So I’m still happy that in a few weeks Barack Obama will become president, but I have to admit I’m not as happy today as I was yesterday. I was hoping for the bold stroke, the real vision when it came to choosing a Secretary of Education, but alas, it doesn’t appear that’s what happened. And to be honest, I was really amazed at the tenor of the debate in the weeks leading up to the choice yesterday of Arne Duncan and the lack of any substantive discussion of change. We can wait and see if anything truly progressive comes out of this selection in terms of standardized tests, teacher accountability and equality of access among the many other things challenging our kids’s education right now, but looking at the track record, I’m skeptical.
It may just be that Obama looked at the landscape and sensed the time wasn’t right for a change agenda in education. Or perhaps, as Gary Stager would suggest, he doesn’t have a broad vision for how to educate students more effectively and compellingly than what we’ve already got. Or maybe it’s a combination of both (and more.) But I have to say, between his practical embrace of technology, the fact that he has two school age kids, and a mantra for change, I was primed for something great.
And here is the thing: I am so tired of waiting for something, at this point almost anything to meaningfully change in our collective story of education. I look at my own kids every day and grow more and more frustrated with their education, one that is not unlike millions of other kids in this country and one that is no doubt degrees better than millions more. And the world as it is is not helping out either. Huge budget cuts are looming almost everywhere you look. In our state, budgets will no doubt fail in April, and more cuts will ensue. And rest assured, there will be no bailout for education.
But more than anything, why this choice depresses me so was articulated in an Ira Socol post from a couple of days ago that just resonated deeply with what I’ve been witnessing the last few years: we generally seem to have lost our imagination when we think about education. And to me, that’s just such a huge irony right now. In the twenty-five years since I entered public schools as a teacher there has never been a time with so much reason to dream, to imagine the possibilities. One of the strongest pulls of this network is that we get to see snippets of what’s possible in classrooms from around the world, places where kids are truly excited about learning, where they are empowered by technology and vision to do things differently. The world is literally a few mouse clicks or phone taps away, people, information, shared knowledge, tools…learning. The passion of these teachers and students is palpable. And this is not to suggest, btw, that there aren’t many of those experiences happening in classrooms offline, without technology. But the scope and scale of what we could do right now are, I think, unprecedented.
But my problem, our problem, is that this is not reality. It’s not reality for 90% of teachers in classrooms (if not more.) As Socol says:
But in schools, we go backwards. We even declare it, saying, we’re going “back”wards “to basics.” When we let a few new things trickle in, we control them so fiercely that they change almost nothing. Rather than tearing down classroom walls our kids now spend more time in school and even take fewer field trips. Rather than alternative evaluations we now have standardized tests for all ages. Rather than project-based learning we now have Core Curriculum. Rather than social justice we have “zero tolerance.” And rather than the freedom of mobiles in the classroom we have the coercive control of clickers. Rather than the freedom of the internet we have filters and blocks. Rather than the interaction of messaging and blogs and Twitter and Skype we have rules against these technologies. Rather than pushing past Wikipedia and print-based knowledge design, we don’t even allow Wikipedia in so that we can discover its limits. Rather than computers allowing for individualization, we “lock them down.”
And with all of that, is it any wonder that we’ve stopped dreaming of what can be? Of all the teachers I’ve had the privilege of speaking and working with in the last few years, I doubt that many of them can even now really dream of a different way, one that celebrates learning and connections and independence in the ways that many of those networked classrooms we see. They might be able to visualize it, but I don’t think many see it as a potential reality in their classrooms, in their schools. There are too many reasons why it can’t happen. Too many obstacles. Too little vision. (I would be happy to be proven wrong, btw.)
And that’s why when I heard the Duncan choice, I drifted back to this, to what Ira Socol blogged, to what I would have loved for Obama to read and take to heart:
It is time to stop hiding and start dreaming. It is time to reject what we are doing now: hell, that’s easy, we know it does not work. And it is time to reject all the “tinkering around the edges” which wastes our energy and accomplishes nothing. We have to say no to everything that is not sufficiently transformative, which does not change what education is, and put all of our energies into ideas which will transform.
This appointment does not fit that bill, unfortunately. And in a moment when we really, really, really could have used some vision for transformative change, I don’t think we got it.
