I came across a really interesting article that I had posted back in November. The subject of the Time Magazine article is Michelle Rhee, the knee-capping, blackberry-toting Chancellor of the Public School System in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Rhee is a registered Democrat but has become something of a cult hero to advocates of school reform across the country.
She 'cut her teeth' (I think this is an expression meaning "gained valuable experience" or "honed her skills") in New York City, where she helped found the New Teacher Project and worked closely with New York City's Education Chancellor Joel Klein (a side note: Mr. Klein worked in the Clinton Justice Department but remains an independent. He is considering a run for mayor of New York City).Mrs. Rhee and the aforementioned Time Magazine article remain important because of a very overlooked issue in today's political debate: the future of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, otherwise known as the "school voucher" program in D.C--and, more generally, the future of school voucher programs across the country. School vouchers are not popular with teachers' unions, e.g. the National Education Association and their state affiliates (Randi Weingarten's United Federation of Teachers in New York is the worst of these). I should also note that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program became a brief issue during one of the 2008 presidential debates between then-Senators McCain and Obama. Teachers' unions see vouchers, in theory, as an unnecessary diversion of resources away from the public school system. In practice, they hit union members in their wallets...and that's a big "no-no."
Mrs. Rhee is the bette noire of the unions. She has been inflicting blunt force trauma on the union agenda for a few years now, and the teachers unions, having spent ten millions of dollars getting Democrats elected nationwide, want their quid pro quo. Critics of Mrs. Rhee argue that she rules with an iron fist. She has sacked the entire public school administration and fired dozens of teachers in D.C., including some who many suggest performed competently. However, in my humble opinion, teachers and principals aren't fired enough. Being a public school teacher is one of the most secure jobs in the world. Education bureaucracies are obstacles to reform, not enablers of it---so if Mrs. Rhee's worst offense is offending the sensitivities of the education establishment? My response is a resounding "bravo."
With the Democrats in control
of the White House and the Legislative Branch (God, please save us), the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is in serious jeopardy. They WILL phase out the voucher program if they get their way. Politicians have mastered the art of misdirection: counting on the populace to be so outraged at other aspects of their governance that they will not be bothered with a seemingly trivial issue such as school vouchers. The Democrats have already tried to use procedural tactics in the Senate several times to phase out the program.The good news is that Michelle Rhee has the respect of President Obama and Education Secretary and fellow Chicagoan Arne Duncan. Mr. Duncan recently editorialized in the Wall Street Journal that the Obama administration is open to every kind of reform, although sadly he did not mention vouchers or the D.C. program specifically.
The concept of "reform" is rather nebulous. Sol Stern, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, describes "reform" as not just vouchers, "but also charter schools, tuition tax credits, mayoral control, and other reforms are now on the table as alternatives to bureaucratic, special-interest-choked big-city school systems." Some other reforms would include federal mandates for test scores and achievement, merit pay for teachers, and tutoring programs outside school hours. Note: for the purpose of this post I am going to ignore home schooling, school prayer, and also early education programs.
Whether there is a "left/right" split on who support reforms and who doesn't is a matter of some debate. A few personal observations:
-Democrats often get intellectually lazy and accuse Republicans for being "against education." Republicans have argued for the abolition of the Department of Education on ideological grounds (call it the limited government argument). Also, conservative scholars, Charles Murray comes to mind, have argued against in the insertion of the federal government into what primarily ought to be a state or local matter.
-Vouchers, introduced by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, are seen as "market-oriented" solutions and mostly supported by the right-wing of the political spectrum.
-Teachers' unions mostly support Democrats, although they will make political alliances with any willing counterparty.
-Conservatives have argued that public school education amounts to the imposition or the professing of progressive values---and children are not learning to think critically and analytically. Thomas Sowell articulately describes this phenomenon in his book Inside American Education; The
Decline, The Deception, the Dogmas. However, despite the inclinations of the Democratic Party, I have many liberal friends in Chicago are are open to many of the reforms/ideas mentioned in the paragraphs above, so I can't comfortably say that liberals think this and conservatives think that.
Sol Stern, writes here that school choice may not be enough, and that we need deeper reform at the pedagogical and curriculum level.
Thoughts, please!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment