Though I think much of the big "R" reform agenda has real promise, its value ultimately depends infinitely more on how they're executed rather than whether they're adopted.
Back then, ed schools were marked by oppressive consensus on key questions: tests were bad, charter schooling and school vouchers were very bad, etc. It turns out this kind of thinking has spread to the school reform world too.
Common-core advocates were in such a hurry to do good that they just didn't show much interest in hard questions or uncomfortable cautions. This is the way things routinely go between progressives and conservatives.
It's worth taking a moment to understand where conservatives and progressives actually disagree. We agree on a lot, but our big disagreements frequently fall along the left-right ideological divide.
Should we be giving philanthropically at all if we want to create lasting change?
Prior to graduate school, I worked as an undergraduate admission officer at Stanford, and was struck by the parallels between the elite admission and philanthropy worlds.
At a billion-dollar bet level, however, are apps the best solution for philanthropists to pursue in early childhood education?
A new wave has hit education reform: hacker philanthropy. As Sean Parker describes it, it's "a desire to 'hack' complex problems using elegant technological and social solutions." But is it the best way to conduct education philanthropy?
I truly believe that most people in education truly are committed to equity, to fairness, to expanding opportunities for all children. The problem is that it is challenging to figure out what these values mean in practice, in various contexts.
In the case of school closure disputes, we need to ask: which claims of injustice, by whom, require response?