The debate on educational policy in this country is rough and divisive. In fact, I believe it's the most divisive debate happening right now that doesn't depend on vapid sensationalism (that is to say, it's more substantive than debates over abortion, evolution, or even gay rights). The two sides have dug in hard, and as with most debates of this type, each has carved out a rhetorical identity that includes a sort of built-in self-justification.
One side is the reformer's side, identifying themselves as economic realists, clear-eyed critics, and advocates for the students, even if that puts them at odds with the entrenched traditional educational system. This is the Michelle Rhee and "Waiting For Superman" camp. The other side is the pro-teachers' side, which views itself as a liberal, open-minded lot, advocating equally for both the teachers and the students, defending traditional liberal-arts education against the callous forces of excessive structure and bureaucracy. This is the position of the Teachers Union and Curriculum Development students.
These are strange beasts, when looked at through a partisan lens. The reformers are oriented by measurable outcomes. They are liberal in that they seek systemic change, but may be joined by the conservative forces of privatization and free-market competition. The pro-teachers' side is guided more by broad educational philosophies and commitment to the liberal arts. In a certain academic way, they come from a leftist free-thinking platform, but they also align themselves with a certain intensely traditionalist conservative mindset: defend teachers, preserve the community status quo, and keep federal government bureaucracy out of our schools.
As I've become more aware of these interwoven issues, I've gradually found myself aligning with the reformers' camp. From a philosophical point of view, I think this is because I'm a technocrat at heart. When I see something as a problem (and the US educational system is now widely accepted as problematic, no matter who you're talking to), I consider it a mandate to find a way to solve it. And in the case of a problem like this one, where there are measurable effects and identifiable goals, I see scientific tools — assessment, analysis, redistribution, application of social and economic pressures — as the most valuable route to solutions. I'm a big fan of information, which is available in ever greater abundance, and of organization, which allows us to understand and act upon that information. Cybernetics. Information technology. Social and economic mechanisms, sanctions, stimulus. The reformers are offering a fairly uniform, goal-oriented solution using these tools, as opposed to the pro-teachers' side, which are offering... well, I'm not exactly sure what.
Article comments
1 - rtimbuc
This summation is not that bad, but it's not good either, and despite your stated attempt to stay centered you don't. I think you miss the point of Mr.Eggers op ed. What I got out of it is that school administrators aren't getting any of the blame for underperforming students, but they are getting most of the money that the districts bring in. Maybe a better solution would be to take a closer look at the distribution of the available funds and eliminate the bureaucracy that exists in the school districts, along with the inflated salaries of the administrators. Because of this elimination, teachers' salary could increase and with this increase their morale might follow. I'm not saying that the teachers are all good and some checks and balances could be put in place to weed out the poor teachers. But lets not make this whole discussion about teachers not doing enough with the many resources given here in the US, when in fact, when the money trickles down to them, its really not that much compared to the work they do.
2 - Jesse M
Hmm... you overread a bit, I think. I wasn't intending to stay centered -- I announce my loyalty in the 4th paragraph. I wanted to treat the opposing side of the debate fairly, not to paint them as outrageous or irrational, and I think I did okay with that.
That said, I think you offer a much more substantive plan here than Mr. Eggers offers. He never mentions administrators' comparative level of accountability or salary. I would strongly support an evidence-based argument to the effect that you're making: that the current system could be improved by removing bureaucratic red tape and redistributing funds from administrators down to teachers (although still, I would prefer it be linked to an assessment of merit, rather than pure seniority).
3 - John Thompson
I appreciate the way you present your argument. The distinction SHOULD be between traditional reformers versus data-driven reformers. Our real difference is between data-INFORMED vs data-DRIVEN reform.
But we the traditional reformers did not pick this fight. And make no mistake, many of the Accountablity Hawks are calling us racists. Since we are the ones who live our lives with poor children of color, it sometimes make me angrier than I'd like. (and it lets my black daughter get in extra jabs ...)
In addition to defending the liberal arts, we are defending the principle of peer review and social science. Remember, social scientists are virtually unanimous in opposing their value-added models and challenging their hypotheses of teaching and learning. They deny the results of cohnitive science based on ... ? their personal experiences? If more of them had teaching experience (or submitting their opinions to peer review)they would realize that teaching is more an affair of the Heart than the Head.
In fact, if Gates is proven correct, he'll have engineered the ultimate paradigm shift. In addition to being remembered as a Newton, he'll have also achieved a Copernican revolution. He will has created a system based on huge amounts of data of all types and validity and have replaced quality with qunatity. He'll have, in effect, devised a meta-analysis that replaced the scientific method.
But I don't think he'll pull it off. Rhee, Klein et. al will learn that any jackass can kick down a barn but they have no clue how to replace "the status quo."
4 - sozo23
You miss a simple outcome of Eggers' call for teacher salary increases: growing the teacher talent pool. Higher potential earnings will draw more people into teaching and slow down turnover, ultimately helping to weed out the "bad" teachers: competition for positions would be too fierce.
As far as standardized testing goes, I don't trust it: there are too many variables and other important facets of education are lost. It's too easy to manipulate test results (as Michelle Rhee now knows). Schools are not assembly lines. Is what we really need a whole lot of people with degrees but no critical thinking skills? It's no wonder that corporate America is the entity driving these reforms...