As we all watch the latest to come out of the Obama Administration, a [fairly] new announcement is sure to impact the focus of this particular publication.
Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, hails from Chicago schools where he sat as the superintendent. While there, he worked to hold schools accountable while still keeping people concerned with the schools happy. Hailed by news agencies far and wide, his reputation proceeds him. In Chicago, he worked hard in the 3rd largest school district in the Nation to raise student achievement and close schools which were not improving, usually to measurable gains. The New York Times reported on his nomination here.
My interest in this news break is not that he has been nominated, but the message paraded with his nomination, that he is in fact one who could mediate between the two main camps of education minds in America: those who believe in teacher's unions, such as the NEA, the nation's largest, and those who believe in quick school reform. The differences between these two groups could not be larger.
On one side, teacher's unions believe that teachers should be sheltered and protected from the sweeping hand of reform. These believe in automatic teacher tenure, and rights of the teacher over the administration. While unions have their advantages, they also create problems
in turning schools around, touted as America's answer by others.
This other side, represented by people like Joel I. Klein, of NYC Public Schools, and Michelle Rhee, of D.C. schools, and groups such as Teach For America. This camp, usually to the opposition of teacher's unions, pushes for reform in sweeping fashions. They dismay the unions because their sweeping reform usually targets teachers who have become too comfortable in their jobs.
Duncan's role in the Obama Administration stands to bridge the gap between these two groups, and move education in a positive direction despite the ongoing debate between these two camps. How is this possible? These two groups are so opposed and so backward that they have very little in common. They constantly fight to push their platforms, which may or may not be the best goals for the students. While this candidate might be the best Obama had to bridge this gap, does that mean he is better than Klein or Rhee, or any number of other reform candidates? It appears that in the quest to find the perfect mix, we might just get a washout. It is far too early to tell, true. But we must keep striving to find answers. We must all pay attention to the growing debate between these two camps, and the movement on behalf of Duncan to bridge this gap. After all, isn't it the children which should be the focus of America's education system?
Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, hails from Chicago schools where he sat as the superintendent. While there, he worked to hold schools accountable while still keeping people concerned with the schools happy. Hailed by news agencies far and wide, his reputation proceeds him. In Chicago, he worked hard in the 3rd largest school district in the Nation to raise student achievement and close schools which were not improving, usually to measurable gains. The New York Times reported on his nomination here.
My interest in this news break is not that he has been nominated, but the message paraded with his nomination, that he is in fact one who could mediate between the two main camps of education minds in America: those who believe in teacher's unions, such as the NEA, the nation's largest, and those who believe in quick school reform. The differences between these two groups could not be larger.
On one side, teacher's unions believe that teachers should be sheltered and protected from the sweeping hand of reform. These believe in automatic teacher tenure, and rights of the teacher over the administration. While unions have their advantages, they also create problems
in turning schools around, touted as America's answer by others.
This other side, represented by people like Joel I. Klein, of NYC Public Schools, and Michelle Rhee, of D.C. schools, and groups such as Teach For America. This camp, usually to the opposition of teacher's unions, pushes for reform in sweeping fashions. They dismay the unions because their sweeping reform usually targets teachers who have become too comfortable in their jobs.
Duncan's role in the Obama Administration stands to bridge the gap between these two groups, and move education in a positive direction despite the ongoing debate between these two camps. How is this possible? These two groups are so opposed and so backward that they have very little in common. They constantly fight to push their platforms, which may or may not be the best goals for the students. While this candidate might be the best Obama had to bridge this gap, does that mean he is better than Klein or Rhee, or any number of other reform candidates? It appears that in the quest to find the perfect mix, we might just get a washout. It is far too early to tell, true. But we must keep striving to find answers. We must all pay attention to the growing debate between these two camps, and the movement on behalf of Duncan to bridge this gap. After all, isn't it the children which should be the focus of America's education system?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment