In major newspapers and in op ed columns by Washington DC insiders, Obama's choice for Secretary of Education, and thus a signifier of the potential direction for education reform, is being portrayed as a continuation of the ongoing struggle between "the reformers" and the teachers' unions. In an article appearing in the Boston Globe and a column by The Washington Post's David Brooks, the real choice for education reform basically comes down to this:
Either pick a "real reformer," such as New York City superintendent Joel Klein, who espouses teacher merit pay, strict accountability based on test scores, pro NCLB, and all for parent choice (i.e., charter schools). Or pick Linda Darling-Hammond, who Brooks dismisses as " the establishment view" and Seyward Darby at The New Republic contends is "vexing education's boldest change agents."
And then there's Arne Duncan, Chicago Public Schools chief, who has been positioned as the Goldilocks candidate who is potentially "just right" for everyone, even though he has previously espoused many of the same beliefs (sub required) as Klein and other "reformers."
It's a convenient narrative that adheres to the longstanding rightwing frame. This frame maintains that the real problems with America's schools are due to teachers' unions and a "bureaucracy" that is immune to the purifying force of the "free market." So basically, there's only two sides to this argument: the "reform minded" who adhere to continuation of NCLB-like "accountability" and the "establishment" which is always framed as an ally of the teachers' unions.
What is totally left out of the picture is that there is a real alternative to this frame that is rarely reported in the MSM and whose voice is rarely heard in the debate that leaks from the Obama transition team. Join me on the flip to explore what that is . . .
As reported in Education Week (subscription required), the real choice among Democrats is whether to insist on the frame passed down to us from 8 years of Republican rule or whether to consider the more expansive and reality-based view that looks beyond gimmicks, quick fixes, and political talking points.
This more authentic argument on school reform appeared at the Democratic Convention in Denver when two groups simultaneously published policy statements that laid out the argument in starker and bolder terms.
As reported in Education Week:
"In one manifesto, called the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education, a group comprised mostly of social scientists and education researchers said that society needs to invest significantly in children's health care and other social services, as well as extending learning time, before student achievement will increase dramatically.
The next day, the Education Equality Project-a group of urban educators and civil rights activists-endorsed a series of educational policies such as tough accountability measures, innovative teacher pay, and expanding charter schools, that they say would increase student achievement regardless of changes in other social or health care policies."
But rather than taking up the real debate, which is whether to take a big-picture view -- that there are factors beyond school that need to be addressed in education reform, or insist on the current "establishment" view that will continue carrot-and-stick "accountability," "innovation" in teacher pay," and "choice" -- the charade marches on. The real question is, where is the left on this debate?
STATE BLOGS
