(Thanks once again to my friend Anne Trudeau.)
"24/7 School Reform" is the title of a New York Times Magazine article examining the split among Democrats over the issue of educational reform.
Unfortunately, the author of the piece equates "reformers" with supporters of No Child Left Behind and charter schools. Opponents of "reform" are "...members of the two huge teachers’ unions and the many parents who support them."
The premise is preposterous. The article would have us believe that a teacher cannot simultaneously support collective bargaining AND meaningful school reform. I strongly disagree.
I'm one teacher who backs union membership and advocates --indeed, crusades-- for changes in what schools teach and how they teach it. In short, I'm a reformer, and have been for twenty years.
To pit teachers and their unions against what's best for students is both dishonest and laughable. I've never met a teacher who walks into a classroom thinking union first, kids second. To suggest that job security alone is what motivates teachers is a canard and a diversion from the real issues confronting today's schools. Irresponsible union bashing has become a political parlor game, especially in the heat of the current presidential election.
I would characterize the Democratic split as NOT between the "unionists and the reformers" as Paul Tough, the author of the piece, would have it, but between the neoliberal and progressive wings of the party. The neolibs buy into market reforms and competition between schools, and are more inclined to support teacher pay for performance --merit pay. They seem to have little use for unions.
Progressives? They support unions and look at market reforms with great suspicion. They see no evidence that competition strengthens pubic schools. As I wrote in my last post, market-based school choice is NOT a "civil right." Nor is it a "reform". On the contrary, choice is a not-so-subtle device for undermining the entire edifice of public education.
Tough claims that both sides are "distracted" by the Obama question. Where does he stand? According to Tough, Obama has a foot planted tentatively in both camps. Depending on which audieince he addresses, writes Tough, Obama is against testing for accountability, but he's for charter schools. Obama says he opposes merit pay strictly defined, but has spoken favorably about "changes to teachers’ compensation structure."
Whatever his stances on those specific issues, it's clear that Obama views the academic "underperformance" of low income children as a broader social and cultural problem, one that can't be fixed by schools alone. In that respect Obama is right. As President, Obama would more likely address the reform of entire communities, not just schools.
That of course is a massive and complex undertaking. In the meantime local educational leaders, including Carole Smith and the PPS school board, should focus on what's doable now, and begin implementing reforms that make schools more congenial to the diverse student populations they serve. They should not consider a President Obama their educational savior.
Local districts may not be able to solve all of society's problems. But they can --and should-- create schools that are better and more effective places for students to learn.
Oregon's public school districts are not homogeneous. There are excellent, good enough, and bad districts. Within the larger districts there are excellent, good enough and bad schools. Each district or school community is influences by administrators, union contracts, employees, statutes & mandates, parents, politicians, taxpayers and students.
What combinations of factors bring excellence, mediocrity or failure to Oregon's districts and buildings?
It is more important to first do an honest audit and get the questions right.
Posted by: howard | September 10, 2008 at 10:48 AM