Andy’s odyssey: Part one
This is the first of a collection of posts about a recent self-assigned course of study—essentially a bunch of reading and furrowed-brow thinking about a subject that’s been gnawing at me.
This series will be an adventure. Though I’ve got a solid thesis, the rest is a jumble of idea fragments. I haven’t ironed out all of my arguments, I sure don’t know what they all amount to, and I’m still a country mile from recommendations.
But over the years I’ve learned I need to write about stuff before I really understand it and then write some more before I can assemble the pieces. Rather than scribbling and editing in private and then, hopefully, producing some tidy digest when the pondering is through, I’m going to file dispatches from the field.
Here’s the gist. Over the last year, I’ve found myself growing restive about ed-reform developments. Sometimes the feeling was hard to explain—a general unease during conferences or while listening to presentations. Other times, I could pinpoint it. For example, when leaders would profess anger at current conditions and a sense of urgency about change but then defer to longstanding arrangements and urge collaboration with them, or when organizations would boast of their commitment to diversity but show no interest in building politically diverse teams.
For a while, I chalked up my grumpiness to age or the zeitgeist. I’m getting older and more set in my ways. As our field evolves, perhaps it’s inevitable that I feel more like an outsider. Or maybe this era’s developments were the issue. I didn’t vote for this brand of Hope and Change, and I’m not exactly chanting, “Run, Liz, run!” So maybe I’m destined to be out of sorts until the political pendulum swings.
But try as I might to blame others, I knew I was questioning myself, too. How could I be disposed to preserve venerable institutions and yet favor dramatic K–12 change? Why was I so supportive of rigorous standards and yet so uncomfortable with how Common Core came to pass?
After months of frustration, I finally put my finger on the essence of the problem: there is no conservatism in today’s education reform.
To some, this might seem obvious. “Reforming” and “conserving” are very different impulses, and most of us got into this business because we were frustrated by chronic K–12 problems and were determined to change, not preserve, things. Even Checker Finn, long seen as the right’s ed-reform doyen, has said, “No conservative, I. I regard myself as a radical.”
Others might argue contemporary K–12 reform is premised on conservative principles (expanding choice, utilizing competition, resisting public-sector unionism), so I should stop bellyaching. But this free-market orientation is only one strand of conservatism.
At its heart, conservatism is about humility. It holds that there is great value in the traditional. Old things have stood the test of time. They’ve proven their worth and grown robust by changing gradually, adapting to new conditions, and adopting new lessons.
As a consequence, such things have deep roots; they help stabilize, and they are intertwined. Fool with one, and the ripples are felt throughout. Tinkering has sprawling unintended consequences.
An implication of conservatism is the opposition to activist government, especially Uncle Sam. Ostensibly brainy government technocrats never know as much as they think, but they can swiftly disrupt what took eons to hone. They can treat an old-growth ecosystem like a playground.
What we have is the product of an incalculable number of private micro-decisions, so a conservative relies on evolutionary, not sweeping, change. She trusts the collective wisdom of individuals, as reflected by local communities, to generate sober, steady, and sensible decisions through deliberative democratic processes.
It seems to me that much of education reform’s leadership appreciates little of this. Many understand only a caricatured version of conservatism. If they entertain the idea that preservation might be a virtue, they quickly dismiss it. Because they see discrimination (e.g., racial segregation, male-only suffrage) as products of tradition, they reject the entire rule because of these inarguably important exceptions. So the omission of conservative viewpoints is considered an asset.
I began worrying this represented a massive blind spot in our field’s vision, one that would soon lead to a grand wreck. (In fact, I began to think this was part of the explanation behind a number of existing pile-ups.)
So I decided to start reading. If I better understood the situation, I might be able to explain its roots and consequences and maybe help avert some crashes. At minimum, I’d be able to negotiate a truce between my two warring minds. When I allowed my ambition to roam, I imagined eventually articulating a compelling conservative framework for future K–12 reform.
I‘ve been seeking insights in some classics (e.g., Democracy in America; The Federalist Papers; Bowling Alone; A Theory Of Justice; Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy), some recent relevant books (e.g., The Founding Conservatives; The Great Debate; Coming Apart; Seeing Like A State), some somewhat unexpected books (e.g., Lost Classroom, Lost Community; The Evolution of Cooperation; Privilege; The Social Animal), and oodles of articles (e.g., “The Case for Reparations”; “The Conservative Governing Disposition”; “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World”; “How Did Conservatives Get This Radical?”; “The Right, the Left, and Reform Conservatism”).
This exercise has seriously meddled with my views on accountability, Common Core, CMOs, Race to the Top, teacher evaluation, testing, vouchers, and more. It’s also helped me understand why I wondered if bad schools could be good for neighborhoods; why I equivocated before the U.S. Senate; why I demanded we End. The Broad Prize. Now; and why I’m drawn to urban Catholic schools.
But my thoughts are still inchoate, so how this series shakes out, I’m not sure. It’ll be a journey. I hope you’ll join the ride. If I get it right, it‘ll read like a page-turning travel journal—entertaining, edifying episodes with a satisfying ending, kind of like an ed-reform Odyssey. But then again, it might end up like Ulysses, a muddy collection of confused stories that you give up on out of exasperation and exhaustion.
Here’s hoping for monsters and whirlpools.
This first appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Flypaper blog.
On August 1, Chester E. “Checker” Finn, Jr., will step down from his role as founding president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, passing the baton to Michael J. Petrilli. Here is his “farewell address” as president.
Vergara precedents are multiple, judge’s actions restrained
Monday’s Politico story on the messaging battle over the Common Core has kicked up another round of recriminations, particularly on the Right.
When policy discourse is taken over by slogan-speak, it undermines the credibility of future attempts at serious policy discussion.
Course Access is still a new policy, but for many students, no matter where they live or what school they attend, it will give them a significantly greater chance to fulfill their potential.
What is the benefit conferred by preschool if there’s no school after the pre?
What President Obama termed “the most meaningful education reform in a generation” has proven to be more a cautionary tale than a model.
Our finding that charter school sectors in all 28 states that we study demonstrate higher productivity and/or return on investment than their traditional public school sectors has ruffled some feathers at the National School Boards Association.
As states revamp their teacher evaluation systems, they continue to search for that magic number: the percentage of a teacher evaluation rating that should be based on student academic performance.
Posts by Authors
- Achieve, Inc.
- Alliance for Excellent Education
- Alliance for School Choice
- American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
- American Institutes For Research
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
- Aspen Institute
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Broad Foundation
- Brookings Institution
- Building Excellent Schools
- Center for American Progress
- Center for Education Reform
- Center for Educational Achievement
- Center on Reinventing Public Education
- Citizens Commission On Civil Rights
- Common Core
- Consortium for Policy Research in Education
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Data Quality Campaign
- Democrats for Education Reform
- Education Sector
- Education Trust
- Foundation for Excellence in Education
- Friedman Foundation
- Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media
- National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
- National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- National Charter School Research Project
- National Council on Teacher Quality
- National Education Writers Association
- National Governors Association
- National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
- New Leaders for New Schools
- New Schools Venture Fund
- Program on Education Policy and Governance
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Public Impact
- Teach for America
- The New Teacher Project
- Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- United States Department of Education
About the Blog
The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.
Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.