For some reason, people don't seem to find it necessary to ask teachers what might help improve education. My guess is that it's because everyone went to school at some point in their lives that everyone thinks they know what actually works for educating kids. So the experts (teachers) get ignored as essentially a special interest group (they do have a union, you know) while the decisions gets made elsewhere using input from other people.
This isn't just my sense. According to a report based on the Met Life Survey of the American Teacher, fully 69% of teachers do not believe their voices have been adequately heard in the current debate on education. That's pretty incredible. You know that if 69% of doctors said their voices weren't being heard on the health care debate there would be an explosion of outrage. But when it's education that's in question, that's just kind of accepted.
Am I the only one who thinks that's nuts? When my seak is leaking, I call the plumber. When my computer goes haywire, I call tech support. When the education system needs reform, I think we should ask the teachers what they think. How am I in the minority on this?
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Either/Or Reforms
I've frequently lamented the fact that education reform so often seems to boil down to either/or propositions. Either you're for smaller class sizes or you're for curriculum changes. Either you're for market-based reforms or you're a status-quo-loving-teacher-union-defending-failure-to-kids. That's the way it's always played out in the media at least, but I never quite bought it. But now I may be changing my mind a little.
What's gotten me to readjust my thinking a little bit is that Florida is going to be spending $200 million to revamp their math curriculum, even as budget cuts hammer education across the state. And that got me thinking. These reforms actually cost money. Want to revamp your curriculum? Pay the curriculum companies. Smaller class sizes? Pay for more schools and more teachers. Better teachers? Pay for more recruitment and professional development. The list goes on and on.
Philosophically, I think that we can't afford to focus on just one effort. Instead we need to focus on an array of reforms that will improve entire schools and communities. Pragmatically, I see that we might not be able to afford more than one thing at a time. Until we can address that, either/or may be here to say.
What's gotten me to readjust my thinking a little bit is that Florida is going to be spending $200 million to revamp their math curriculum, even as budget cuts hammer education across the state. And that got me thinking. These reforms actually cost money. Want to revamp your curriculum? Pay the curriculum companies. Smaller class sizes? Pay for more schools and more teachers. Better teachers? Pay for more recruitment and professional development. The list goes on and on.
Philosophically, I think that we can't afford to focus on just one effort. Instead we need to focus on an array of reforms that will improve entire schools and communities. Pragmatically, I see that we might not be able to afford more than one thing at a time. Until we can address that, either/or may be here to say.
Monday, January 25, 2010
On Second Thought
Out in Chicago they've been taking a look at the educational reform strategies that are now being used to reform schools across the country. The strategy - which focuses heavily on closing failing schools, opening new ones, and charters - has been, well, not as encouraging as one might hope. To get right to the point, scores from the newly opened elementary schools are the same as the city average and the high schools tend to do worse than the city average. In other words, just opening new schools doesn't mean that they're going to automatically be better than what they are replacing. Good schools are good schools. New schools can go either way.
Meanwhile, out in Long Beach - which has just received the Broad Prize - they've achieved success by being the anti-Chicago. They have focused on data, community buy-in, and staff development. Also, instead of "flitting from reform to reform or looking for silver bullets", they have stuck with that approach for nearly 20 years. (Are you listening Joel Klein?) Now data, community buy-in, and staff development aren't exactly the sexy stuff of the Education Reformers, but if it works then why isn't the data set all over this. And if the portfolio method isn't so effective, you'd think they'd be turning against that.
The thing about all this reform is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are getting locked into their ideas of what works whether it does or not. I'm not saying that only one approach can be successful. I think the exact opposite is true, in fact. But we need to make sure we're actually looking at what works instead of just saying it works and taking action that doesn't help.
Meanwhile, out in Long Beach - which has just received the Broad Prize - they've achieved success by being the anti-Chicago. They have focused on data, community buy-in, and staff development. Also, instead of "flitting from reform to reform or looking for silver bullets", they have stuck with that approach for nearly 20 years. (Are you listening Joel Klein?) Now data, community buy-in, and staff development aren't exactly the sexy stuff of the Education Reformers, but if it works then why isn't the data set all over this. And if the portfolio method isn't so effective, you'd think they'd be turning against that.
The thing about all this reform is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are getting locked into their ideas of what works whether it does or not. I'm not saying that only one approach can be successful. I think the exact opposite is true, in fact. But we need to make sure we're actually looking at what works instead of just saying it works and taking action that doesn't help.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Using Great Teachers
The news on this has been out for a while now, but it's worth highlighting, nonetheless. A new study of North Carolina schools found that good teachers not only benefit their own classrooms, but they help improve the performance of other teachers in other classrooms. In other words, having a master teacher in a school can help all of the teachers at the school.
This was immediately spun into the debate over merit pay for teachers and both sides are using it to support their own claims. Follow the link above for all the gory details. That's a good point to consider in light of this and not surprising, since that's one of the hot button topics right now and so all discussions seem to come back to that at some point.
However, I tend to find myself thinking about the need and possibility for more professional development in schools. In all the push to get rid of the bad teachers and reward the exceptional teachers, we tend to forget about the ones in the middle who are just plain average. These are the hard workers who do good things, but are not the kind of people who are going to be in the running for teacher of the year. Frankly, this population makes up the majority of teachers and so we should probably focus some of our attention on them.
Since we know that great teachers can positively impact more average teachers, why don't we focus on mentoring programs and staff-led development on an ongoing basis. In all of our talk about reforming education, too many people are trying to work to totally reinvent the wheel rather than make what we have the best it can possibly be.
