My article in last week's Education Gadfly ("Sarah Palin, anti-intellectualism, and the plight of??the liberal arts") generated more reactions than anything I've written in a long time. I received a lot of emails from folks who agreed with the premise that neither political party is standing up for a comprehensive curriculum in our k-12 system, and are frustrated about it. For example, here's a comment that Whitney Tilson just ran in his daily email:
Petrilli is right on the money - I can't tell you how many times I've heard certain reformers denigrate "higher order thinking" and "problem solving" as just more union code words for an anti-accountability agenda.?? The problem is, when they insist that all that matters is basic skills and proficiency tests, they sound ridiculous to parents and teachers, and that limits their effectiveness.?? Basic skills, just because they're easily tested, are NOT all that matter, and our pursuit of more and more accountability needs to not be accompanied by a dumbing down of the accountability systems so we can have an easier time measuring and can make an argument against those who inappropriately assert that everything is unmeasurable.
But don't worry, plenty of you think I'm not nearly right on the money. In fact, I've "gone round the rocker" and put on my "Pollyanna dress." Why is that? Because I (admittedly) fawned over President Obama's recent speech to the NAACP. Adam Schaeffer at CATO complains:
His review reads like promotional excerpts for a blockbuster movie; Don't miss what critics are calling a can't-miss experience . . . "transcendent" . . . "inspirational" . . . "honest, direct, bold."Why such superlatives? Because Obama is an "African-American president, speaking to the NAACP, and arguing for reform in our schools and responsibility in our homes and community." Wow. Reform and responsibility?
Of course, as I point out here, the President OPPOSES the most direct and effective means of reforming education and empowering parents; school choice. And he supports expanding federal control of education from pre-k to college. Our President is working against reform and responsibility in education.
Our President has the nerve to lecture parents on the importance of getting involved as he supports ripping vouchers out of the hands of children in DC and elsewhere. He and his Congressional colleagues have effectively told thousands of District parents, who desperately want to direct their children to a better future, to shut up and sit down.
Then Greg Forster, writing at jaypgreene.com, piles it on:
Look, as has always been the case, Obama says a lot of the right things, and that does matter. But come on, Mike, let's maintain a grip on reality. Of the descriptors you offer, only "direct" seems plausible. Ask the DC voucher kids how "honest" Obama is being when he poses as a reformer.
Adam and Greg are certainly right that President Obama's talk and actions don't always line up. (I've argued the same.) But I was writing about his speech. Am I obligated to issue a disclaimer in every post that says "Of course, for the record, I think??the Obama Administration's??policy on DC vouchers is horrible"? I suppose if the only hammer in your hand is called vouchers, then you want to nail that point every time. But I don't think vouchers are the only, or even the best, approach to school reform, nor do I see all voucher opponents as sinister. And when we paint fellow reformers as such, we only weaken the broader movement for change.
As we keep hearing about the GOP, politics is about addition, not subtraction. Just because Obama opposes the DC voucher program, it doesn't take away from the fact that he gave a helluva speech to the NAACP.
