional model is that the role of schooling has fundamentally changed. Namely, the stakes are a lot higher now. As Duncan pointed out, 30 years ago, there was such a thing as an acceptable dropout rate because people could work in factories or other similar jobs. That’s just not the case in today’s economy. As Duncan said, “Now there are no good jobs in the legal economy for high school dropouts.” The stakes are higher because every child needs to succeed in school. That means that schools need to find ways to reach every child, which means that they need to go beyond what they did in the past.
That’s where the community schools model comes in. It focuses on all aspects of a child and involves the community in solving what is essentially a community problem. It even begins to solve some of the problems in the community itself. I’m really excited by the bold idea of re-imagining what a school is in a modern community. I know I’m late to the party (again, check out the CAS link), but I’m happy to be here now.
But first, I have to say how much I love the idea of community schools. Check out that CAS link above. The basic idea is that schools should also serve as community centers that are open after school to serve both kids and members of the community. Further, schools should be partnering with all sorts of social service providers to address all the components of being a child in poverty, not just the academic issues. Count me as one who’s 100% with that.
You can count Duncan too, based on his speech. Given that he was speaking to a room full of community schooling advocates, I suppose that’s not terribly surprising, but it was sure nice to hear someone in charge really seem to get the idea that there’s a lot that needs to be done to really help educate kids. As he said, “We’re fighting a tremendous number of battles as a society.” No kidding. As I’ve often written, the host of issues surrounding kids in poor communities goes far beyond what we think of as traditional educational issues. If we want to make a difference, we’ve got to look beyond the traditional classroom roles.
Part of the reason for moving beyond the traditional model is that the role of schooling has fundamentally changed. Namely, the stakes are a lot higher now. As Duncan pointed out, 30 years ago, there was such a thing as an acceptable dropout rate because people could work in factories or other similar jobs. That’s just not the case in today’s economy. As Duncan said, “Now there are no good jobs in the legal economy for high school dropouts.” The stakes are higher because every child needs to succeed in school. That means that schools need to find ways to reach every child, which means that they need to go beyond what they did in the past.
That’s where the community schools model comes in. It focuses on all aspects of a child and involves the community in solving what is essentially a community problem. It even begins to solve some of the problems in the community itself. I’m really excited by the bold idea of re-imagining what a school is in a modern community. I know I’m late to the party (again, check out the CAS link), but I’m happy to be here now.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Forgetting the First Line
Imagine for a moment that you're the principal of a school and it comes to your attention that a child is failing his social studies class. Obviously, this is not good news. The news gets worse, though, when you're told that if you want to continue to receive resources for your school you have to follow a very strict menu of options in order to improve the performance. Your options are:
- Suspend the student and bring him back in a new class
- Suspend the student and transfer him to a new school
- Fire the social studies teacher and dramatically restructure the classroom's procedures and methods
Seems a bit extreme, doesn't it? Nowhere in there is the option given to work directly with the student and/or teacher to find strategies to improve that student's performance. Everything is about a radical restructuring to shake up the very foundation.
The reason I present this little hypothetical scenario is that Arne Duncan has made it clear to states what steps they need to take with their failing schools in order to receive money from the School Improvement Fund. The name of the fund itself is a bit of a misnomer because the steps have less to do with improving existing schools than opening new and better schools. Here are the options:
- Close and reopen failing schools with new teachers and principals.
- Close and reopen failing schools under management of a charter school company or similar group.
- Close failing schools and send students to high-achieving schools in the same district.
- Replace a failing school's principal and overhaul its operations.
On the one hand, I totally approve of the focus the administration is putting on turning around the lowest performing schools and I think that in many of those cases dramatic action may be required. However, I fail to see how bringing in a new group of teachers and administrators is automatically going to equate to a better school. In some - perhaps even many - cases, it may do just that. But there is nothing intrinsically more effective about a new staff than an old one. In my mind, the first line of defense should always be to work with what's available and make it as good as it can possibly be. If you do that and it's still not good enough, that's when you bring in the new crew. But shouldn't you start with trying to improve what you already have?
In other words, try tutoring the kid after school before you ship him off somewhere else.
- Suspend the student and bring him back in a new class
- Suspend the student and transfer him to a new school
- Fire the social studies teacher and dramatically restructure the classroom's procedures and methods
Seems a bit extreme, doesn't it? Nowhere in there is the option given to work directly with the student and/or teacher to find strategies to improve that student's performance. Everything is about a radical restructuring to shake up the very foundation.