This was immediately spun into the debate over merit pay for teachers and both sides are using it to support their own claims. Follow the link above for all the gory details. That's a good point to consider in light of this and not surprising, since that's one of the hot button topics right now and so all discussions seem to come back to that at some point.
However, I tend to find myself thinking about the need and possibility for more professional development in schools. In all the push to get rid of the bad teachers and reward the exceptional teachers, we tend to forget about the ones in the middle who are just plain average. These are the hard workers who do good things, but are not the kind of people who are going to be in the running for teacher of the year. Frankly, this population makes up the majority of teachers and so we should probably focus some of our attention on them.
Since we know that great teachers can positively impact more average teachers, why don't we focus on mentoring programs and staff-led development on an ongoing basis. In all of our talk about reforming education, too many people are trying to work to totally reinvent the wheel rather than make what we have the best it can possibly be.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Change We Need
I hope that other people were as impressed by I was by President Obama's health care speech on Wednesday night. Here was a complex issue explained in direct terms along with proposed solutions. I thought it was an intelligent speech and a real attempt to have a productive discussion about what we want for our nation's health care system. If only that sort of discussion were the norm rather than the exception.
In education, for instance, the debate is too often between "reformers" - which really just means idealocrats - who care deeply about the issues and want all children to succeed and "defenders of the status quo" who don't care whether or not kids are learning. Obviously, the water is a little muddier than that, but when you read about these things, that's pretty much what you get. Especially if you listen to Michael Bloomberg, the New York Times, or Arne Duncan.
That's not to say that Duncan has engaged in the kind of low-blow tactics of Bloomberg and some of the others, but his approach is so firmly in the idealocrat camp that it starts to appear as if there really aren't any other options. Take the Race to the Top Fund. The plan to turn around the worst-performing schools is a great one and is a goal I completely and wholeheartedly agree with. However, defining students achievement solely by test scores and saying that charter schools/school choice is the necessary step to turning around schools is not something I can get on board with. As Diane Ravitch wrote in an excellent posting this week, this approach is limited and unsupported by research. In fact, as we know, research would seem to indicate that nationwide, charter schools tend to be equal to or worse than traditional public schools.
We know now that we have a president who's willing to talk about the big ideas and challenges in an open, direct manner. So let's do it. That's a change we need.
In education, for instance, the debate is too often between "reformers" - which really just means idealocrats - who care deeply about the issues and want all children to succeed and "defenders of the status quo" who don't care whether or not kids are learning. Obviously, the water is a little muddier than that, but when you read about these things, that's pretty much what you get. Especially if you listen to Michael Bloomberg, the New York Times, or Arne Duncan.
That's not to say that Duncan has engaged in the kind of low-blow tactics of Bloomberg and some of the others, but his approach is so firmly in the idealocrat camp that it starts to appear as if there really aren't any other options. Take the Race to the Top Fund. The plan to turn around the worst-performing schools is a great one and is a goal I completely and wholeheartedly agree with. However, defining students achievement solely by test scores and saying that charter schools/school choice is the necessary step to turning around schools is not something I can get on board with. As Diane Ravitch wrote in an excellent posting this week, this approach is limited and unsupported by research. In fact, as we know, research would seem to indicate that nationwide, charter schools tend to be equal to or worse than traditional public schools.
We know now that we have a president who's willing to talk about the big ideas and challenges in an open, direct manner. So let's do it. That's a change we need.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Nationalizing the Standards
Right now, our "standards-based" system of "accountability" isn't particularly standard. Each state sets their own curricula and benchmarks and then tests kids with their own tests. Remembering that there's a financial incentive for states to do well on those tests, it becomes pretty clear where the race to the bottom comes in. If we're truly wedded to the idea of accountability and standards as measured through high stakes testing, the only way to really get it done is through a set of national standards. I'm not saying we should be wedded to that idea, I'm just saying if we are.
So it's with a mixed mind that I read reports earlier this week saying that the huge majority of states are banding together to create a common national set of curriculum standards. It was unveiled with a lot of hoopla, but I'll be curious to see how this goes.
First, as Eduwonk points out, this news may not be as sweeping as it first appears. The states have decided to try to work together to create the standards. So far, no one has opted into actually following the standards once they're created. As the Washington Post phrased it, "Once the organizers of the effort agree to a proposal, each state would decide individually whether to adopt it." So we're a step along the way, but it's hardly a done deal that we're going to be seeing national standards coming soon to a state near you.
The bigger hurdle, of course, is actually agreeing on these things. They say that they're going to describe what the kids should know, not how they should be taught. That's supposed to sidestep those nasty debates like phonics vs. whole language. Of course, there's still plenty to fight about in terms of what it is that kids should know. The evolution vs. creationism debate springs immediately to mind.
There's also the point to consider that uniform standards don't mean a lot unless we have a uniform way to measure those standards. After all, if each state got to choose its own way to measure the standards we'd have a race to the bottom in test writing. So now we may be talking a national test.
The big question on the horizon, though, is what the next step is. Once you've got your uniform national standards in place and your uniform national test in place to measure the standards, what do you do? Saying that a school is failing and empirical evidence to back it up is all well and good. But isn't it more important to improve the schools rather than just label them? That improvement step is the one that tends to get left out of a lot of these discussions.
So it's with a mixed mind that I read reports earlier this week saying that the huge majority of states are banding together to create a common national set of curriculum standards. It was unveiled with a lot of hoopla, but I'll be curious to see how this goes.
First, as Eduwonk points out, this news may not be as sweeping as it first appears. The states have decided to try to work together to create the standards. So far, no one has opted into actually following the standards once they're created. As the Washington Post phrased it, "Once the organizers of the effort agree to a proposal, each state would decide individually whether to adopt it." So we're a step along the way, but it's hardly a done deal that we're going to be seeing national standards coming soon to a state near you.
