Ben DeGrow is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute, focusing on education labor issues.
I enjoy reading the American Enterprise Institute’s Rick Hess on education issues, not mainly because we tend to agree more often than not. Rather, I appreciate his challenging insights that so often lie outside conventional wisdom and/or ahead of the curve. One of his latest blog pieces — “Common Core: Giving Happy Lie to the ‘Reform Consensus” — caused me both to smile and puzzle.
What prompted his assessment is none other than the new anti-Common Core/national curriculum “Closing the Door on Innovation” manifesto (which I have signed). The issue had been simmering for awhile on the Right, with occasional debates between Jay Greene’s posse and the Fordham Foundation crew, but this month has come bursting to the surface.
While his main focus is on the consequences for the Common Core standards, Hess also points out some potentially gaping disagreements among the broader bipartisan education reform community over public-sector collective bargaining, the federal government’s role in education generally, and (to a lesser extent) school vouchers. Personally, I’m glad to see the “conservative” voices on many of these issues emerge stronger after the NCLB consensus. Hess writes:
Conservative pushback is giving lie to the vacuous notion that left-leaning and right-leaning reformers are interchangeable when it comes to education.
I happen to think that such clarity can be healthy, but I’m also in search of further clarity.
Hess captures well the fallout inside the Beltway, where budgets and bureaucracies are huge and politics is bloodsport. The closer to D.C. the more truth his statement that “reform-minded progressives often honestly just don’t get small-government conservatism” holds, and it reflects on both Democrats and Republicans. But what about politics in Colorado, a state big enough to matter on the national stage but small enough to feel sometimes like a (extended) family reunion?
I think of the local education reform community in much the same way. It includes members of both parties (or neither party) with some differences in philosophy, experience and allegiance but a leading shared goal to improve student learning. I’m glad to know very few people who insist on near-complete ideological alignment before working together on issues on which we agree. Recognizing the many and varied points of cooperation can only help to expand influence without the need to compromise important principles. The more my understanding has matured and certain relationships have grown, the easier I find it at times to disagree forcefully yet respectfully.
I’m curious, though, especially about what some of my Colorado Democratic education reform friends think of Hess’s argument, when he notes a couple examples of odd bedfellows and states:
This reflects not so much the “splintering” of a reform consensus as the reality that these debates are more complicated than The New York Times or Education Week have often suggested.
Typically, journalists (as the nature of the business goes) portray education reform debates as bilateral. But as a product of such outlets as this blog — which welcomes someone of my persuasion to contribute alongside a variety of progressives and pragmatists — there seems to be a more widely shared appreciation in Colorado that that’s not the case. Maybe you disagree with me on Common Core or vouchers, but you also can work with me on performance pay and charter schools. I’ll just try to keep persuading you along the way.
Or maybe the education reform fault lines truly have started to shift already, and we just haven’t felt it yet.
Popularity: 26% [?]
Sorry Ben, I’m not buying what you’re selling. Or, I’m not completely sure what it is.
I find it interesting that your manifesto includes a link to a Ravitch and Mathis critique that while it does seem to support your problem with a national core, the authors are critical on evidentiary grounds and may not agree with your more ideological stance. In any case, they also seem much more disturbed by a lack of a evidence and cited research about other issues than the Common Core. In my reading, they are sympathetic to the main propositions, they just think the Administration has done a sloppy, non-professional presentation job.
The Hess piece was to me, just all over the place and just too inside-the-conservative-wonkmind for me to make sense of it. It’s true that Carey’s piece made Foxx out to be a crazy but hey, she is–anyone with her power and clout who could say that Matthew Shepard wasn’t a hate crime has serious issues with reality. Anyway, Carey was more on about how the Republican party is dealing with shifting educational stances given the rise of their adopted but errant Tea Partiers, for whom anything coming out of Washington is anathema to all they old dear.
I’m sorry Ben, I think you tried to uncover some kind of emerging consensus, of some kind, from many different quarters about the fate of the Common Core and NCLB but I just don’t really get it. And if I feel lost, interested as I am in the minutiae of reform, I’m guessing these arguments will not work with the rank and file teacher.
