In the year that this blog has been observing and commenting on the passing education scene, we have often favored the sensible center–understanding the need and urgency behind genuine education reform, but clear-eyed about the unintended consequences and deleterious effects of various accountability efforts and reform schemes. Thus it’s heartening to see one of the 800-pound gorillas in ed reform, the Fordham Foundation, issuing an open letter to the incoming administration advocating “reform realism” — a “vigorous but realistic” federal role in education.
In a refreshing step away from the tendentious “reformers vs. status quo” argument that has characterized much education debate of late, Fordham sees three camps, not two. 1) “System Defenders” who believe that public education is fundamentally sound but needs additional resources in order to be more effective; 2) ”The Army of the Potomac” which Fordham argues has “generally sound instincts about reform” but suffers from its “boundless faith in Washington’s ability to accomplish significant positive change in K-12 education”; and 3) “Local Controllers” who want the Feds to ”butt out of K-12 education-but to keep sending money to states and districts.”
Fordham is calling for a fourth approach, dubbed ”Reform Realism,” which favors, among other things common standards and tests, high-quality data and solid research, and protecting the civil rights of individual students and educators. Advocating a “first do no harm” approach to ed reform, “Reform Realism” also favors eliminating federal oversight of state testing and reporting systems, and mandated school sanctions, as well as loosening rules on teacher credentials.
As Reform Realists, we favor a vigorous but realistic federal role that respects what is best done from Washington and for the entire nation while dismissing federal programs, policies and practices that have not and cannot succeed,” said Fordham president Chester E. Finn, Jr. “We hope others will join our small but feisty band.”
There’s a lot to like here, even if the open letter is not perfect. For example describing one camp as “System Defenders” is needlessly antagonistic. It’s a nuance-averse take that does a disservice to many (not just unions, but frontline teachers) who can and do play an important and productive role in school reform. Likewise, I wonder if it’s fair or accurate to describe the “Army of the Potomac” as occupying the political center, as Petrilli does in a video on Fordham’s blog. What unites these groups, I think, is a laserlike (if sometimes too rigid) focus on accountability and measurable results, which both defies and transcends political labels.
Indeed, my only misgiving about Fordham’s smart and welcome contribution is framing it terms of left, center and right. As Alfie Kohn’s recent piece in The Nation unwittingly demonstrated, it’s not that simple. Efforts to assign particular reform elements to political parties hinder progress. There are Democrats who favor charters, vouchers and muscular accountability, for example. There are conservatives who welcome national standards. There is a broad tradition in American politics that says in times of crisis, partisanship stops at the water’s edge. Perhaps the time has come to ask – even demand –partisanship to stop at the schoolhouse door.
Excellent post, Robert. I am left almost speechless. I would only add that “reform” is not always good by a long shot, nor “status quo” always bad. Moreover, the “status quo” often makes “reform” possible. The two need not be at odds. Instead of treating reform as an unequivocal good, we must determine what needs to be changed and what does not. Those things that merit permanence deserve honor, not scorn.
I know hundreds of teachers. Two of them, I believe, are conservatives. It strikes me as funny to demand nonpartisanship in discussions of public education. Public ed is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
I’m unclear about why you imply that the Fordham Foundation represents “a sensible center.” Petrilli and Finn are affiliated with the Hoover Institution, among other research organizations (Manhattan and Hudson Institutes, AEI) largely composed of ex-Reagan and ex-Bush appointees. (The phrase “reform realists” itself recalls “reformer with results,” one of the “results” of which was Rod Paige’s tenure in Houston.) The reform realists’ core understandings about urban school administration seem to derive from Nixon-era policy tracts about the culture of poverty. Their agenda is more contrarian than nonpartisan, Pat Moynihan neoliberalism in realpolitik packaging.
That’s not to say we should ignore their opinions entirely because of these associations. (This sidenote isn’t meant to speculate about who pals around with whom in the think tanks these days.) But I’d hesitate to advance nonpartisanship as a virtue in the context of failing schools. The word connotes political pragmatism, as opposed to impartiality. School turnarounds require some core convictions about what’s best for kids on the part of the steward, and defending those convictions in a failing school climate does not lend to policy compromise.
I don’t believe I said that Fordham represents a center. I said their proposal does. When you view proposals exclusively through the prism of who wrote them (and who those authors pal around with) then you run the risk of throwing out good ideas merely because you don’t wish to identify with the politics of the author.
To Ms. Miller: Fordham does not work under cover of darkness, and neither does AEI. Their symposia are broadcast over the internet, and white papers submitted are available for download or may be ordered without cost in most cases. In reading the Reform Realism paper I recognize conclusions taken from myriad efforts of both institutions to examine in depth all of the questions posed and positions taken. In every sentence I see Rick Hess and Mike Pettrilli’s sweat and Checker Finn’s agony in facing the realities and limitations of the education reform movement. In every sentence also I see pragmatic optimism that comes from progress made in the areas of data collection, research, and the involvement of educational entrepreneurialism in finding solutions. Pragmatism is a tool in the face of political reality; the hardest fact of ed-reform life to accept is that, for some in the halls of political power, “values trump data.” The only solution to that problem is dissemination of data — and accessible analysis — to those who hold no political power save for their vote. That effort is what the Fordham Foundation, AEI, and others too many to list are all about.