Every election year, someone bemoans the fact that education is never a major factor in presidential politics. This year might be an exception, because of Common Core. But the reality is, presidential aspirants never talk about the issues that really interest the public at large.
Instead, politicians read from the same Big Book Of Education Shibboleths that pundits do.
To wit: Our public schools are a national disgrace with abysmal international rankings. Our test scores that haven’t budged in 40 years. Unions prevent bad teachers from being fired. Teachers are essential to academic outcomes but they are academically weak and unimpressive, the bottom feeders of college graduates. Administrators are crippled because they can’t fire bad teachers. We know what works in education. Choice will save our country by improving student outcomes. Charters have proven all kids can learn and poverty doesn’t matter. And so on.
All the conventional wisdom I’ve outlined in the previous paragraph is false, or at least complicated by reality. Any education reformer with more than two years experience would certainly agree that the public is mostly unmoved by rhetoric about teacher quality, tenure, curriculum changes, and choice—in fact, when “education reform” is a voting issue, the voters are often going against reform.
Education reformers are very much like Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally: All this time I thought he didn’t want to get married. But, the truth is, he didn’t want to marry me.
Yeah, sorry. Your ideas, reformers, they just don’t do it for the public.
So I put together some policies that a lot of the public would agree with and many would consider important enough to make a voting issue. In each case, the necessary legislation could be introduced at the state or federal level.
There’s a catch, of course. These proposals are nowhere on the horizon. But any serious understanding of these proposals will lead to an understanding of just how very far the acceptable debate is from the reality on the ground.
To understand these proposals, a Reality Primer:
1) Some children cannot learn to the desired standard in an acceptable timeframe or, in the case of high school, in any timeframe.
2) The more rigorous the standard, the greater number of students who will be incapable of learning to that standard.
3) As a result of the first two immutable facts, schools can’t require an unbendable promotion standard.
4) By high school, the range of student understanding in any one classroom is beyond what most outsiders can possibly conceive of.
and somewhat unrelated to the previous four:
5) Education case history suggests that courts care neither about reality or costs.
The primer is important. Read it. Embrace it. In fact, if you read the primer and really get on board, you’ll be able to come up with the proposals all by yourself.
Some additional reading to remind readers of where I’m coming from:
- The Fallacy at the Heart of All Reform
- Not Why This. Just Why Not That
- An Alternative College Admissions System
- Algebra, and the Pointlessness of the Whole Damned Thing
- Jason Richwine, and Goring the Media’s Ox
- Just a Job
- What causes the achievement gap? The Voldemort View
I originally had all the proposals as one huge post, but I’ve been really short on posts lately. Here’s the list as I build it:
August 1st, 2015 at 3:15 am
[…] if any presidential candidate is out there looking for ideas–particularly you Republicans–here’s my first […]
August 1st, 2015 at 3:57 am
As a result of the first two immutable facts, schools can’t require an unbendable promotion standard.
Why not? There must be a missing premise somewhere? An unbendable standard means that some people will never be able to move on from 4th to 5th grade, but I don’t see you saying that all possible worlds involve everyone being certified as 4th-grade-competent no matter what.
August 1st, 2015 at 4:34 am
“An unbendable standard means that some people will never be able to move on from 4th to 5th grade”
In typing it out, you don’t see that it’s impossible?
August 1st, 2015 at 5:36 am
Maybe politically impossible. But otherwise, I don’t see the impossibility.
“By high school, the range of student understanding in any one classroom is beyond what most outsiders can possibly conceive of.”
-What does this mean, exactly? I could definitely agree if “student” was replaced with “teacher” in the above sentence.
August 1st, 2015 at 6:31 am
No more impossible than some people never being certified as medical-school-competent. Some people aren’t competent.
August 2nd, 2015 at 10:46 pm
[…] onto the second of my education policy proposals for the upcoming presidential election, I offer up the one nearest to my […]
August 6th, 2015 at 10:30 pm
[…] gone through the low-hanging fruit of my ideas for presidential campaign education policies. Now we’re into the changes that take on laws […]
August 16th, 2015 at 9:56 pm
[…] been sketching out education policy proposals to contrast with the platitudes we usually see from reporters and wonks asking […]
August 31st, 2015 at 12:02 am
[…] the 1973 decision Lau vs Nichols, the Supreme Court, ever vigilant to prove the truth of primer rule #5, ruled that schools had to provide “basic English […]
September 20th, 2015 at 2:18 am
[…] trying to remember what got me into this foray into presidential politics last […]
January 2nd, 2016 at 7:30 am
[…] though), because I wanted my thoughts to be in the mix so timeliness was essential. I got the five political proposals and their bookends done in a month, a magnum opus of focus. (I suspect hocus pocus. Sorry.) The problem is in the organization and […]
May 20th, 2016 at 7:36 pm
[…] condition, I suggest we consider limiting the scope of public education. Four of these five education policy proposals will do just […]