So, we’ll have to continue changing one parent at a time, one teacher at a time, one classroom at a time, one school at a time, connecting the good works and finding a wider and wider audience for the conversation. And we have to continue to create that compelling new reality of what’s possible, post by post, tweet by tweet. And, we have to continue to dream it.
My sentiments exactly. I, too, was hoping this appointment would signal the tranformative change needed in education that Obama’s election signaled for our country. The corner we in education have painted ourselves into with NCLB, and other so-called accountability laws, along with a stunning lack of imagination will continue to be a tremendous challenge–especially for the boundary breakers for whom it is already past time. As disappointed as we are, we must slog on.
Or… we could stop “tinkering around the edges” one parent at a time & one teacher at a time, and work on the president or the ED directly. Perhaps we (as a community striving for transformative change) can take a page out of Obama’s community organizing handbook and coordinate our voices and efforts – to mobilize for change with real leverage. We certainly have the tools for it. Perhaps a community like Classroom 2.0 is a good place to start (at 15,000 members and growing.) Just a thought… for now. 😉
-Mark
They don’t care what we think and at times I’m not sure the edtech community knows what it thinks. What is the elevator pitch???
Duncan says he raised test scores and the press repeats it. NPR reports that Duncan closed a school then reopened it. That guy must be the Messiah.
I’ll be writing a bunch about this in the next day or so, but ask yourself this.
If Duncan is Obama’s best friend and Obama lives in his district, why didn’t Obama trust his daughters to Duncan’s magnificent schools? (even in a rich neighborhood)
Make no mistake. Arne Duncan is unqualified and is the new Rod Paige. Duncan’ policies are indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush and NCLB.
@Mark and @Gary,
So what is the elevator pitch? Is it that unless we change the way our kids are educated they won’t be competitive in the global economy? (Friedman/Pink) Is it that we’re teaching in an old model that has no relevance any more? Is it that learning happens anywhere/anytime and we have to fundamentally rethink the purpose of schools in light of that? What?
Will and Gary,
Despite my comment above, I find myself arguing more and more often *against* any form of mandate, requirement, or centralization in education (which is a significant change from my early “tech coordinator” days). My feeling now is that a lack of mandates will allow for more pockets of innovation and more pockets of effective education than any mandate I can imagine.
Perhaps our lack of a coherent elevator speech (as a community, and often as individuals – speaking for myself here, not either of you) should be a sign… perhaps we need to acknowledge that we don’t have the answers – that we’re in a time of change that we don’t quite understand – and that learning is a complex and individual thing. Perhaps what is needed at a time like this (when we look at things on a national level) is a system that acknowledges this and accounts for it – a system that encourages and rewards innovation (and experimentation – and failure, despite that being a scary thought when it comes to people’s kids) rather than a system that effectively prohibits it.
Perhaps this is an approach to take with an elevator speech. We’re living in a time of change and we need an education system that fosters innovation – in educators as well as students. The same old mandates won’t accomplish that.
I know this response is ripe for criticism, but it’s got me thinking in a more coherent direction… and feeling like we might be able to do something about this. (It is somehow empowering to hear Gary tweet that he’s “thinking about trying to testify against Ducan’s confirmation” after all.) So I look forward to further discussion on this. 🙂
-Mark
I don’t agree with the idea that because we are in a time of change we can’t come up with some type of coherent message. Wait…how about “The Change We Need.” ;0) My hero Lessig is doing it with change-congress.org. Four simple commitments. I’m wondering…can’t we come up with four simple ideas, powerfully expressed, that could expand the conversation?
I like the idea of finding some compelling common ground to organize around. But I also think part of the solution needs to be a system that generates new solutions – rather than another system that will shortly become outdated. I suspect here’s more agreement than disagreement behind the things we’re saying here. 😉
In any case, this morning I’m energized by the prospect of taking action. I’m sure I’ll chew on this as I work this week…
-Mark
How about less talking and more doing? The only way to accomplish any of your ideas is to get a grassroots campaign going. Obama was not going to nail it on all his appointments and we all watched with cautious optimism that he would pick somebody worthwhile. There are opinions that this is a good pick. I like many things about this pick, but I do not believe this country is prepared for the change you all speak of. Think about it this way, how many teachers and administrators still refuse to use email? Not can’t use it, but flat out refuse. The current model has NO accountability for things like that and surely not using email is a microcosm of how averse many are in Education to change.