One last thing: that you (or anyone) feel the need to delineate political fault lines and allegiances pretty much guarantees Americans will never have the education reform about which they could not in any case even articulate their need. To paraphrase the very first MTV video, ‘politics killed the education star.’ I get theoretical lenses and in that regard, I am something of a developmental constructivist but politics is not about finding out the best way to educate juvenile homo sapiens–it is about the allocation of power and resources and the persuasive means to enable that end.
And from what I can see, your promotion of a conservative landscape for education is as much a dog whistle for various privileged groups of class and religion and race as it tries to achieve an exalted status of rationalist experimental training ground for innovation models. We’ve had a hundred years to find workable models for education with your system and it has failed and, it would seem, by your compatriot’s own admission. Fundamentally, I think conservatives misappropriate the notion of a free market or, freedom as a general proposition, in a conservative formulation of educational theory and policy. We didn’t get to the Moon by flinging spacecraft against a wall of free enterprise to see what would stick–we very deliberately turned the process over to experts in physics, chemistry, aeronautics, and engineering and let them decide the best design given certain social and political constraints. When you want to do something extremely serious, you don’t leave the job up to politicians amateurs to dither and argue incessantly about the number of Reagans you can fit on the head of a policy.
Jeffrey, wonderful reference “politics killed the education star.” One of my favorite one hit wonders. I may barrow for future use. While I appreciate the wonk discussions/debates on Common Core, it will be hard to say what the implications are until we see the assessments.
Jeffrey, Thanks for attempting to deconstruct my ramblings with something even less coherent. Other than also finding some clever cachet in the reference “politics killed the education star,” what can I say? Perhaps you could clarify a couple of your points: Since you and I have a basic agreement about the purpose of politics, how can you turn around and disparage a free-market view of education that empowers consumers at the expense of politicians? What type of education reform do you believe we need?
You also wrote: “And from what I can see, your promotion of a conservative landscape for education is as much a dog whistle for various privileged groups of class and religion and race as it tries to achieve an exalted status of rationalist experimental training ground for innovation models. We’ve had a hundred years to find workable models for education with your system and it has failed and, it would seem, by your compatriot’s own admission.”
First, what in the universe makes you think the system of the last 100 years is one I would claim? Of course I didn’t intend this post for a broad audience of rank-and-file teachers, but I did aim to reach some people beyond the university social sciences faculty lounge. What else can I say, now that I’ve been branded a racist and elitist hegemon? Wow….
(Van, your point on assessments is valid and well-taken.)
I’m a rank-and-file teacher. Good thing we’re not supposed to follow current educational philosophy arguments, since we’re the ones in the classroom everyday doing the pragmatic, everyday work. Could you be more condescending?
Leigh, if that reply is intended for me, I think you misread the point I was trying to make. I neither said nor implied that you or any other teacher was not supposed to follow current arguments over educational philosophy. Some teachers read this blog, but the “broad audience” of them do not. That most teachers do not spend their free time reading and engaging on the Ed News Colorado is not a sweeping condemnation of all teachers by any stretch of the imagination. I am not seeking to condescend to anyone in this forum. But if you choose to be offended, there is nothing I can do about it.
Gee. Almost an apology. Any apology followed by “but” is never an apology. Too bad.
That’s because it wasn’t an apology. It was a clarification. I’m sorry you completely misunderstood what I wrote, and hope in the future you ask someone for clarification before assuming malice from a blog comment. Hope you have a good weekend.
…And I will strive to become ever more conscious of the need for complete clarity in the online written medium, where inferences can be easily made. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Too often it’s easier to see others’ flaws than one’s own.
OK Ben, fair points, I’ll attempt to clarify. Over the past 100 years or so, we have not had a Common Core and we’ve been through various and sundry reform efforts. Private education has been available since the founding of the Republic and plenty of time to find workable, sustainable models for reform. In the past two decades or so, we’ve opened the doors to innovation within the public school system with choice, magnets, and charters. So far, nada. But that’s my reading of the landscape wherein there has been a marketplace of curricular models and structures and little to show for it. Show us where in the world a free-market system has produced a world-class educational model. Hey, there might be one, and I’m enough of a capitalist myself that if I could find the right model, I’d be out there selling it.
