(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Well, a few days after I begged my friend Mike Petrilli to ixnay on the averickmay alktay now he has labeled the Fordham position on federal education policy making as “Reform Realism.” Get it- it’s a lot like “smart growth!”
Don’t get me wrong, even a crusty “Local Controller” like me finds things to admire about the Fordham position. But easplay, no more inguisticlay inspay!
In addition, I thought the Senate voted down national standards 98 to nothing in the late 1990s. Perhaps this is a new fantastic version of realism- but who knows what will happen next?
I’ve just issued a new position paper on NCLB describing my views, which I dub Smart Realism For Happy Progress. I’ve discovered that the most powerful argument is the title you give to your position.
In order for a policy to stick – it must have alliteration or pithy acronyms which is not in Jay’s Smart Realism for Happy Progress.
SPAR – Smart Pragmatism for Astounding Reality
ERASE – Education Reality As Smart Escalation
I always try to come up with ones for my positive strats that sound “pro” something. But those are nowhere near as fun as the negative ones. I wanted to start a think tank called the Center for Urban Reform and Studies in Education, just so the acronym would be C.U.R.S.E.
It didn’t get off of the ground, unfortunately.
How about Smart Clever Realism And Pragmatism – SCRAP?
You could start a movement to promote SCRAP called Helping Education Acquire Proficiency – SCRAP HEAP.
That is perfect – Greg wins.
[…] National standards isn’t a realistic goal, says Matthew Ladner. And he says it in Pig […]