Agreed Ken,
I’ll admit, however, to a certain amount of movement paralysis. The road is littered with false starts and fits, and even taken in aggregate, I’m not sure they amount to much. And maybe I agree with you that we are not yet ready for this. But, if not now, when?
Hear, hear!
Community organizing is the way to go.
Looking for change from above is a recipe for continued frustration, regardless of who is in charge.
I am not discouraged by Obama’s appointment. Rather, I am confident in our community’s ability to innovate and be change agents for our school systems. We represent the bleeding edge of evolutionary change. Our work will come to fruition in the near future because we live in exponential times when any one of us has the power to reach millions in a few days.
In our case, the operating laws governing change in educational systems is similar to the laws governing change in living systems.
Continuing this analogy, change in educational systems will come when individual variations (our innovations) find greater reproductive success than the status quo.
In the past outstanding teachers or school systems worked in isolation. Now these methods can be widely disseminated and reproduced with Web 2.0 technologies.
In a few short years, we have witnessed the tremendous growth of activity in social networks. Classroom 2.0 is the tip of an iceberg of change, which I believe will be inevitable.
Nevertheless, the kind of organizing taught be Saul Alinsky (Industrial Areas Foundation) and practiced by Obama is powerful. If you want to effect change, I suggest you find a local IAF chapter.
Why work at the local level? Remember the saying, “All politics is local.” You’ll effect change at the local level and work toward building a model of success that can be replicated across the nation. I believe that evolutionary change happens at the grassroots level and so let’s focus our attention there. We operate under the same laws that have governed change in life forms on earth for over 3 billion years. Variations in individual educational systems will propagate through reproductive success in a competition of memes.
Build the best system you can locally in your own classroom and within your own school district.
Now working locally doesn’t have to mean working in isolation. For example, I try to take the best educational practices that I can find across the education websphere and apply them to my local situation.
And there is so much innovation going on. It is so exciting!
Here’s what I’ve been inspired to do all those in the the edu-blogosphere.
I’ve been creating a vision that spans across the K-20 spectrum and integrates middle school education with the larger needs of a 21st century economy.
My vision includes building a science/technology/engineering/mathematics academy purposed to provide a high tech education for high-growth 21st century industries. Yes, it is industry-centered. That is simply a reality of our modern society. And what a wonderful reality when industry professionals, real businessmen, real scientists, real engineers in high tech industries like biotechnology and aerospace get involved. They have the resources to provide living models of accomplishment to our young people and can turn them on to the exciting careers of the future. Equally exciting is the potential for private-public partnerships that allow access to both people and funding.
A vision is just a vision without a plan and a network of industry partners so I’m busy creating that network by recruiting local engineers and scientists. I’ve found that when you can articulate a compelling vision for transforming education, you’ll garner the support you need from the professional community. When you have support of the professional community, what administrator can say no to your innovations?
All the best,
I look forward to hearing more about what you accomplish in the future.
Hey Gregory,
Thanks for the comment and for sharing your vision. Intriguing. I wish that I was convinced that the scale of these ideas is as great as you suggest. There are 7 million teachers in this country. Classroom 2.0 has 15,000 registered members maybe a quarter of which are active. Generously, I’d say maybe 150,000 educators in this country have shifted their thinking in any real way about what is happening with education, that see these technologies as game-changers, as transformative.
We have a long way to go…
Hi Will,
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead, Anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 – 1978)
Will,
He has nominated a cabinet appointee, who is head of a district that he and his wife are unwilling to send their daughters to. Enough said!
Every parent wants to give their child the best possible education they can. Plenty of educators work for public education yet send their children to Charter schools and private institutions. It is their right to do so even though fundamentally it eats me up inside every time I witness it. A colleague of mine once told me that you can only affect change within your sphere of influence. Waiting for the kind of societal and cultural change to be mandated from a beaurocrat (Arne Duncan) is flawed at best.
Maybe, sadly, the hope that existed was based on the way things were said. The inspiring words, the grand vision, but we forgot to look at the facts. His kids did not attend his own state’s schools. He gave no specifics.
But it sounded good.
