Join the conversation

It appears that a phony debate continues to rage over whether schools alone or out-of-school social programs alone can close achievement gaps between poor and wealthy students. Provoked by the "Broader, Bolder Approach to Education," an important statement calling for both in-school and out-of-school interventions to boost student achievement, the debate is distracting us from constructive deliberation about what it will take to support all students' achievement.

Of course schools can and should make a profound difference in the lives--and academic achievement--of our most vulnerable students. Indeed, that's a major premise of this website, which highlights the success of public schools and districts across the country, many against sobering odds. Let's be clear: It serves no one well--least of all educators--to depict public schools as powerless and educators' dedication as wasted. Defeatism has no place in discussions of school reform.

This fact in no way lessons the importance of the "Broader, Bolder Approach," however. As I've written elsewhere, the statement endorses both stronger out-of school supports for learning and ambitious school improvement strategies. To quote researcher and "Bolder Approach" co-chair Helen Ladd, it would be "a disaster" to pursue one without the other.

That's why much of the commentary provoked by the "Broader, Bolder Approach" is so frustrating. Too many people attacking or defending the statement reinforce utterly perverse either/or thinking about influences on student learning. One of the prime offenders in this regard is David Brooks, who wrote a silly op-ed characterizing the distinguished task force members who signed the statement as mere custodians of the "status quo." Please. As if Bob Schwartz, Tom Payzant and Diane Ravitch--to name just a few signers--hadn't earned their chops as champions of school reform. As if the "status quo" included universal access to excellent health care, Pre-school, after-school and summer programs.

So let's back off from absurd either/or arguments and acknowledge that it's possible to advocate openly for better out-of-school supports for learning without treachery to the cause of school improvement. Conversely, we can press for substantive, innovative school improvement without implying that schools alone bear the responsibility--and the blame--for all society's ills.

Update: Conspiracy Theory! (7/25/08)

In an interesting exchenge between Diane Ravitch--who ably defends the "Broader, Bolder Approach" and Checker Finn--who assigns dark motives to the bulk of "Bolder Approach" signers-- Finn concludes that "many of [the signers] really are trying to change the subject, diverting attention away from U.S. schools' mostly-woeful academic performance while letting schools and educators off the hook for academic results." This tendency to divine what people really mean when they sign a document like the "Broader, Bolder Approach" amounts to conspiracy theory, and it does no one any good.

The habit among critics of referring to the list of ideologically diverse but uniformly accomplished "Bolder Approach" task force members as a "crowd" (See, for example, here, here and here) merely reinforces the sense of conspiracy and reinforces false divisions between advocacy for school improvement and advocacy for out-of-school supports.

It also pigeonholes people in absurd ways.  "Bolder Approach" signer Marshall Smith: defeatist.  Education Equality Project signer Al Sharpton: school reform champion.

Such manufactured divisions make constructive conversations about school improvement all but impossible.

Frustrating.