The reason I present this little hypothetical scenario is that Arne Duncan has made it clear to states what steps they need to take with their failing schools in order to receive money from the School Improvement Fund. The name of the fund itself is a bit of a misnomer because the steps have less to do with improving existing schools than opening new and better schools. Here are the options:
- Close and reopen failing schools with new teachers and principals.
- Close and reopen failing schools under management of a charter school company or similar group.
- Close failing schools and send students to high-achieving schools in the same district.
- Replace a failing school's principal and overhaul its operations.
On the one hand, I totally approve of the focus the administration is putting on turning around the lowest performing schools and I think that in many of those cases dramatic action may be required. However, I fail to see how bringing in a new group of teachers and administrators is automatically going to equate to a better school. In some - perhaps even many - cases, it may do just that. But there is nothing intrinsically more effective about a new staff than an old one. In my mind, the first line of defense should always be to work with what's available and make it as good as it can possibly be. If you do that and it's still not good enough, that's when you bring in the new crew. But shouldn't you start with trying to improve what you already have?
In other words, try tutoring the kid after school before you ship him off somewhere else.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Turnaround Artist
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has gone on record as saying that his goal is to turn around the 5,000 lowest achieving shools in the country. Under the "rising tide lifts all boats" thinking, focusing on those bottom tier schools would bring about the greatest and most effective change for the entire system. I'm a huge supporter of this plan. I think that when you're trying to fix something (like an education system) it makes sense to focus on where it's broken.
A recent article in Education Week highlights educators who are asking if such an enormous goal can actually be achieved. To my way of thinking, that means that it's a good goal. If everyone said, "Yeah, we can do that," it probably means that the bar is set to low and you have an order rather than a goal. If everyone freaks out and says that it's impossible, you have to start considering whether you're too pie in the sky. But if people are questioning whether the goal is to big, it means that they think it might be able to be done, but aren't sure if it will actually work. To my way of thinking, that's exactly the range that goals should fall into.
The bigger question even than whether we can do it is how we're going to do it. Duncan's plan calls for turning around the schools through changes in leadership, staffing, and structure (i.e. traditional public vs. charter). That's one way of thinking about it, but I'm not sure if it's really going to get the most bang for the buck.
The fact remains that zip code is the most defining predictor of educational quality in America. Live in a good zip code and you're well-educated. Live in a poor zip code and the education you get reflects that. Obviously there are bad schools in good neighborhoods and excellent schools in bad neighborhoods. But if you were to boil it all down, zip code is what you're left with.
Given that the realities affecting education are bigger than what happens in schools, efforts to afffect a real turn around also need to be bigger than schools. Certainly schools should be part of that picture, but the reform can't stop at the school house gate. When we get serious about improving all the aspects that affect children's lives, we'll start seeing serious improvements in our education system. It's a big goal and I don't know whether we can achieve it, but I do know that we sure have to try.
A recent article in Education Week highlights educators who are asking if such an enormous goal can actually be achieved. To my way of thinking, that means that it's a good goal. If everyone said, "Yeah, we can do that," it probably means that the bar is set to low and you have an order rather than a goal. If everyone freaks out and says that it's impossible, you have to start considering whether you're too pie in the sky. But if people are questioning whether the goal is to big, it means that they think it might be able to be done, but aren't sure if it will actually work. To my way of thinking, that's exactly the range that goals should fall into.
The bigger question even than whether we can do it is how we're going to do it. Duncan's plan calls for turning around the schools through changes in leadership, staffing, and structure (i.e. traditional public vs. charter). That's one way of thinking about it, but I'm not sure if it's really going to get the most bang for the buck.
The fact remains that zip code is the most defining predictor of educational quality in America. Live in a good zip code and you're well-educated. Live in a poor zip code and the education you get reflects that. Obviously there are bad schools in good neighborhoods and excellent schools in bad neighborhoods. But if you were to boil it all down, zip code is what you're left with.
Given that the realities affecting education are bigger than what happens in schools, efforts to afffect a real turn around also need to be bigger than schools. Certainly schools should be part of that picture, but the reform can't stop at the school house gate. When we get serious about improving all the aspects that affect children's lives, we'll start seeing serious improvements in our education system. It's a big goal and I don't know whether we can achieve it, but I do know that we sure have to try.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The 1% Solution
I've written before on this blog that contrary to what you might think from reading the newspapers, the school system as a whole is not failing. Public schools in suburban and other upper middle class neighborhoods are actually doing pretty well. However, schools in underserved communities are spectacularly failing. When we talk about the achievement gap and failing schools, that's what we're really talking about.