The bigger hurdle, of course, is actually agreeing on these things. They say that they're going to describe what the kids should know, not how they should be taught. That's supposed to sidestep those nasty debates like phonics vs. whole language. Of course, there's still plenty to fight about in terms of what it is that kids should know. The evolution vs. creationism debate springs immediately to mind.
There's also the point to consider that uniform standards don't mean a lot unless we have a uniform way to measure those standards. After all, if each state got to choose its own way to measure the standards we'd have a race to the bottom in test writing. So now we may be talking a national test.
The big question on the horizon, though, is what the next step is. Once you've got your uniform national standards in place and your uniform national test in place to measure the standards, what do you do? Saying that a school is failing and empirical evidence to back it up is all well and good. But isn't it more important to improve the schools rather than just label them? That improvement step is the one that tends to get left out of a lot of these discussions.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Education Marketplace
Education Sector has a new report out comparing DC charter schools to plans to bring more supermarkets and banks to underserved communities. The bottom line is that neither approach was the market-based salvation that they were meant to be.
In the case of the supermarkets and banks, they found that even with the new options available, people continued to go to the same old places, even though they offered little fresh food at higher prices. People had a better option available and for some reason weren't opting into it. The apparent value wasn't apparent for the members of the community.
The report compares what happened in that case to what's happening in the schools where an influx of high-performing KIPP schools has not created better public schools or even better charter schools from other providers. Critics might argue that via creaming, KIPP is taking the best kids and leaving the rest to drag down performance in the surrounding public schools. Setting aside that argument for a moment, there's something real to be said here about the market-based approach to school reform. Namely, that it's not all that successful.
As we've seen with the Milwaukee voucher program and now with the DC charter system, even if the private/charter schools provide good outcomes for those lucky enough to use them, they do not lead to a system-wide improvement in the quality of education being offered in those areas. Maybe it's because people aren't taking advantage (as in the supermarket case) of the better options available. Or maybe there's just something fundamentally different about schooling kids as opposed to selling them something.
I've written before that logically, the idea that markets will improve education makes sense. The evidence, though, seems to offer a different picture.
In the case of the supermarkets and banks, they found that even with the new options available, people continued to go to the same old places, even though they offered little fresh food at higher prices. People had a better option available and for some reason weren't opting into it. The apparent value wasn't apparent for the members of the community.
The report compares what happened in that case to what's happening in the schools where an influx of high-performing KIPP schools has not created better public schools or even better charter schools from other providers. Critics might argue that via creaming, KIPP is taking the best kids and leaving the rest to drag down performance in the surrounding public schools. Setting aside that argument for a moment, there's something real to be said here about the market-based approach to school reform. Namely, that it's not all that successful.
As we've seen with the Milwaukee voucher program and now with the DC charter system, even if the private/charter schools provide good outcomes for those lucky enough to use them, they do not lead to a system-wide improvement in the quality of education being offered in those areas. Maybe it's because people aren't taking advantage (as in the supermarket case) of the better options available. Or maybe there's just something fundamentally different about schooling kids as opposed to selling them something.
I've written before that logically, the idea that markets will improve education makes sense. The evidence, though, seems to offer a different picture.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Progressive Utah
I don't often think of Salt Lake City, Utah as a bastion of progressive anything, including educational ideas. But maybe it's time to start re-evaluating some of those ideas. After all, one school district in the area is rethinking their ideas.
The Canyons School District which serves a high population of ELLs and kids growing up in poverty is beginning to take on an approach to educate "the whole child." This means focusing on more than strictly-defined academic standards. It means providing free meals to kids who need it, ensuring that students receive dental care (because "It's amazing how much of a difference being able to see or not feeling the constant pain of rotting teeth will make in the academic achievement of a child"), and generally making sure that kids' basic needs are met so that they can focus on the college-bound curriculum that will lead to their success later in life.
The district is also working with parents to provide GED classes and other information and services that will help them better care for their children.
I really, truly believe that this is the way of the future for education reform. Focusing just on schools (or just on what happens outside of schools) isn't going to get us the results we need. Focusing on the whole child or even the whole family is the way we're going to get whole results.
The Canyons School District which serves a high population of ELLs and kids growing up in poverty is beginning to take on an approach to educate "the whole child." This means focusing on more than strictly-defined academic standards. It means providing free meals to kids who need it, ensuring that students receive dental care (because "It's amazing how much of a difference being able to see or not feeling the constant pain of rotting teeth will make in the academic achievement of a child"), and generally making sure that kids' basic needs are met so that they can focus on the college-bound curriculum that will lead to their success later in life.
The district is also working with parents to provide GED classes and other information and services that will help them better care for their children.
I really, truly believe that this is the way of the future for education reform. Focusing just on schools (or just on what happens outside of schools) isn't going to get us the results we need. Focusing on the whole child or even the whole family is the way we're going to get whole results.
Friday, May 22, 2009
It Takes More
A study out of the University of California - Davis has found that students - particularly boys - who face abusive situations at home are more likely to score lower on standardized tests and get in trouble than those who come from more stable home environments. This is one of those things that everyone kind of knows in their hearts, but it's nice to have some solid research to back it up. The other interesting bit of information is that having one of those students in class affects the whole class, not just the individual. Again, anyone who's taught can see how one kid causing trouble can affect everyone, but it's nice to have research to prove what we already know.