Public education in what conservatives might call “government schools” exists for many reasons. One of which is socialization to the goals and ideals of the American state. An open system of education could not guarantee those goals would be met by private corporations unless there were rules or laws passed to make sure private schools weren’t Madrassas in disguise or some other kind of freaky program of study. I fail to see how we can get away from some form of government oversight for any number of reasons including addressing the needs of the disabled or those without the resources to access a school of choice in a market where those choices are limited.
I will accept your claim that you personally are not promoting the status quo in class and race relations by promoting an educational free-market. I will not withdraw my assertion as being valid for others in the free-market/libertarian reform business. It doesn’t even matter that there is an overt classist or racist agenda or not–a free market system will increase disparities in educational outcomes unless there is some regulatory mechanism to assure equal access. You can’t get government out of the equation. Push-back if you like. What you can say, you ask? You can say you are clearly for innovation through the free-market because it aligns with your sociopolitical philosophy. Then, you can show how the market works to educate all children equally well at world-class levels with empirical data to back up your claims.
The free-market system does empower consumers. I agree. Some consumers. Consumers who have all the facts on their dining table and have the time and wherewithal to sort the meat from the marketing.
Help me understand this scenario: Let’s say we go private in most all schools. Parents A and B send their kids to a new privatized school. After a couple of years, parents begin to notice that many students are falling behind. But why? How will they find out what is going on? A year has passed after many questions have been asked of the corporate school admin. Things are better but still it is thought there are too many kids falling through the cracks. Eventually Parents A & B plus C, D, and E hire an independent team of experts to assess the school. Unfortunately, the school corporation declines the assessment of its personnel citing right to privacy. All those parents pull their kids out and try to find another school. But parents B and E can’t afford another school with more graduating kids while A, C, and D move to the “better” school. By this time, 2-5 years may have gone by. Did the market work? Do all parents have equal knowledge and ability to police the new corporate schools? Now, multiply these realities with millions of kids and parents. I don’t see anything but chaos. And if parents are not equal in whatever ability makes them fully capable of finding and affording the best schools for their kids, we will have a system of haves and have-nots, little will change except that some individuals and corporations will have become very wealthy.
While I liked the article, I have to admit it wasn’t very clear. But I felt compelled to comment on one thing I did glean from it, and it is this: I do think the education reform community is headed toward more and more crossroads that will split the once bi-partisan, happy family. For example the situation in Wisconsin spawned a lot of really interesting conversations (eh, ok, arguments) amongst me and my friends, all of us considering ourselves to be “ed reformers,” and the potential to truly elevate the teaching profession. Needless to say the split in the debate was right down party lines…and this is just one example of the complexities that I think lie ahead for the ed reform community.
And in response to Jeffrey’s scenario in the last paragraph, I will first say there is no perfect system, its about finding the best system. So your scenario, now lets compare the current scenario in many places:
Parents A and B can only afford to live in a certain zip code with failing schools. Forced to send children into a system where there is a 50% chance they won’t graduate. The end.
While the scenario you wrote out didn’t sound ideal either, sounded a lot more hopeful than the status quo.
Perhaps it would be a useful exercise sometimes to talk about what is going on with students without using the phrase, “failing schools.” 50% of students will in fact, graduate in your scenario. And some of those will go to the finest universities. I doubt it is all the school’s fault in such a case. What else could be going on? Are schools really set up to solve all the other problems of the sociopolitical world that failed those students?
Jeffrey, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A couple quick follow-up comments:
1. “Show us where in the world a free-market system has produced a world-class educational model.” From what I’ve seen, Sweden has a fairly successful voucher system. I have info on other countries somewhere in my files, but not at my fingertips. I’ll see if I can find more.
2. “You can say you are clearly for innovation through the free-market because it aligns with your sociopolitical philosophy. Then, you can show how the market works to educate all children equally well at world-class levels with empirical data to back up your claims.” What existing meets that standard? As long as we’re judging systems by the same standards, we should be looking for relative advantages in meeting those goals. See #1.