Yes Mike, how telling! While I think we educators like to believe that if we could just change education we could change society, unfortunately the reality might be that society has to transform first before education can change. After all perhaps it is only a reflection of the larger system. In the meantime we need to continue to make the “tinkering” count. And it does. Classroom2.0 is a good start. I continue to work with teachers who are working hard, even against the system, to do innovative and creative things in their classrooms.
Like you, Will, I’ve been frustrated and have tried to figure out where best to put my energies. The current school system is a result of the industrial workplace, tempered by some progressive educational reformers. I think that we need to change the dominant workplace model and make it more democratic (e.g. wirearchy) and this in turn will put pressure on the educational system. IMO, the leverage point is the workplace.
Perhaps the debate needs to be focused on the purpose of an education to begin with. We’re not just turning out future employees and citizens but hopefully young men and women who think critically, lead effectively, live humanely, and dream bold dreams. Test scores are what they are: numbers on a piece of paper that say very little about the character of the boys and girls who took the tests. “Zero Tolerance” is a tool for hiring administrators who can’t think or who have the courage to make decisions in the best interest of young people. We need to clarify the mission before we motivate the troops.
From one of my posts last April:
“Schools are not charitable organizations—they are instruments of the state, and are designed to benefit the state. Much as I understand this, however, I don’t much care. The interests of the state interest me very little. It’s important to the state that our children be raised up to vote for one of the major political parties, and that they be prepared to hold jobs so they can pay taxes and contribute to the GNP. Fine. Wake me up when you’re done.
I do prefer to live in a society where people behave well, and where people are well-read, thoughtful, knowledgeable, healthy, and curious. These would be the aims of my ideal school.
“As for the factory model of schooling—students grouped by age and taught on a conveyor belt—well, it’s all about the money, isn’t it? An 18th-century aristocrat, say, would never have sent his child to a school; he hired teachers to come to the house and, in the best of all possible worlds, a gifted and inspired teacher sensitively guided the child to explore his interests and discover new ones in a way and at a pace suited to that particular child. Of course children benefit, too, from interaction with their peers, but they don’t really learn much (academically) from each other, not at least until they are young adults. And they can interact very well with each other by playing together, doing sports together, going to camp together, etc. The success of the home-schooling movement shows how unimportant the school is. Let’s face it: if we could only afford it, we would all hire gifted, inspired teachers to teach our children one-on-one.”
http://www.ericmacknight.com/wordpress/?p=107
We have a broken society, a broken culture, a broken economy; is it so surprising that we should have broken schools? The coherence, the vision, has to come from the culture, and it’s not there. In the meantime, managers have to make the old machine ‘work’ as best it can. That’s it. In the meantime, our kids need literacy, inspiration, learning skills, and the savvy to navigate in a broken world.
Will,
I think a frustrating part of any administration at any level is the risk one must incur to in turn take risks. Change we need – at all levels. One reason teachers and administrators fail to truly innovate is that we don’t encourage risk-taking. Instead, we look for any sign of “failure” and punish it rather than nurture change. We have a system of reward for success and punishment for failure. In politics, we can see this more than perhaps anywhere else. Who is willing to take risks that in turn will be scrutinized and criticized ad finitum by all of the vultures waiting to reap the benefits of another’s failure? And should those risks actually become “failures” – well, there is no mercy to be found.
No forgiveness.
No change.
The change we need is a system change in how we foster and reward the creative process toward better systems. Failure needs to be acknowledged as a necessary stepping stone toward innovation and success… as long as the trail of stepping stones demonstrates progress and not continued failure.
But in our current climate, who wants to take such risks?
The vultures are circling…
Thanks, Steve,
Maybe I’m just feeling like with the world seemingly going to hell in a handbasket that this was a moment where people might actually get behind serious change movements. I think when we look back at this moment (10-15 year period) in 100 years we’ll understand the huge shift that we are in the midst of both technologically and a global repositioning. It’s both scary, very scary, yet exciting. I hope we’re not missing an opportunity…
Hello, Will,
Like many of the other respondents in this thread, I share your frustrations.
My daughter will be entering kindergarten next year. Right now, she is curious, loves books, loves reading, and asks questions constantly. I am very concerned that, in a structured school setting, her curiosity will be inconvenient, and her desire to learn about the world around her will be discouraged as “distractability.”