The bottom line here is something I come back to over and over again. We know that student achievement isn't defined entirely by their school. Kids don't arrive at school as blank slates and reforms that seem to expect them to are simply not going to be successful. That doesn't mean that schools are off the hook and that we should just give up on kids from the projects or from abusive households. It does mean that we need to do more than just say that we're ending social promotion.
Any effort to really reform the lives of the students who attend school in poor, underserved areas needs to focus on schools and on what happens outside of schools. We need to make sure that social services are in place, that parents have the tools and knowledge to be effective, and that family values conducive to success are in place. Yes, the schools are important and they need to be good. But that alone won't get the job done.
The bottom line here is something I come back to over and over again. We know that student achievement isn't defined entirely by their school. Kids don't arrive at school as blank slates and reforms that seem to expect them to are simply not going to be successful. That doesn't mean that schools are off the hook and that we should just give up on kids from the projects or from abusive households. It does mean that we need to do more than just say that we're ending social promotion.
Any effort to really reform the lives of the students who attend school in poor, underserved areas needs to focus on schools and on what happens outside of schools. We need to make sure that social services are in place, that parents have the tools and knowledge to be effective, and that family values conducive to success are in place. Yes, the schools are important and they need to be good. But that alone won't get the job done.
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, May 11, 2009
Beyond Miracles
David Brooks has officially gotten under my skin. He's irritated me before, but now, he's really done it. If he's going to insist on writing about education, he should at least figure out what he's talking about before his next column.
What's sent me into a tizzy here is his column from last Thursday on The Harlem Miracle, by which he means the Harlem Children's Zone. Apparently, Brooks got his hands on a study showing that students who entered the Harlem Children's Zone Promise Academy in 6th grade made huge gains in math by the time they were in eighth grade. The gains are big enough to prompt Brooks to write things like, "In math, Promise Academy eliminated the achievement gap between its black students and the city average for white students." Pretty big talk.
So what does Brooks think the take-away from all this is? Naturally, it's that his ideas about "no excuses" schools are correct. He thinks that this shows that the "reformers" (a word he limits exclusively to hard line idealocrats) are correct and all those other people who want things like smaller class sizes, better teachers, increased social investment (in other words, the "status quo" crowd) are wrong.
First of all, let's set aside for the moment the fact that the numbers showing this overwhelming success aren't quite as overwhelmingly positive as Brooks seems to think. (Thanks to skoolboy at Gotham Schools for pointing this out.) In fact, even with his own internal logic, it's clear that Brooks doesn't know what he's talking about.
Brooks writes: "Some experts, mostly surrounding the education establishment, argue that schools alone can’t produce big changes. The problems are in society, and you have to work on broader issues like economic inequality. Reformers, on the other hand, have argued that school-based approaches can produce big results. The Harlem Children’s Zone results suggest the reformers are right." (Got to love the way he sets reformers against those "surrounding the educational establishment.") Then he recommends that people read Whatever It Takes to learn more.
Had Brooks himself actually read Whatevere It Takes, he would know that the Harlem Children's Zone doesn't try to leverage all of its change solely from the school. In fact, a huge chunk of the HCZ model is focused on the kinds of "broader issues" that "reformers" have now refuted. Is it possible that the New York Times is letting Brooks write about things that he clearly doesn't understand? I get that Brooks is a columnist, not an investigative reporter, but come on. Do some research.
Also, Roland Fryer, who Brooks credits as the one who got the mental ball rolling for him, is on my annoying list too. The last we saw of Fryer, he was promoting a plan that was going to pay students for earning good grades. That was the miracle silver bullet that was going to solve all of education's problems. Except that it didn't work. So now we're looking at the Harlem Children's Zone as the miracle that has "changed [his] scientific life."
I don't object to the idea that Fryer is constantly looking for the next best thing and I applaud his willingness to keep moving when things don't work and try to find something that does. The lack of constancy doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that each new policy is THE ONE that's going to fix everything. The problems facing education are inextricably linked with the problems of poverty, race, and societal breakdown in ghetto communities. Expecting to find a silver bullet is a little bit silly. Telling people like David Brooks that you've found one is almost harmful.
What's sent me into a tizzy here is his column from last Thursday on The Harlem Miracle, by which he means the Harlem Children's Zone. Apparently, Brooks got his hands on a study showing that students who entered the Harlem Children's Zone Promise Academy in 6th grade made huge gains in math by the time they were in eighth grade. The gains are big enough to prompt Brooks to write things like, "In math, Promise Academy eliminated the achievement gap between its black students and the city average for white students." Pretty big talk.
So what does Brooks think the take-away from all this is? Naturally, it's that his ideas about "no excuses" schools are correct. He thinks that this shows that the "reformers" (a word he limits exclusively to hard line idealocrats) are correct and all those other people who want things like smaller class sizes, better teachers, increased social investment (in other words, the "status quo" crowd) are wrong.
First of all, let's set aside for the moment the fact that the numbers showing this overwhelming success aren't quite as overwhelmingly positive as Brooks seems to think. (Thanks to skoolboy at Gotham Schools for pointing this out.) In fact, even with his own internal logic, it's clear that Brooks doesn't know what he's talking about.
Brooks writes: "Some experts, mostly surrounding the education establishment, argue that schools alone can’t produce big changes. The problems are in society, and you have to work on broader issues like economic inequality. Reformers, on the other hand, have argued that school-based approaches can produce big results. The Harlem Children’s Zone results suggest the reformers are right." (Got to love the way he sets reformers against those "surrounding the educational establishment.") Then he recommends that people read Whatever It Takes to learn more.
