Let's Go Camping

It’s going to be very hard for President-elect Obama to choose a Secretary of Education who is not seen as symbolic—a beacon, or perhaps more aptly, a divining rod, highlighting the One True Path to fixing schools.  No matter whom he chooses, there will be rejoicing and teeth-gnashing, and truckloads of grist for the edblog mill.

In the end, all of this matters most to the writer-observer class. Those who are doing the actual grunt work of education reform—teachers and school administrators, people whose cars are in school parking lots every day—probably recognize one or two names in the Secretarial Sweepstakes. They’re keeping their heads down, hoping and praying that the next round of federal reforms is gentle, doesn’t cost much and focuses resources on the actual needs of real kids.

Lately, the chattering has centered on prospective Secretary Linda Darling-Hammond, hitting its nadir in David Brooks’ NYT column, which might charitably be described as earnest, but [2008 political phrase alert!] low-information:

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. Obama never had to pick a side. That is, until now.

Well, let’ see. There are the reformers, and there are the…other guys. What’s the opposite of reformer, again? Superficial. Unfortunately, none of this is actually contributing to the urgent discourse around dragging our schools into the 21st century.

I have a good friend—a Lutheran pastor—who says there are two kinds of people in the world: people who think deeply about life, and people who believe there are two kinds of people in the world. The worst possible way to approach any productive reform is to set up adversarial camps, and pit them against each other. Win or lose. Leaving the winner with a constituency that’s half triumphant and half averse.

And what is it with trying to define rival education “camps?” I can tell you this: I have been an NEA member for close to 35 years, and have also read most of Darling-Hammond’s books and dozens of her articles. Darling-Hammond is not in the same tent as rank-and-file union thinking. She’s not even in the same campground. So let’s stop trying to simplify and pigeonhole big thinkers in education, and start evaluating our policy options.

A true movement to radically improve public education in the United States would invite multiple viewpoints, weighing an array of complex data and alternatives. Even with good data (like the most recent TIMSS study) there is plenty of room for interpretation about what we’re doing right, and which practices are ineffective. Most likely, we need a combination of solutions favored by rival camps—say, charter schools with smaller class sizes. Stronger accountability with sufficient and stable funding. Standardized tests as part of a portfolio of student work.

The dark side of all this dichotomizing is that a lot of people get swept up into competitive, oppositional thinking about workable solutions. For example, choose one: Union vs. non-union (I thought of that one first, as I live in Michigan). Or pick one of these two camps: Teaching as rewarding professional career vs. teaching as a temporary, technical job with a flexible, relatively low-cost workforce. When we’re all competing for power and influence, it’s hard to honestly evaluate policy outcomes. Enter the bandwagons.

It’s about developing human capital, not being in the winning camp.

Image: morguefile/thesenator

Comments

[Claus]

Excellent post. Brooks is creating a comic-book version of reform, but he adds little to the public discourse. Other leading commentators, including Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, have been writing the same morality play featuring the same personified virtues and vices.

It would be nice to see more national commentators acknowledge the complexity of most reform proposals--and the difficult trade-offs many require.

It would also be nice if they would acknowledge the successes of superintendents who are making gains more quietly, without high drama or pitched battles. Superintendents (and former superintendents) such as Beverly Hall, Tom Payzant and Krista Parent also deserve to wear the reformer's mantle--and they have the results to show for it.

[Tom]

Great post, Nancy. Once again, the conservative recipe for fixing education boils down to getting rid of the unions. Nevermind the fact that the unions are the teachers.

[John Norton]

It has always baffled me that the segment of political progressives who pursue school reform in the name of under-served students cannot figure out how to align themselves with expert teachers who share their goals and some of their frustrations.