A Justice Site

Home - About Us - What's NEW?

MIRROR SITES: CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
SECTIONS: Issues - Visual Sociology - Sources
SEARCH: Site Index - Topics Index - Archival Index by Volume
DOUBLE-CLICK any word for definition.

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: June 13, 2008
Latest Update: June 16, 2008
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
patriciaacone@yahoo.com

Introduction

Testing and accountability model - broader social action against root causes model - same issue as incarceration - do we fix the symptoms or do we go after the root causes?

Essay and explanation of concepts, along with link to more extensive discussion, if we have done one.

Source backup with original URL

Article backup with commentary and highlights by jeanne, for reference when studying this issue.

Backup of Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform
By David Brooks
SOURCE: New York Times
Copyright: Source Copyright.
Included here under Fair Use Doctrine for teaching purposes only and for archival preservation when old papers are dropped from existing websites or when websites and/or their archives cease to exist. This happens more often than you may realize. jeanne

This backup copy is to be used only if the original site on the Web is not accessible. It is meant to preserve the document for teaching purposes, when sometimes the URLS are changed when sites are updated, or sites are eliminated. Please be certain to give credit if you refer to this material to the original URL: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html. Original URL, consulted: June 13, 2008.

June 13, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform
By DAVID BROOKS

Highlights and commentary by jeanne.

Is Barack Obama really a force for change, or is he just a traditional Democrat with a patina of postpartisan rhetoric?

That question is surprisingly hard to answer. When you listen to his best speeches, you see a person who really could herald a new political era. But when you look into his actual policies, you often find a list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support.

To investigate this question, I looked more closely into Obama’s education policies. Education is a good area to probe because Obama knows a lot about it, and because there are two education camps within the Democratic Party: a status quo camp and a reform camp. The two camps issued dueling strategy statements this week.

Time for research most of us don't have. jeanne

The status quo camp issued a statement organized by the Economic Policy Institute. This report argues that poverty and broad social factors drive high dropout rates and other bad outcomes. Schools alone can’t combat that, so more money should go to health care programs, anti-poverty initiatives and after-school and pre-K programs. When it comes to improving schools, the essential message is that we need to spend more on what we’re already doing: smaller class sizes, better instruction, better teacher training.

The reformist camp, by contrast, issued a statement through the Education Equality Project, signed by school chiefs like Joel Klein of New York, Michelle Rhee of Washington, Andres Alonso of Baltimore as well as Al Sharpton, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark and experts like Andrew Rotherham, the former Clinton official who now writes the Eduwonk blog.

The reformists also support after-school and pre-K initiatives. But they insist school reform alone can make a big difference, so they emphasize things the status quo camp doesn’t: rigorous accountability and changing the fundamental structure of school systems.

Today’s school systems aren’t broken, the reformers argue. They were designed to meet the needs of teachers and adults first, and that’s exactly what they are doing. It’s time, though, to put the interests of students first.

The reformers want to change the structure of the system, not just spend more on the same old things. Tough decisions have to be made about who belongs in the classroom and who doesn’t. Parents have to be given more control over education through public charter schools. Teacher contracts and state policies that keep ineffective teachers in the classroom need to be revised. Most importantly, accountability has to be rigorous and relentless. No Child Left Behind has its problems, but it has ushered in a data revolution, and hard data is the prerequisite for change.

The question of the week is: Which camp is Barack Obama in?

His advisers run the gamut, and the answer depends in part on what month it is. Back in October 2005, Obama gave a phenomenal education speech in which he seemed to ally with the reformers. Then, as the campaign heated up, he shifted over to pure union orthodoxy, ripping into accountability and testing in a speech in New Hampshire in a way that essentially gutted the reformist case. Then, on May 28 in Colorado, he delivered another major education speech in which he shifted back in a more ambiguous direction.

In that Colorado speech, he opened with a compelling indictment of America’s school systems. Then he argued that the single most important factor in shaping student achievement is the quality of the teachers. This seemed to direct him in the reformist camp’s direction, which has made them happy.

But when you look at the actual proposals Obama offers, he’s doesn’t really address the core issues. He’s for the vast panoply of pre-K and after-school programs that most of us are for. But the crucial issues are: What do you do with teachers and administrators who are failing? How rigorously do you enforce accountability? Obama doesn’t engage the thorny, substantive matters that separate the two camps.

He proposes dozens of programs to build on top of the current system, but it’s not clear that he would challenge it. He’s all carrot, no stick. He’s politically astute — giving everybody the impression he’s on their side — but substantively vague. Change just isn’t that easy.

Obama endorses many good ideas and is more specific than the McCain campaign, which hasn’t even reported for duty on education. But his education remarks give the impression of a candidate who wants to be for big change without actually incurring the political costs inherent in that enterprise.

In Washington, Mayor Adrian Fenty has taken big risks in supporting a tenacious reformer like Rhee. Would President Obama likewise take on a key Democratic interest group in order to promote real reform? We can hope. But so far, hope is all we can be sure of.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

 

Discussion Questions

1. What unstated presumption gets in the way of David Brooks' argument here?

   The unstated assumption that either better teachers and better infrastructure and class size OR tackling the root causes behind the educational gap is a complete solution. Few complex issues can be solved by any single approach. So Obama may not be one side OR the other. That doesn't mean won't produce a more effective program by focussing on multiple approaches.

   No matter which guide to educational improvement you follow, you'll have to do something about ineffective teachers. Neither perspective will make that any easier. But if you recognize the importance of increasing the number of competent adults for the number of children presently in our schools, there are other ways to tackle the dilemma. Adults are competent at many different skills, like social and emotional relations and counseling, as well as reading, writing, and arithmetic. By serving the more balanced needs of our educational system, we can certify competencies which our training institutes never bothered to develop, and then spread our teaching workforce over the much broader range of needs. A teacher who was educated in an inadequate school himself may not be the best one to teach grammar or algebra, at least not without access to the expertise of the teacher who was educated more effectively in that arena. By developing different areas of preparation and production of curricular materials we can better utilize the skills that many would be willing to develop if they were given a chance.

