Join the conversation

Gather round, boys and girls. Reporter Alan Borsuk will give a lesson on the difference between change and the status quo.

"What does it mean to be a Democrat when it comes to education?" he asks. "Does it mean you stand for sticking pretty much to the way things are now, except for adding more money? Or does it mean calling for some big changes in the way things are done?" I think you know whose side he's on.

Borsuk is writing about Milwaukee, but he's giving a lesson many national journalists have given before him. Here's how it goes:

• Change: Mayoral control, performance pay, charters, vouchers.
• Status Quo: Everything else.

Got it?

Borsuk and many like him are blissfully untroubled by a few  facts:

• Districts under mayoral control are not necessarily any more effective than districts run by school boards.
• Performance pay systems rest on awfully shaky science.
• On balance, charter schools tend to do worse than traditional public schools
• In Milwaukee, voucher schools don't do any better than traditional public schools.

But why dwell on such trifles when change is at stake?

Needless to say, Borsuk's article irked me. Let's get this straight: No one is satisfied with the status quo. No one thinks current achievement gaps or graduation rates are tolerable. Facile distinctions between change and status quo are distracting and unproductive.

We can have mayoral control, performance pay, charters and vouchers and stay mired in a dismal status quo. None of these governance changes matter one jot if we don't make real changes to assessments, curriculum, staff development, time for collaboration, etc., etc.

Reforms like mayoral control, performance pay and charters can be very effective if they create the conditions for better teaching and learning. They deserve serious consideration.

But how many examples of lousy charter schools and infeasible performance pay schemes do we need before we admit that none of these reforms is a magic pill? And how many examples of thriving public schools and districts do we need before we can acknowledge that so many fashionable reforms are not prerequisites for success? (Borsuk portrays New York City as the poster child for mayoral control, but he breathes nary a word about controversies calling the district's performance gains into question.)

It would be nice if journalists would think a bit more deeply about what they mean when they write about reform. That would be change I can believe in.