Had Brooks himself actually read Whatevere It Takes, he would know that the Harlem Children's Zone doesn't try to leverage all of its change solely from the school. In fact, a huge chunk of the HCZ model is focused on the kinds of "broader issues" that "reformers" have now refuted. Is it possible that the New York Times is letting Brooks write about things that he clearly doesn't understand? I get that Brooks is a columnist, not an investigative reporter, but come on. Do some research.
Also, Roland Fryer, who Brooks credits as the one who got the mental ball rolling for him, is on my annoying list too. The last we saw of Fryer, he was promoting a plan that was going to pay students for earning good grades. That was the miracle silver bullet that was going to solve all of education's problems. Except that it didn't work. So now we're looking at the Harlem Children's Zone as the miracle that has "changed [his] scientific life."
I don't object to the idea that Fryer is constantly looking for the next best thing and I applaud his willingness to keep moving when things don't work and try to find something that does. The lack of constancy doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that each new policy is THE ONE that's going to fix everything. The problems facing education are inextricably linked with the problems of poverty, race, and societal breakdown in ghetto communities. Expecting to find a silver bullet is a little bit silly. Telling people like David Brooks that you've found one is almost harmful.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Problem With Education
In my very first post on this blog, I wrote that one of the biggest problems with education is that no one knows what the problem with education is. We all kind of have the sense that the schools aren't educating kids as well as they should be and we know that the data shows this is particularly bad for poor children and children of color. But what's actually the problem? No standards or overly rigid curriculum? Bad teachers or administrative micro-managing? Uninvolved parents or lack of choices? The list goes on and on and on. Because we can't even come to a consensus on where the problems lies, we're even more fractured when it comes to finding a solution.
As Dan Brown summarizes on the Huffington Post, Ronald Wolk has written a pretty comprehensive look at what he sees as the major misdiagnoses that have been made since A Nation at Risk was published 25 years ago. Obviously Wolk's perspective on this is subject to debate. That's the whole point of the first paragraph of today's post. However, I tend to think that he may be onto something here.
It's really worth reading Brown's summary of not Wolk's entire piece. I won't do too much re-capping here. What I will say is that if I had to reduce it all to one sentence, it would be this: We've let ideology trump reality time and again in our educational thinking.
We say that we need to find exceptional teachers for every classroom. That's great, but every one of the millions of teachers in this country can't be an exception. We need to make sure that every teacher has the tools and support they need to be a good teacher. Not everyone can be Jamie Escalante.
We say that we just need to increase standards and kids will meet them. Right. Shouldn't we find better ways to reach them rather than just shout "LEARN!" at them.
We've become so obsessed with accountability that we've forgotten that tests should measure learning rather than learning being designed to ensure test success.
We've become so caught up in the education unspeak - Standards! Accountability! Ending Social Promotion! Choice! - that we've forgotten to keep looking at what's actually working.
A Nation at Risk pointed a bright light at education and said, "fix this." Twenty five years later, I don't know that we're any closer to figuring out how.
As Dan Brown summarizes on the Huffington Post, Ronald Wolk has written a pretty comprehensive look at what he sees as the major misdiagnoses that have been made since A Nation at Risk was published 25 years ago. Obviously Wolk's perspective on this is subject to debate. That's the whole point of the first paragraph of today's post. However, I tend to think that he may be onto something here.
It's really worth reading Brown's summary of not Wolk's entire piece. I won't do too much re-capping here. What I will say is that if I had to reduce it all to one sentence, it would be this: We've let ideology trump reality time and again in our educational thinking.
We say that we need to find exceptional teachers for every classroom. That's great, but every one of the millions of teachers in this country can't be an exception. We need to make sure that every teacher has the tools and support they need to be a good teacher. Not everyone can be Jamie Escalante.
We say that we just need to increase standards and kids will meet them. Right. Shouldn't we find better ways to reach them rather than just shout "LEARN!" at them.
We've become so obsessed with accountability that we've forgotten that tests should measure learning rather than learning being designed to ensure test success.
We've become so caught up in the education unspeak - Standards! Accountability! Ending Social Promotion! Choice! - that we've forgotten to keep looking at what's actually working.
A Nation at Risk pointed a bright light at education and said, "fix this." Twenty five years later, I don't know that we're any closer to figuring out how.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Symbols and Solutions
Eduwonk Andrew Rotheram had a really interesting piece in last week's U.S. News and World Report. His argument is that what the education reform movement is missing is a compelling use of symbols that will galvanize people into action. Just as the civil rights movement made use of biblical imagery contrasted with the injustices of the Jim Crow south, so too must education find a way to reach out to people to capture their attention and interest. At least, so goes the argument.
I certainly see where he's coming from on this. Words have power and once an image of injustice becomes lodged into the collective consciousness (especially an injustice as vast in scope and consequence as the problems facing urban education) it seems logical that action would follow. Logical, yes, but I don't know if it's correct. Respectfully, I think I have to disagree.
The fact is that people know education is a problem. If anything, the average citizen may even be overestimating the scope of the problem by thinking that the entire system is failing all kids rather than that certain elements of the system are spectacularly failing particular kids. People get that education is a problem that needs to be resolved. We can throw as many verbal images of half-filled graduations as we want, but it's not going to surprise anyone. People get it.
What they don't get is what to do next. In fact, no one really seems sure what to do next. And that's why we have yet to see a single, powerful movement for education reform. We have charter school advocates, smaller class size advocates, teacher quality advocates, accountability advocates, voucher advocates, social services advocates, and more. Each set pulls in a slightly different direction. Since there's no clear consensus on where we go next, there's no clear movement to get us there.
The problem isn't a lack of symbolism to underscore the situation. The problem is that we don't know yet how to fix it.