And the painful irony in all of this is that I spend my days building systems that support a more student-centered community-based type of learning. I am a strong advocate for public schools, as I think they represent the best hope for ensuring that all kids have access to good options.
And yes, I agree that we need a clear set of talking points. Advocates of standardized testing as a measure of student and teacher performance have this material. If we can’t articulate our goals clearly, then we need to do some thinking about what our goals actually are.
Anyways — nothing particularly revelatory here, and definitely no concrete answers. But, for whatever it’s worth, I share the concerns you express, and was more than a little disappointed with Duncan’s selection.
Hi Bill,
As far as talking points are concerned. I am fond of the talking points around the use of “interactive engagement” in the Physics Education Research community.
IMHO, the Web 2.0 community would be well-informed when it fully embraces the best science educational research, which combines cognitive science, curriculum development, and the creation of experiential learning progressions for robust understanding of rather abstract concepts.
I believe we will see real change. I am heartened by Dr. Chu’s appointment as head of the Department of Energy. This signals a real understanding of the role of science, engineering and technology at the highest levels of government. I expect Dr. Chu will be forthright in cabinet meetings when the topic of educating a 21st century workforce comes up.
Reminded me of my post the other day: What’s Right with the Education System?.
I feel like our only option is to change the entire system from the bottom up which could take decades. Are there any marches on Washington or petitions anywhere on behalf of this? If so, point me there… I’m tired of being passive.
The only things I take a little comfort in are:
1) Since Darling-Hammond led BO’s ed transition team, she may have had his ear long enough to fill it with good sense on how to reform NCLB’s assessments for the better – so that they align with better teaching-and-learning.
2) If BO is as independent and “buck stops here” as he’s painted himself recently vis-a-vis other cabinet appointments (“They’ll advise, but I’ll make the final decisions”), then maybe he’ll serve as a corrective on some of Duncan’s worrisome instincts (though I’m seeing some things about Duncan that seem positive too, unless it’s blinding PR).
3) It’s early days yet. We aren’t sure where this will all lead. But it can’t be worse than its starting point, can it?
Re: #3 I think I was asking the same thing almost 8 years ago on Inauguration Day… In short, it can.
Out of curiosity, who was everbody’s hoped-for pick? Darling-Hammond? (She was mine. That one’s easy, seems to me.)
And what sorts of leadership on teacher accountability and standardized tests (and charters, while we’re at it) are you and others in this thread hoping to see? (Those are less easy.)
This is really frustrating. Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is supposed to provide education or that it has any say! My family has bailed on public education. Our children go to a new school based on Dorthy Sayers essay “Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning” http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html I suggest that if you, really wants to do something different, quit complaining and do it. Forget the public funding, start your own school with like-minded folks…if you do education well people will pay to get it.
I suspect that this will be the way forward—a voucher system that levels the playing field for private schools plus federal subsidies for schools with poor populations that cannot afford to pay extra for add-ons, with subsidies and vouchers tied to some kind of performance. Messy, unfair, etc. etc., but somehow a space must be created where experiments in better teaching and learning can be tried and perfected.
The hard part is the big picture: what is schooling for? We don’t have consensus, and without it little progress will be made.
I don’t really have anything to add to this conversation other than amen, and amen, to Bill’s post. I am an 8th grade social studies teacher in a fairly progressive School District so I feel like I have the tools and philosophical support to lead students to more meaningful and authentic learning experiences. With that said I feel even more fortunate to be a social studies teacher, because we have, so far, avoided a State-wide standardized test. This fact has allowed me to be somewhat creative in teaching to the state standards. I am concerned that the educational pendulum of standardization has not reached the overkill point where it will start to swing back to a more reasonable level where accountability and results are not measured by standardization, but by creativity and individualization.
I just noticed I referred to “Bill’s post”, when, of course, I meant “Will’s post”. Sorry Will.
Excellent discussion. I suggest 4 goals of education reform:
1) The purpose of education is to prepare our children for a 21st century workforce (ala Freidman).
2) Students need to retain their learning beyond the current school year through deep, thoughtful, innovative problem-solving.
3) Students need to communicate their learning through creative, project-based storytelling.
4) Students need to work together in teams outside the classroom to read, write, create, and communicate causes they are passionate about to real-world audiences.
Revisions anyone? (Notice no mention of testing as a solution? Do these and accountability will take care of itself).
