Join the conversation

Many educators speak at a frequency inaudible to pundits' ears. Perhaps that's why pundits almost always prefer broad, simple solutions to the nitty-gritty processes of improving schools.

The venerable education pundit Jay Mathews recently exhibited this tendency in his review of a book about the success of Montgomery County Maryland. Leading for Equity, he opines, is all about process, and process is too often ponderous, impenetrable and uninspiring. For Mathews, exhibit A is the cryptic set of lessons the book outlines in its first chapter. For example: "Implementing a strategy of common, rigorous standards with differentiated resources and instruction can create excellence and equity for all students." Poetry it's not.

Still, I have to agree with Elena Silva's judgment that Matthews' "critique of the book as too process-oriented is wrong. Process has tripped up many a reform, and understanding what sequence of events and efforts leads to change is key to any district’s improvement strategy." (Former Institute of Education Sciences Director Russ Whitehurst made a similar point in an interview with us last month).

Matthews writes that the book misses the "real story" of Montgomery County's success: Superintendent Jerry Weast chose the best leaders and teachers for the job. It sounds simple, but Silva is skeptical. She argues that wealthy Montgomery County has an easier time than its neighbors attracting teachers from the DC area's highly-educated talent pool. The district owes its success to its focus on equity and individual attention, she concludes.

Whatever the reason, mastery of process was critical to success--however tedious and unglamorous that might seem to the uninitiated. To quote Charles Payne, "Successful districts and unsuccessful districts say they are doing the same things. The difference appears to be in the way that they do what they do." The success of big, bold reforms depends largely on the conditions they create for day-to-day process improvements.

So why is that so difficult to convey? For one, educators speak in code while pundits are looking for big, clear lessons to live by.

Maybe they can all meet in the middle.