I certainly see where he's coming from on this. Words have power and once an image of injustice becomes lodged into the collective consciousness (especially an injustice as vast in scope and consequence as the problems facing urban education) it seems logical that action would follow. Logical, yes, but I don't know if it's correct. Respectfully, I think I have to disagree.
The fact is that people know education is a problem. If anything, the average citizen may even be overestimating the scope of the problem by thinking that the entire system is failing all kids rather than that certain elements of the system are spectacularly failing particular kids. People get that education is a problem that needs to be resolved. We can throw as many verbal images of half-filled graduations as we want, but it's not going to surprise anyone. People get it.
What they don't get is what to do next. In fact, no one really seems sure what to do next. And that's why we have yet to see a single, powerful movement for education reform. We have charter school advocates, smaller class size advocates, teacher quality advocates, accountability advocates, voucher advocates, social services advocates, and more. Each set pulls in a slightly different direction. Since there's no clear consensus on where we go next, there's no clear movement to get us there.
The problem isn't a lack of symbolism to underscore the situation. The problem is that we don't know yet how to fix it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Grading Obama
President Obama (I love typing that phrase) delivered a pretty major address on education yesterday. As I wrote after his pseudo-State of the Union speech, the days of thinking that education wasn't on the national priorities ist (as it appeared during the campaign) are over. Obama has ensured that the money is pouring into the system and now he's laying out where it's going to go. As we should probably expect from Obama - practioner of the "New Pragmatism" - the approach is not solidly in one reform camp or another. As he's done so often, he took on an "all of the above" approach. Ultimately, I think that is a wise decision.
Before I get into what he actually said, I do want to emphasize that it was actually Obama who gave this speech. It was not handed over to Arne Duncan (who's been very high profile for a secretary of education) or to anyone else. The fact that the president himself is delivering this speech means that this is his program. By putting himself out, he has ownership of it, succeed or fail. That's good because you know he doesn't want to fail.
There was absolutely nothing innovative in the plan. Nothing that jumped out and made you say, "Wow! What a brilliant idea!" Rather, it was a combination of several ideas and theories that have been kicking around the education world for a while. Some are better than others.
1) Investment in early education. A+
He said he was going to do it and he did. The best way to close the achievement gap is to stop it from ever opening. Focusing on the youngest, most vulnerable children makes sense because that's where the gap starts. It's like he read my mind.
2) Accountability. B
It's fine to talk about how wrong it is to "low ball" expectations for some kids, but linking everything into test scores just isn't the answer. Don't get me wrong, I don't know what the answer is, but it's short sighted to think that we can measure all learning on standardized test scores. Obama partly seemed to acknowledge that when he said that we have to make sure we're teaching more than bubbling skills, but finding a good way to test problem solving and critical thinking across all kids in the country is something that just hasn't been devised yet.
3) Teacher compensation and retention. B
Obama talked about bringing in better teachers to the system and getting rid of the bad ones. Both of these goals I agree with. He advocated merit pay for outstanding teachers, which I support with the caveat that we need to make sure we know how we're determining who our outstanding teachers are (remember Shane Battier). But Obama missed the big one, which is working to develop all the teachers that we already have who are just plain average teachers and turning them into good (if not great) teachers. I really do think it's unrealistic to expect to reconstitute the entire teaching corps in this country. So let's make sure that we're getting the absolute most we can out of the people we have.
4) Support for charter schools. C
Buying into the hype. There's a lot of reason to think that the successful charter school model is not scalable across the entire school system (student recruitment, teacher quality, etc). That said, charter schools do seem to have success where they operate. So I'm completely on the fence about this one right now. (Note: these grades are not inflated. A C isn't bad, it's right in the middle - a neutral grade.)
5) Making higher education more affordable. A
How can you not like this one? It's not a reform so much as an amplification of what pretty much everyone says. But it's a good amplification, so give him credit.
So Obama's speech wasn't "Yes We Can" but it wasn't "Is our children learning?" either. I think that Obama showed yet again that he's interested in practical, effective solutions to the big problems. And it's tough to find a bigger problem than failing urban education. I think this speech at least begins the path of rising to that challenge.
Before I get into what he actually said, I do want to emphasize that it was actually Obama who gave this speech. It was not handed over to Arne Duncan (who's been very high profile for a secretary of education) or to anyone else. The fact that the president himself is delivering this speech means that this is his program. By putting himself out, he has ownership of it, succeed or fail. That's good because you know he doesn't want to fail.
There was absolutely nothing innovative in the plan. Nothing that jumped out and made you say, "Wow! What a brilliant idea!" Rather, it was a combination of several ideas and theories that have been kicking around the education world for a while. Some are better than others.
1) Investment in early education. A+
He said he was going to do it and he did. The best way to close the achievement gap is to stop it from ever opening. Focusing on the youngest, most vulnerable children makes sense because that's where the gap starts. It's like he read my mind.
2) Accountability. B
It's fine to talk about how wrong it is to "low ball" expectations for some kids, but linking everything into test scores just isn't the answer. Don't get me wrong, I don't know what the answer is, but it's short sighted to think that we can measure all learning on standardized test scores. Obama partly seemed to acknowledge that when he said that we have to make sure we're teaching more than bubbling skills, but finding a good way to test problem solving and critical thinking across all kids in the country is something that just hasn't been devised yet.