Part of these ideas came from my thinking earlier this year http://school20.siglersite.com/2008/07/01/forget-the-test-teach-well/
Thanks for those thoughts, James.
They are a good start. I’m wondering if you want to tackle the question that comes before the how change one…why change? ;0)
I have been working with various groups in Colorado and we have been looking at the AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learner. These standards suggest 4 student-centered goals for education. These are…[Students have a right and a responsibility to]
Inquire – Create – Participate – Grow.
Here is my article about Obama and Duncan from today’s Huffington Post. Please share it, Digg it, link to it, etc… Education journalism needs supporters.
http://tinyurl.com/5u35rp
Thank you for writing this, for quoting me, for moving the conversation along. Great comment thread as well.
I just want to add a few thoughts:
As much as I supported Obama (and I did, enthusiastically), never saw any real knowledge of, or interest in fundamental change in education. Not in his campaign, nor in his policy statements, nor in anything he has personally done in the past. I would suspect that he can not get beyond his Ivy League education and his Ivy League advisers on this. The Ivy League (and equivalent “schools of thought” – U-Chicago, U-Michigan, etc) see “the issue” as only a matter of people not doing what they are supposed to be doing. Not as a fundamental system failure. And if your constructed world is one in which people like Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Craig Robinson are the “impoverished minorities” then you are likely to see it this way.”If only every student could be in a pre-school like the ritziest in Manhattan.” “If only every student have access to AP classes.”
Let’s put it this way – there is no one in the Obama Administration so far who really knows – in a personal way – that our schools do not work. So there is no sense of urgency.
But more importantly, I think that now there is an Administration with at least part of one ear open, and thus, as your commenters have suggested, real organizing can play a role. One critical way to start is to create a link between our education blogosphere and the political world. First, we must link blog posts, building our standings in Google searches. More vitally, we need to get these posts into the digital hands of every administration member, every congressional staffer, every local political-type that we can, and keep that going, a flood of information challenging the status quo.
Yes, we have a small core now, but that can grow, grow quickly, by building on our online roots.
Thanks again,
Ira Socol
Hey Ira,
Thanks so much for traveling over here and commenting. Glad to have you in the conversation. And thanks too for the hopeful tone. At various points, we’ve been kicking around the idea of becoming for politically active, and getting outside the echo chamber. In fact, although I’ve set New Year’s Resolutions to broaden the scope of this conversation, this year I mean it. (No, really.) What keeps me thinking about it is the potential of this network…it’s the one thing that I think Obama does get, just doesn’t see the connection to education…yet.
There are very few in any policy-making positions that know “in a personal way” that our schools don’t work. That is especially true in my state of SC where the governor sends his children to a private school and the “choice” folks are in full force–although there are not “quality” schools for poor children to go to in most of the state! In my own small way, I am making it a mission to connect with as many of our state politicians as possible through Twitter and blogging. A handful–mostly Republicans (my version of “across the aisle”?–have blogs and Twitter accounts. I have reached out to all of them–commenting on their blogs how exciting it is that they are inviting conversation. Some have even ventured to my blog to take a look. I am also encouraging all the other SC edublogosphere to do likewise. Will it have an impact? I don’t know but at least it’s a small start that gets us out of the echo chamber and making connections that hopefully will move us forward. We have a long, long way to go!
Hey Shirley, Thanks for hanging around this thread. I agree about the “personal way” comment. And thanks for this strategy insight. Maybe if we ALL take up digital arms…
I have decided to reserve judgment on the selection of Arne Duncan as our new Secretary of Education primarily because I think he, along with President-Elect Obama, care deeply about public education and want it to be improved for reasons that go beyond making assessment and preparation businesses more money (e.g. Neil Bush).
However, I do not reserve judgment on the mass of educators out there (myself, my wife, my father, four aunts, three cousins and hundreds of friends and colleagues included) who continue to sit idly by and simply allow non-educators to create policies that they know from their own experience and expertise are just wrong for kids. If change is to come to education, it has to be initiated by those who need it the most- teachers and students (parents). Unfortunately, we have a national teaching staff who for the most part consistently play prevent defense instead of a run and shoot offense when it comes to education policy.