So where does that leave us in terms of school reform?
Well, it gives us a focus. Rather than running around trying to come up with new systems to measure and account for all schools, we should be looking for ways to boost those schools that actually most need the boosting. I think Arne Duncan gets this.
He just announced a plan to try to turn around the bottom 1,000 schools a year for the next five years. That's about 1% of the school system each year. On the one hand, it's not a lot. On the other hand, just imagine the difference it would make. Targeting intervention on the kids who most need would have a huge impact.
I'm a little less impressed with the means he's planning on using to achieve the ends. The plan seems to be to close down the schools and then re-open them with new leadership and a new staff. That's all well and good, but it depends on the assumption that a new group of teachers is automatically going to be better than the old group. I'm not sure that's exactly a logical assessment of things. Certainly, some schools are beyond help and probably deserve to be closed. But on the other hand, what are we doing to ensure that schools are going to be successful. It's going to take more than new faces. It's going to take an entirely new approach that involves revamped curriculum, teaching, and investment in the community. So by all means, let's focus on turning around the bottom 1% each year. But let's make sure we're actually doing some turning around rather than just taking frantic action to look busy.
So where does that leave us in terms of school reform?
Well, it gives us a focus. Rather than running around trying to come up with new systems to measure and account for all schools, we should be looking for ways to boost those schools that actually most need the boosting. I think Arne Duncan gets this.
He just announced a plan to try to turn around the bottom 1,000 schools a year for the next five years. That's about 1% of the school system each year. On the one hand, it's not a lot. On the other hand, just imagine the difference it would make. Targeting intervention on the kids who most need would have a huge impact.
I'm a little less impressed with the means he's planning on using to achieve the ends. The plan seems to be to close down the schools and then re-open them with new leadership and a new staff. That's all well and good, but it depends on the assumption that a new group of teachers is automatically going to be better than the old group. I'm not sure that's exactly a logical assessment of things. Certainly, some schools are beyond help and probably deserve to be closed. But on the other hand, what are we doing to ensure that schools are going to be successful. It's going to take more than new faces. It's going to take an entirely new approach that involves revamped curriculum, teaching, and investment in the community. So by all means, let's focus on turning around the bottom 1% each year. But let's make sure we're actually doing some turning around rather than just taking frantic action to look busy.
Monday, March 2, 2009
More Than Just Showing Up
You can tell when it's kind of a slow news weekend over at CNN when the lead story on their website for the better part of the day relates to a run-of-the-mill education announcement. Usually the top spot is reserved for coups in foreign countries or something equally dramatic (and visual). But for a pretty good stretch on Saturday, the top story was "Education chief favors longer school year."
As the headline suggests, Education Secretary Arne Duncan would like to keep kids in school for longer days and longer years. While as a former teacher I have trouble arguing that the school year should stretch event longer into June, the research lends some persuasion to the argument. The summer loss of learning that takes place - especially for kids in underserved communities - is huge. In fact, research highlighted in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers showed that the achievement gap can be almost completely attributed to summer learning loss. I think that there's probably a little more to it than that, but the point I'm making here is that it's important. So shortening the summers and having kids in school for longer makes sense on that front.
Where it gets a little bit tricky is that the research doesn't show much benefit to just spending more time in school. Just being there doesn't improve learning. What makes the difference is increased time on task. The mere act of sitting in a school building doesn't make you smarter. Engaging in lessons and learning does. Pretty obvious insight, I know. But here's where it leaves us. In order to make this extra school time effective, we need to make sure that our teachers are effective as they can be and that students are receiving all of the supports they need in order to be successful. Increased school time may be part of a solution, but it's not an entire solution. We still need to look for ways to increase educational quality and living quality across the board for our neediest students.
As the headline suggests, Education Secretary Arne Duncan would like to keep kids in school for longer days and longer years. While as a former teacher I have trouble arguing that the school year should stretch event longer into June, the research lends some persuasion to the argument. The summer loss of learning that takes place - especially for kids in underserved communities - is huge. In fact, research highlighted in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers showed that the achievement gap can be almost completely attributed to summer learning loss. I think that there's probably a little more to it than that, but the point I'm making here is that it's important. So shortening the summers and having kids in school for longer makes sense on that front.
