There's sure to be lots of buzz about this Paul Tough article in yesterday's New York Times Magazine, which, among other things, aptly describes the great schism within the Democratic Party over education, with unions on one side and reformers on the other. A Democratic-reformer-friend I saw the other day said that this fight is for real, it's getting nasty, and if Barack Obama wins in November it's still not clear which side will prevail.
But let me officially lodge a complaint with the editors of the magazine, who put this teaser on its cover:
Counterintuitive Campaign Issues: Republicans Need to Take Income Inequality Seriously, By David Frum; Democrats Need to Move School Reform Out of the Schools; By Paul Tough
I'm sorry, but since when did arguing that "schools alone" can't close the achievement gap-that we need to also invest in a stronger social safety net*-become an unusual position for Democrats? It's the Republicans who generally believe that, if we provide all kids a decent education, then society has pretty much fulfilled its responsibility to offer a "fair start" in life. Let's face it: The Times just found an excuse to plug two Democratic ideas, which, for that media outlet, is hardly counterintuitive.
* By the way, doesn't the "broader/bolder" crowd, which includes the unions and most of the education establishment, understand that, in a tight economy, arguing for investments in out-of-school interventions means arguing against investments in k-12 education? Maybe this is just a conservative plot to drive down school spending...