I believe if the teachers and parents began to make some noise of their own and offered some of their valuable ideas (and I have heard them) for change in their schools, Secretary Duncan and President-Elect Obama would be willing to listen and may even use them to form the national vision our public education system has lacked for a very long time.
I have created an online debate for parents and educators to engage in for the sole purpose of informing and influencing the next administration. I have tried for the past several weeks to promote it and generate participation with little success. This is disheartening, especially since the future of our democracy and indeed our economy depends on the education of the children today.
Please visit: http://educationdebate.blogspot.com to participate in a National Debate about American Public Education in the 21st Century
Hey Gregg,
Totally agree about the passive nature of educators, and I think part of the reason is they don’t know what to try to change education into. And, obviously, there is also a scale issue. At what point do we have a cogent enough, compelling enough message and enough people screaming it that we will be taken seriously?
It is an international reality that politicians are not the best people to give direction to education.
Excellent post and comments. I think this really emphasizes the huge letdown this nomination is, once we all got to know the nominee. I especially take to heart your comment about the shrinking of creativity within the classroom. As a student of education, I think there is a fine line education prep programs walk. That line consumes this idea of teaching new teachers to be creative, but not teaching them enough good strategies to be effective while they master creating good lesson plans. This nomination does nothing to help ease anxieties of educators, that the days of NCLB will be behind us so that we can get back to important issues such as creativity.
I am not surprised in the least. Barack obama is and will be at best a centrist and perhaps a lot more conservative than all of the people who elected him thought he would be.
He is not going to rock the boat, n any policy area. In the nanosecond he was in Congress he never really challenged his own party leadership or much else. I was just happy to see that it was not Joel Klein or his alien spawn Michelle Rhee who would have been much worse.
So far his appointments have been safe. Don’t get me wrong, he is a hundred times better than what we have recently lived through. But will prove as he did in his time at Harvard law review to be less of a reformer or firebrand than a centered pragmatist that will not rock the boat in any significant way.
It amazes that in 14 months or so in hearing the word “change” none of his adoring fans ( fans in the same way image elected Ron reagan or Jack kennedy) ever pressed him on what he meant by change. No deta
I am not surprised in the least. Barack obama is and will be at best a centrist and perhaps a lot more conservative than all of the people who elected him thought he would be.
He is not going to rock the boat, n any policy area. In the nanosecond he was in Congress he never really challenged his own party leadership or much else. I was just happy to see that it was not Joel Klein or his alien spawn Michelle Rhee who would have been much worse.
So far his appointments have been safe. Don’t get me wrong, he is a hundred times better than what we have recently lived through. But will prove as he did in his time at Harvard law review to be less of a reformer or firebrand than a centered pragmatist that will not rock the boat in any significant way.
It amazes that in 14 months or so in hearing the word “change” none of his adoring fans ( fans in the same way image elected Ron reagan or Jack kennedy) ever pressed him on what he meant by change. No details. I am not really surprised at Obama’s playing it safe in the education arena, I am a little shocked that anyone else is. Didn’t you examine his record? He has never been a reformer anywhere he went. What made anyone think he would start now.
Comment did not go in the first time completely
You know the old saying “be careful what you wish for…”?
Here in Australia we elected a new government just over a year ago – part of the campaign by Rudd was based around an “education revolution”, which included a promise to put a laptop in the hands of every student in Years 9-12. As you can imagine, the public lapped it up.
12 months down the track, and this “revolution” turns out to be mostly about going in circles. There’s been major argument between Federal Govt and the states about who would be paying for the infrastructure and support to go with those laptops (not to mention the massive delays in any rollout, wrangling over exactly how many computers any particular school should receive at one time, etc.), a looming fight over the proposed national curriculum, debate about school league tables and their value (or lack of), and that favourite chestnut of all Aussie Education Ministers, performance pay (which they all say is critical, but never seem to get around to working out how to make it work).
The government’s campaign dramatically raised expectations about change in education in this country, but I expect that in two years time (when we vote again), we’ll see very little difference from where we are right now.
So I’m inclined to think that for the US to have Obama and Duncan “playing it safe” is not necessarily a bad thing – so long as they allow the “grassroots” actions some other commenters have mentioned to take place.
Brett,
I wrote specifically about this issue here:
http://www.stager.org/blog/2008/12/why-australia-worries-me-about-barack.html
It was published in Australia.