Where it gets a little bit tricky is that the research doesn't show much benefit to just spending more time in school. Just being there doesn't improve learning. What makes the difference is increased time on task. The mere act of sitting in a school building doesn't make you smarter. Engaging in lessons and learning does. Pretty obvious insight, I know. But here's where it leaves us. In order to make this extra school time effective, we need to make sure that our teachers are effective as they can be and that students are receiving all of the supports they need in order to be successful. Increased school time may be part of a solution, but it's not an entire solution. We still need to look for ways to increase educational quality and living quality across the board for our neediest students.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Idealocratest of Them All
I've been writing for a while now that I think we should call the new breed of school reformers idealocrats (as originally suggested by Gotham Schools). I've written before about why I think it's a great description for this particular school movement, but I don't think I've ever really put my finger on why exactly I like it so much. Until now. Let me back up for a moment.
You may have heard that Arne Duncan is the new Secretary of Education in the Obama administration. That left a vacancy at his old job running the Chicago public school system. So Mayor Richard Daley appointed a replacement with a strong background ... in transportation. That's right, Ron Huberman, the new head of the Chicago system, has a good reputation as an administrator from his time running CTA (which I'm guessing is the Chicago public transit system). In doing so, Daley just crowned himself as perhaps the idealocratest of them all.
(As a side note, I really like this quote from the head of the Chicago teachers' union. I can't tell whether it's supposed to be funny or sad. "We were hoping the mayor would appoint someone with a strong background in education since we face so many challenges as an urban district. However, we will work with whomever the mayor sends ...")
Here's what makes this such an idealocrat thing to do. It assumes that knowledge of teaching/learning/pedagogy is not needed to run an education system. You don't need any knowledge to do it. All you need is to be a strong administrator because that's where the system is broken. The idealocrats are trying to create the ideal bureaucracy with clear lines of authority and an obvious system for measuring success. It's all focused on the bureaucratic systems, not the classrooms.
Think about it. Can you tell me where Joel Klein stands on math education? Is he in favor of traditional approaches or does he like the more progressive number-sense pedagogy? What about Michelle Rhee? Is she a phonics or whole language person? I could guess on each of these, but I don't know for sure. But you can bet that I can tell you where they stand on teacher tenure and high-stakes testing as a means of boosting accountability.
I think that there's a lot that needs to be done to improve the systems that are in place to ensure that our schools are working well. In that, I think the idealocrats may be on to something. But I think that more important than what happens in the central offices is what happens in the classrooms. I have trouble seeing how we can expect educational amateurs (no matter how gifted they are at administrating) to lead us to positive change in the actual process of educating kids.
You may have heard that Arne Duncan is the new Secretary of Education in the Obama administration. That left a vacancy at his old job running the Chicago public school system. So Mayor Richard Daley appointed a replacement with a strong background ... in transportation. That's right, Ron Huberman, the new head of the Chicago system, has a good reputation as an administrator from his time running CTA (which I'm guessing is the Chicago public transit system). In doing so, Daley just crowned himself as perhaps the idealocratest of them all.
(As a side note, I really like this quote from the head of the Chicago teachers' union. I can't tell whether it's supposed to be funny or sad. "We were hoping the mayor would appoint someone with a strong background in education since we face so many challenges as an urban district. However, we will work with whomever the mayor sends ...")
Here's what makes this such an idealocrat thing to do. It assumes that knowledge of teaching/learning/pedagogy is not needed to run an education system. You don't need any knowledge to do it. All you need is to be a strong administrator because that's where the system is broken. The idealocrats are trying to create the ideal bureaucracy with clear lines of authority and an obvious system for measuring success. It's all focused on the bureaucratic systems, not the classrooms.
Think about it. Can you tell me where Joel Klein stands on math education? Is he in favor of traditional approaches or does he like the more progressive number-sense pedagogy? What about Michelle Rhee? Is she a phonics or whole language person? I could guess on each of these, but I don't know for sure. But you can bet that I can tell you where they stand on teacher tenure and high-stakes testing as a means of boosting accountability.
I think that there's a lot that needs to be done to improve the systems that are in place to ensure that our schools are working well. In that, I think the idealocrats may be on to something. But I think that more important than what happens in the central offices is what happens in the classrooms. I have trouble seeing how we can expect educational amateurs (no matter how gifted they are at administrating) to lead us to positive change in the actual process of educating kids.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Looking at Facts
Even after the selection of Arne Duncan t be the new Secretary of Education, the battle for the educational heart and mind of the Obama administration continues. Duncan is seen as a middle of the roader who could break in either direction for which direction to take school reform (because, yes, there are multiple ways to reform the schools).
