Join the conversation

A diverse coalition of more than 60 experts in education, health, civil rights, economics and other fields just released a joint statement calling for "a broader, bolder approach to education" that includes policies to reduce the economic and social disadvantages that exacerbate academic achievement gaps. While continuing to urge school improvement efforts, their approach promotes early childhood education, after-school and summer opportunities, physical health, character, social development, creativity, and effective citizenship.

According to the coalition's ads in the New York Times and Washington Post, "Some schools have demonstrated unusual effectiveness. But even they cannot, by themselves, close the entire gap between students from different backgrounds in a substantial, consistent and sustainable manner on the full range of academic and non-academic measures by which we judge student success."

Those who would dismiss this statement as the work of left-wing apologists for inadequate public schools should pay close attention to who signed it.  The signatories include respected education reform stalwarts like Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary of education under Bush I; Bob Schwartz, former president of Achieve, Inc.; and Milton Goldberg, executive director of the commission that released Nation at Risk in 1983. They also include former George W. Bush administration officials such as John Dilulio, former Director of Faith-Based programs; Dr. Richard Carmona, U.S. Surgeon General until 2007; and Susan B. Newman, who was Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education when No Child Left Behind became law.

Prominent civil rights figures--such as NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and formal National Urban League President Hugh Price--have also signed the statement.

The statement advocates for four priorities:

The strength and diversity of the coalition behind this statement will make it much more difficult to tar anyone who questions the ability of schools alone to close achievement gaps as a defeatist or traitor to the cause of school reform. If all goes well, advocacy for this "broader, bolder approach to education" will strengthen the nation's resolve to improve both schools and the broader social conditions that affect the academic performance of our most vulnerable students.

Update:

The statement is already drawing sharp criticism from people in the education wonkosphere. In many instances, these critics are tilting at straw men.  (Apologies for the mixed metaphor).

One critic upbraids the statement's authors for "envision[ing] reforms as unintegrated and atomistic," and he strongly implies that they do not care about the quality of the pre-K education they advocate for.  Another criticizes the statement for treating "early education investments...in isolation from K-12 school reform."

Both critics are pointing out what are at worst sins of omission--understandable in a statement that barely covers three pages.  In fact, the task force's vision is far more integrated than they give it credit for.  It advocates for stronger "working relationships between schools and surrounding community institutions," calls for "better coordinationbetween pre-school, elementary, secondary and higher education," and even endorses plans "to locate full service health clinics in schools."  It also explicitly calls for high quality in pre-K education.

Still, such critics can actually advance the statement's goals.  One measure of its success will be its ability to spark a substantive national conversation on how to address the myriad needs of the nation's most vulnerable children--a conversation that expands and deepens the work of the task force.

More troubling are the critics who impute darker motives to the statement's authors. For example, one blogger translates the statement's call for better accountability systems as "We don't really want accountability but we can't quite admit it."  First of all, who is this "we?"  As noted above, the 60 signers have hardly established themselves as enemies of accountability. Second of all, such silly accusations merely stifle important conversations about school reform.