3) Teacher compensation and retention. B
Obama talked about bringing in better teachers to the system and getting rid of the bad ones. Both of these goals I agree with. He advocated merit pay for outstanding teachers, which I support with the caveat that we need to make sure we know how we're determining who our outstanding teachers are (remember Shane Battier). But Obama missed the big one, which is working to develop all the teachers that we already have who are just plain average teachers and turning them into good (if not great) teachers. I really do think it's unrealistic to expect to reconstitute the entire teaching corps in this country. So let's make sure that we're getting the absolute most we can out of the people we have.
4) Support for charter schools. C
Buying into the hype. There's a lot of reason to think that the successful charter school model is not scalable across the entire school system (student recruitment, teacher quality, etc). That said, charter schools do seem to have success where they operate. So I'm completely on the fence about this one right now. (Note: these grades are not inflated. A C isn't bad, it's right in the middle - a neutral grade.)
5) Making higher education more affordable. A
How can you not like this one? It's not a reform so much as an amplification of what pretty much everyone says. But it's a good amplification, so give him credit.
So Obama's speech wasn't "Yes We Can" but it wasn't "Is our children learning?" either. I think that Obama showed yet again that he's interested in practical, effective solutions to the big problems. And it's tough to find a bigger problem than failing urban education. I think this speech at least begins the path of rising to that challenge.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Are We Rome?
I've spent the last week reading a book about Cicero and the fall of the Roman Republic. It was a fascinating book and throughout it I kept thinking, "Wow! This is just like what's going on in education right now." Seriously. Well, mostly seriously.
In the second half of the first century BC there was a general sense that Rome wasn't what it once was. Certainly, it was still the dominant force in the region, but it seemed to be on the decline and the problems that had likely existed for decades were starting to intensify and present themselves more urgently. Rome essentially split into three different camps. There was Julius Caesar and his followers who advocated radical reform of all of Rome's institutions. There were the conservatives in the senate who steadfastly opposed any reforms at all. And there were the moderates like Cicero who thought that the institutions of Rome were sound, but that the people running the institutions weren't doing a very good job of it.
Sound familiar?
In today's education debates you have the idealocrats and beyond who advocate all sorts of radical systemic change from abolishing teacher tenure to throwing open all schools to parental choice. I like to think of Michelle Rhee as the modern educational Caesar. Then you have the folks who say that the system is fine and we don't need to make any changes. (I don't actually know of anyone who says this, but if you listen to the rhetoric from the Caesers, you figure they must be out there.) Lastly, you have the Ciceros of the educational world who think that the overall system is sound, but that there are meaningful tweaks that need to be made (smaller class sizes, more professional development for teachers, greater investment in underserved communities). Count me as a Cicero.
Now, obviously the spectrum of radicals on either side with moderates straddling the difference is not unique to educational debates or to late Republican Rome. But I kind of like the light that this casts everything in.
As students of history know, Caesar ended up winning out in the end, but was assasinated for his efforts. Hopefully the parallels end before we reach that point.
In the second half of the first century BC there was a general sense that Rome wasn't what it once was. Certainly, it was still the dominant force in the region, but it seemed to be on the decline and the problems that had likely existed for decades were starting to intensify and present themselves more urgently. Rome essentially split into three different camps. There was Julius Caesar and his followers who advocated radical reform of all of Rome's institutions. There were the conservatives in the senate who steadfastly opposed any reforms at all. And there were the moderates like Cicero who thought that the institutions of Rome were sound, but that the people running the institutions weren't doing a very good job of it.
Sound familiar?
In today's education debates you have the idealocrats and beyond who advocate all sorts of radical systemic change from abolishing teacher tenure to throwing open all schools to parental choice. I like to think of Michelle Rhee as the modern educational Caesar. Then you have the folks who say that the system is fine and we don't need to make any changes. (I don't actually know of anyone who says this, but if you listen to the rhetoric from the Caesers, you figure they must be out there.) Lastly, you have the Ciceros of the educational world who think that the overall system is sound, but that there are meaningful tweaks that need to be made (smaller class sizes, more professional development for teachers, greater investment in underserved communities). Count me as a Cicero.
Now, obviously the spectrum of radicals on either side with moderates straddling the difference is not unique to educational debates or to late Republican Rome. But I kind of like the light that this casts everything in.
As students of history know, Caesar ended up winning out in the end, but was assasinated for his efforts. Hopefully the parallels end before we reach that point.
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.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Brain Damage
Here's some food for thought for you. According to a new study, kids who grew up in poverty have less developed brains than those who grew up in a more affluent setting. The difference is so pronounced that children's brains in this environment resemble those of adults who have suffered brain damage.
I like studies like this because they take what everyone kind of intuitively knows (kids who grow up in poverty are at a major disadvantage to kids who don't) and puts it in really stark terms (poverty = brain damage).
Strikes me as a pretty good argument for focusing our education reform efforts on more than the schools. That's definitely important, but we also need to look at the conditions that put those kids at a disadvantage in the first place. Schools can be part of the solution, but they are not the only cause.
(Thanks to Gotham Schools for highlighting this study.)
I like studies like this because they take what everyone kind of intuitively knows (kids who grow up in poverty are at a major disadvantage to kids who don't) and puts it in really stark terms (poverty = brain damage).
Strikes me as a pretty good argument for focusing our education reform efforts on more than the schools. That's definitely important, but we also need to look at the conditions that put those kids at a disadvantage in the first place. Schools can be part of the solution, but they are not the only cause.
(Thanks to Gotham Schools for highlighting this study.)
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Need to Break Free
There are very few things that get me actually upset, but the column that David Brooks wrote last Friday did the trick. I'd just written the day before that the choice in education reform was not a stark one between the Rhee/Klein/Idealocrat reform and nothing. That's a false choice put forward by people who want their ideas to be the only ones considered. Obviously, David Brooks doesn't read this site or he wouldn't have written a lead like this:
First of all, there's more evidence to support the idea that smaller class sizes (an apparently superficial reform) support student learning than that charter schools have a similar impact. For someone who's into tough accountability standards, you'd think that evidence would play a part in his reasoning.