Before Duncan's selection, the Boston Globe ran an editorial saying that Obama needs to appoint "an education secretary wedded to reform - not one inclined to settle for low standards." I could rant and rave now about how the choice is not between monolithic reform and the evil status quo, but I've covered that ground already so I'll let it slide this time. Suffice it to say that the Globe would prefer Obama to tack to the idealocratic side of the reform divide. (That's what they meant, even if they didn't know it.) This would mean adopting on a national scale the kinds of reforms that we've seen in New York and Washington D.C.
What's missing is an analysis beyond the hype of how effective those reforms really are. As was raised in the last issue of City Hall News, the New York reforms may not be all they're cracked up to be. Of course, Eduwonkette has made her blogging name establishing just that, so it's no great surprise.
In the debate over where the schools should go there's a lot of people shouting "Follow me!" and "Go that way!" What's missing (at least in the mainstream press) is a look at which direction actually makes the most sense after you cut out all the hyperbole and hype.
Before Duncan's selection, the Boston Globe ran an editorial saying that Obama needs to appoint "an education secretary wedded to reform - not one inclined to settle for low standards." I could rant and rave now about how the choice is not between monolithic reform and the evil status quo, but I've covered that ground already so I'll let it slide this time. Suffice it to say that the Globe would prefer Obama to tack to the idealocratic side of the reform divide. (That's what they meant, even if they didn't know it.) This would mean adopting on a national scale the kinds of reforms that we've seen in New York and Washington D.C.
What's missing is an analysis beyond the hype of how effective those reforms really are. As was raised in the last issue of City Hall News, the New York reforms may not be all they're cracked up to be. Of course, Eduwonkette has made her blogging name establishing just that, so it's no great surprise.
In the debate over where the schools should go there's a lot of people shouting "Follow me!" and "Go that way!" What's missing (at least in the mainstream press) is a look at which direction actually makes the most sense after you cut out all the hyperbole and hype.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Beyond Either/Or
I have to admit that I'm shooting from the hip a little bit with today's post because I don't really know all that much about Arne Duncan, Obama's pick for Secretary of Education. I've read a couple of things about him (not all positive) and have to say that I'm pretty happy with this pick.
It seems like right now a lot of people aren't sure entirely what to make of the choice. After all, ths guy is supported by both Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein. When faced with two petitions for Obama over the summer - one pushing the idealocrat get-tough approach and the other pushing the broader, bolder approach - Duncan signed both. Some are going to see this as a sign of wishy washiness or political opportunism. I see it as an indication that he doesn't view this debate as an either/or. In this sense, he could be the anti-Michelle Rhee, which may be the best thing to happen to the education debate in a long time.
Let's assume the best about Duncan and say that his straddling of the middle is because there are ideas of merit on both sides of the issue and that he recognizes that one side is not totally right and acting in good faith while the other side is trying to ruin the lives of millions of children. He would be absolutely right. There is no one silver bullet that will solve all of the educational problems in America. Anyone who honestly looks at the situation can see that.
The Times article says, "[Duncan] argued that the nation’s schools needed to be held accountable for student progress, but also needed major new investments, new talent and new teacher-training efforts." Obama could do a lot worse than to have someone with that attitude working for him.
It seems like right now a lot of people aren't sure entirely what to make of the choice. After all, ths guy is supported by both Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein. When faced with two petitions for Obama over the summer - one pushing the idealocrat get-tough approach and the other pushing the broader, bolder approach - Duncan signed both. Some are going to see this as a sign of wishy washiness or political opportunism. I see it as an indication that he doesn't view this debate as an either/or. In this sense, he could be the anti-Michelle Rhee, which may be the best thing to happen to the education debate in a long time.
Let's assume the best about Duncan and say that his straddling of the middle is because there are ideas of merit on both sides of the issue and that he recognizes that one side is not totally right and acting in good faith while the other side is trying to ruin the lives of millions of children. He would be absolutely right. There is no one silver bullet that will solve all of the educational problems in America. Anyone who honestly looks at the situation can see that.
The Times article says, "[Duncan] argued that the nation’s schools needed to be held accountable for student progress, but also needed major new investments, new talent and new teacher-training efforts." Obama could do a lot worse than to have someone with that attitude working for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)