All the fevered discussions from my time teaching at Rice and UPenn this past week prompted some reflections on policy and trust, and "implementation problems."
I thought it might be worth dusting off a column I penned in May of 2012, "The Fate of The Common Core: The View from 2022." Would be curious to hear where readers thought the piece was prescient . . . and where it wasn't.
Needless to say, Kevin Durant's $54 million Warriors salary doesn't happen in teaching. In schooling, we've drifted into the habit of talking a lot more about the need to get rid of lousy teachers than about how to give excellence its due.
It struck me that there are four cautions to pull from the Brexit fray that America's school reformers would do well to heed.
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.