   Not every school will have access to all the same skill specialties. Over time that can be balanced if we recognize the vast difference in skills. All this goes to defining competence and then developing the creativity to say how different competencies fit together to produce a teaching team, rather than sending even a dozen children off to a private box with a single teacher, however competent he may be.

2. What are the underlying unstated assumptions behind the following phrase: "Teacher contracts and state policies that keep ineffective teachers in the classroom need to be revised."

   Consider that this statement assumes that we know what "an ineffective teacher" is, and that we also know what "an effective teacher" is. No Child Left Behind has defined effective teacher by the test scores achieved by his students whether the school is dysfunctional or not. That's a terribly narrow definition. One, by the way, that assumes that if the child can select the right multiple-choice answer she can apply that knowledge in some useful context. That assumption leaves out any understanding of social and emotional learning, when juvenile delinquency and violence in all our schools, right through college and graduate school, suggest that we must begin to consider the frustration of those who do not manage on their own to apply the knowledge they have obviously achieved to get that far into the educational system.

   Reference: Minow's Wicked Little Unstated Assumptions.

3. David Brooks suggests that support of a union position of protecting jobs and salary rights represents "pure union orthodoxy, ripping into accountability and testing." How does this fit in with "incompetent teachers?"

   Consider that a teacher who is good for a student with one kind of learning skills will not be as good for students with a different pattern of learning skills. Difference pervades learning. The unstated assumption here is that no plausible role can be found to save jobs and salaries in all but the most egretious cases while finding jobs that suit the skills that workers bring to the educational system and the skills thay can build on while there. Identifying and building skills in order to protect jobs and income is what our educational system is meant to do.

4. Comments on this statement of David Brooks: "Change just isn’t that easy. . . . Obama endorses many good ideas and is more specific than the McCain campaign, [b]ut his education remarks give the impression of a candidate who wants to be for big change without actually incurring the political costs inherent in that enterprise."?

   Consider that if there are admittedly political costs to be incurred, then asking how he will fire inept teachers and administrators, when they often have union protection, is asking him to answer that question during a campaign when a candidate must show the best of his abilities is suggesting that he should lead with an issue he knows will stir dislike. Why wouldn't either candidate have to deal with the issue of inept workers? Why lay that problem solely at the feet of one candidate, assumed to take that problem on only if he chooses broad reform?

References:

These are a little mixed up, but links are here, and I've gotta run right now. Will get back to them. jeanne

• Economic Policy Institute The Agenda for Shared Prosperity.

• Education Equality Project.

  "The Agenda for Shared Prosperity will address the growing gap between America's promise and its problems. The United States is rich in resources. It has an energetic and entrepreneurial population, a $13 trillion economy, the world's most advanced technologies, and a democratic system that is the envy of the world. But the great majority of working families and growing numbers of low-income Americans are facing challenges that are at odds with our nation's proud history and bright promise."

  Economic Policy Institute The Agenda for Shared Prosperity. Consulted by jeanne on June 13, 2008.

  "Expert Task Force Charges School Reform Alone Will Fail in Closing Achievement Gap Diverse Bipartisan Group Launches Campaign for ‘Broader, Bolder’ Policies to Improve Education, Bridge Achievement Gaps

  Washington, DC, June 10, 2008 – A new task force of national policy experts with diverse religious and political affiliations, in public policy fields including education, social welfare, health, housing, and civil rights today launched a campaign calling for a “Broader, Bolder Approach to Education” [PDF] to break a decades-long cycle of reform efforts that promised much and have achieved far too little.

  Co-chaired by Helen Ladd, a Duke University professor of public policy studies, Pedro Noguera, a sociologist at New York University and an expert on educational policy, and Tom Payzant, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, a former Boston schools superintendent and U.S. assistant secretary of education, the Task Force’s framework points to the many flaws in the approach of the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law and charges that the nation's education and youth development policy has erred by relying on school improvement alone to raise achievement levels of disadvantaged children.

  To read the full statement and view the list of signers with their biographical information, please visit http://www.boldapproach.org

  Economic Policy Institute Newsflash, consulted by jeanne on June 13, 2008.

  Statement of A Broader, BOLDER Approach to Education "In late 2006, as the reauthorization date for the federal No Child Left Behind law approached, policy makers began to consider changes in the law to remedy its obvious shortcomings. Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, convened a task force to consider the broader context of the law in the nation's approach to education and youth development policy. Helen Ladd, a Duke University economist; Pedro Noguera, a noted education policy expert and New York University professor; and Tom Payzant, former Boston schools superintendent and U.S. assistant secretary of education, agreed to serve as co-chairs." From a brief backqround statement to the report. Signatories and their biographies. Both consulted by jeanne on June 13, 2008.

  "Mission Statement

  "The Education Equality Project is a non-partisan group of elected officials, civil rights leaders, and education reformers that has formed to help ensure that America finally bring equity to an educational system that, 54 years since Brown v. Board of Education, continues to fail its highest needs students. The project will take on conventional wisdom and the entrenched impediments to real reform, focusing on teacher quality and pay; accountability for results; and maximizing parents' options. It will also challenge politicians, public officials, educators, union leaders, and anybody else who stands in the way of necessary change. This means challenging laws and contracts that preserve a system that fails students. The one measure of every policy, regardless of the depths of its historic roots or the power of its adherents, must be whether it advances student learning."

  Education Equality Project Site consulted June 13, 2008 by jeanne.

---

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Individual copyrights by other authors may apply.