Of course, Brooks probably didn't do a whole lot of research for this column. He's not an education specialist and so he went along with what the mainstream theme of education coverage tells people to think. Namely that Michelle Rhee stands for education reform and everyone else stands for the status quo of failing schools. Until we can break through that barrier, we aren't going to be able to have a real discussion about education reform.
"On the one hand, there are the reformers like Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, who support merit pay for good teachers, charter schools and tough accountability standards. On the other hand, there are the teachers’ unions and the members of the Ed School establishment, who emphasize greater funding, smaller class sizes and superficial reforms."That's right, the choice is between charter schools and superficial reforms. Nice try David.
First of all, there's more evidence to support the idea that smaller class sizes (an apparently superficial reform) support student learning than that charter schools have a similar impact. For someone who's into tough accountability standards, you'd think that evidence would play a part in his reasoning.
Of course, Brooks probably didn't do a whole lot of research for this column. He's not an education specialist and so he went along with what the mainstream theme of education coverage tells people to think. Namely that Michelle Rhee stands for education reform and everyone else stands for the status quo of failing schools. Until we can break through that barrier, we aren't going to be able to have a real discussion about education reform.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
With Her or Against Her
In case there was any doubt, Michelle Rhee has officially hit the big time both in the world of education and in the wider world of magazine readers with her cover profile in Time Magazine. While I'm glad that issues of educational advocacy and reform are deemed worthy of being on the cover of Time, I'm not 100% sure that I like that Rhee is the face of the movement.
I was originally going to call this post "I Hate Michelle Rhee." It would be a much more provacative title, to be sure, but it also wouldn't be particularly accurate. In the first place, I don't know her, so saying that I hate her would be a little unfair. I don't even really hate what she's trying to do with the DC schools system. I mean, she's trying her best to fix problems that have seemed intractable for decades now. I even agree with some of her solutions.
What worries me about Rhee is her stylistic similarities to George W. Bush.
I know that seems like unfair criticism. After all, Rhee talks in coherent sentences, is clearly intellectually curious, and cannot fairly be called a lightweight for her job. But beneath those surface differences lies the core of sameness.
As Bush famously declared early in the war on terror, "You're either with us or you're against us," so too does Rhee paint a manichean picture of school reform. You're either with her version of how to change the schools or you're in favor of preserving the status quo of a failing system. As Bush was immune to criticism (or at least it didn't change his actions) Rhee writes off those who oppose her. As she says, "Have I rubbed some people the wrong way? Definitely. If I changed my style, I might make people a little more comfortable. But I think there's real danger in acting in a way that makes adults feel better. Because where does that stop?" Where Bush was content to basically go it alone in Iraq, Rhee is following the same course in the DC schools. And we know where that stops. Everyone needs allies and in her unwillingness to compromise on anything in order to make "adults feel better" she is alienating many of the people she will need if she actually wants to create real change in the system.
We've seen where a purely black and white worldview gets us in the world. There needs to be some acknowledgement that there are shades of grey. This isn't to say that Rhee should give up and capitulate to the forces of intertia, but that's not really the choice here. The choice is between working with people who share your goals (because who's really against providing kids with a good education?) but may disagree with your methods and choosing not to work with people unless they're willing to support you 100%.
I worry that Michelle Rhee, in choosing the path of most resistance, is setting herself up to be less successful than she could otherwise be. Given her prominence on the issue, if she fails it's going to have huge impacts on education reform for years to come.
I was originally going to call this post "I Hate Michelle Rhee." It would be a much more provacative title, to be sure, but it also wouldn't be particularly accurate. In the first place, I don't know her, so saying that I hate her would be a little unfair. I don't even really hate what she's trying to do with the DC schools system. I mean, she's trying her best to fix problems that have seemed intractable for decades now. I even agree with some of her solutions.
What worries me about Rhee is her stylistic similarities to George W. Bush.
I know that seems like unfair criticism. After all, Rhee talks in coherent sentences, is clearly intellectually curious, and cannot fairly be called a lightweight for her job. But beneath those surface differences lies the core of sameness.
As Bush famously declared early in the war on terror, "You're either with us or you're against us," so too does Rhee paint a manichean picture of school reform. You're either with her version of how to change the schools or you're in favor of preserving the status quo of a failing system. As Bush was immune to criticism (or at least it didn't change his actions) Rhee writes off those who oppose her. As she says, "Have I rubbed some people the wrong way? Definitely. If I changed my style, I might make people a little more comfortable. But I think there's real danger in acting in a way that makes adults feel better. Because where does that stop?" Where Bush was content to basically go it alone in Iraq, Rhee is following the same course in the DC schools. And we know where that stops. Everyone needs allies and in her unwillingness to compromise on anything in order to make "adults feel better" she is alienating many of the people she will need if she actually wants to create real change in the system.
We've seen where a purely black and white worldview gets us in the world. There needs to be some acknowledgement that there are shades of grey. This isn't to say that Rhee should give up and capitulate to the forces of intertia, but that's not really the choice here. The choice is between working with people who share your goals (because who's really against providing kids with a good education?) but may disagree with your methods and choosing not to work with people unless they're willing to support you 100%.
I worry that Michelle Rhee, in choosing the path of most resistance, is setting herself up to be less successful than she could otherwise be. Given her prominence on the issue, if she fails it's going to have huge impacts on education reform for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
