Join the conversation

Last week I had the interesting and mostly pleasant experience of attending two events showcasing issues in public preK-12 education on the same day:  one sponsored by the Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW), the education arm of the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the second hosted by the National Association for Elementary School Principals (NAESP) honoring America’s National Distinguished Principals.  As one would expect, the two organizations have very different perspectives on the status of public schools and the people who work in them.

With the exception of Steve Brill’s closing luncheon speech, the ICW meeting was generally balanced and featured interesting panel discussions around the event’s theme, “Race to the Top:  Are We There Yet?” (Never mind that we’re barely a year into the competitive, federally funded, state administered large scale initiative.  It’s lucky the first checks are in the mail much less that we’re “there”, wherever that might be.)  A couple of the panelists, Dan Cruce from the Delaware Department of Education and Pat Forgione from ETS in particular, provided reality based presentations on state department collaborations that work towards effective change management. They also discussed implementation issues related to developing assessments for the Common Core standards. In other words, they presented straightforward information on initiatives in progress.   However, many of the presenters, in support of the competitive nature of RTTT, were harshly critical of public education in general and overtly supportive of charter schools and the competition they bring to traditional public schools.  At the ICW gathering, entrepreneurship was seen as a valuable, if not the only, approach to public school improvement. Teachers’ unions were repeatedly tagged as the blockers of all school reform.

In the other corner, NAESP’s celebration of principals in high performing elementary and middle schools through their National Distinguished Principals program showcased education leaders in public schools across the nation.  The principal profiles featured in the program publication described professionals who lead neighborhood schools staffed with teachers in both collective bargaining and right to work states in a collaborative, supportive environment that raised student achievement and engendered community involvement in the school.  Once more I was reminded that successful schools and districts have visionary, collaborative leadership that includes the superintendent, principals, and school board; collegial relationships with the teachers’ union; and community support that includes parent involvement. 

The ICW’s emphasis on competitiveness bespeaks a culture that doesn’t fully acknowledge the role of public education, which is to educate ALL children.  To the extent we rely on competition to improve some schools, others will be left behind.  In that situation the losers are always children, and ultimately the rest of us as well.