3. “The free-market system does empower consumers. I agree. Some consumers. Consumers who have all the facts on their dining table and have the time and wherewithal to sort the meat from the marketing.” Ironically, this is similar to one of the points Rick Hess raised in a highly recommended article (http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/does-school-choice-work — 5th of 6 points made near the end). Deregulation of inputs into the education market and expansion of parental choice are crucial, but focusing solely on the supply side of reform is not sufficient. It’s one of the reasons the Independence Institute where I work created the School Choice for Kids website (http://schoolchoiceforkids.org), an English- and Spanish-language site which we have marketed especially to low-income Colorado families. There’s more information there than I could begin to describe in the time I have, suffice to say we are trying to tackle this problem head on.
4. Maybe I’m reading too much into your response, but it seems like you assume I hold a position of “separation of school and state,” and necessarily believe in a dramatic expansion of the private education (or corporate) sector. Supporting a system of vouchers & tax credits, and parental rights to educate at home or to choose whatever form of education suits them, does not necessitate a massive shift of education “market share” from the public to private sector. We need more choice, deregulation and competition, but they are not magical silver bullets. Research on charter schools have reaped mixed results, telling us more about the differences in state policies enabling successful models than enabling us to make sweeping judgments. And with voucher and tax credit programs, limited-scale choice has yielded clear but limited-scale improvements on the gold standard of research. Enough to give us better ideas how to improve these programs, but also providing confidence in policies that expand access to them.
A good conversation.
If you don’t think teachers read this blog, why would you think poor parents would read an Independence Institute School Choice for Kids website?
Leigh, I never said teachers don’t read this blog. In fact, I said quite the opposite — that some teachers certainly do. Are you failing to pay attention to what I write, or intentionally trying to misconstrue what I said? Are you actually interested in learning about what’s on the School Choice for Kids website? Are you actually interested in learning about how we promote it — especially to low-income and Spanish-speakers? Are you actually interested in learning how many thousand Colorado families visit and make use of the site every year? Are you actually interested in a serious discussion? Or are you just meagerly trying to be snide? Are you willing to apologize, too?
1. I would be interested to hear about the Swedish experience. While I am familiar with the Danish system, their friends across the water have their other ways.
2. I’m not sure what you are asking. Maybe judging different systems by the same standards is problematic?
3. It is indeed an interesting problem.
4. As long as those limited-scale choice examples are free of self-selection bias and the research controls for variables that may be unique to choice models.
Thanks for your detailed and frank response, much appreciated.
1. I’m not terribly familiar with the Swedish system, but found this supportive, if a bit old, study: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/11400.pdf
2. Sorry for the lack of clarity. The only point I was trying to make here was essentially not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we are going to judge whether to adopt a reform system against an ideal standard, we also should compare the current system to the same ideal and acknowledge that it falls woefully short. If the reform system offers significant improvement but not perfection, that is no reason to reject it.
3. …And one that is being addressed, and needs to be addressed even more.
4. The overwhelming number of gold standard, random-assignment studies show positive academic and competitive benefits from private school choice programs:
http://www.edchoice.org/WinWin2011
http://jaypgreene.com/2011/05/24/the-moynihan-challenge-5-years-later/
Thanks for the links, Ben. Looks like the edchoice link is of what could be a defense of choice however, the so-called gold standard I think only works if at least three conditions are met and it doesn’t look like that was the case. The most problematic being that of self-selection effects–an admitted perennial bugaboo in this kind of research. http://vote.research.yale.edu//pl504/Meta%20Experiments%2008%2009%2008%20nonanon.doc Ditto on the Moynihan.
About Sweden, much more interesting but your citation was early-on, this one is more recent http://www.llakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Wiborg-online.pdf and it raises some fascinating outcomes: schools which compete are less likely to cooperate with sharing information on success; teachers have less freedom and adhere to the company’s protocols lest they become redundant; segregation has increased; costs have ironically increased; and there are other unforeseen results of vouchers including a few successes.
Yes, the edchoice link is a defense of choice. It compiled and analyzed only random assignment trials — the “gold standard” of social science / education reform research. http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/gold_mettle_how_to_make_informed_decisions_about_education.xml. The first link you shared, to the 2008 conference paper: Am I mistaken in reading that the authors say that random assignment trials actually need some self-selection bias? Is this your case for ignoring the research on school choice programs? What am I missing here?
I’ll go back and look at the Sweden study. Thanks for sharing.