Around here there tends to be pressure to merge districts — but its really hard to make an argument that the small districts are less efficient than the larger ones. My sense is that when you start having assistant superintendents for geographic regions (rather than for “business” or “curriculum”), you’d be better off with separate districts.

Single schools like Broad Acres really can be saved, because tools like professional development, better curriculum, more time and community-building commitment actually can work at that level, where people area not anonymous cogs and individual kids’ progress can be carefully tracked. The definition of “success” gets very muddy when the unit of measurement is larger than a school. Even in Detroit, a district that’s arguably (perhaps unbelievably) worse than D.C., there are schools where test scores are pretty good, and principals fight tooth and nail to keep the teachers they have, because–all things considered–the kids are doing a lot better than you’d might expect. But the system is a failure.

It’s the large urban superintendent’s dilemma. On New Year’s Day, the Detroit Free Press ran “headlines we’d like to see in 2009″ and one of them was “Michelle Rhee Signs Contract as New Superintendent of Detroit Public Schools!”

I like what Tim had to say: sometimes, “excuses” really are reasons.

And once Michelle Rhee and Andy Rotherhan get into explaining why DC is different and more challenging than Maryland, it seems to me that “no excuses” has fallen into the “I’m a freedom fighter, you’re a guerilla, he’s a terrorist” semantic trap. “Excuses” are what people who oppose you make.

Obviously independent verification is needed here, but that doesn’t sound like an “affluent” school.

I suggest we use words like “reason” instead of “excuse.” What do other people think?