The Next Accountability – Teachers and Schools

August 25, 2016

Little-sprouts_-Grow-bean-sprouts-in-your-back-garden

EdChoice has posted Part 2 of my new series on The Next Accountability. In Part 1 I outlined what we most want from a good education; now I outline the most important qualities teachers and schools should have to deliver these results:

All this can be summed up by saying that teachers need to be wise and professional. Wisdom means teachers possess themselves the capacities of head, hands and heart that we want students to develop. Professionalism means that teachers’ primary motivation is not to check boxes on a curricular chart or maximize formal outcomes such as test scores, or even to please parents, but to help students develop those capacities of head, hands and heart that the teachers possess and the students need.

The great challenge we face is that in our society, where we are free to disagree about what is good, true and beautiful, we lack consensus about what constitutes a good education. Good schools are therefore those that manage to overcome legal and bureaucratic obstacles to operate as free communities, with a shared commitment both to freedom of disagreement about the highest things and also to bonds of interdependence and reciprocity:

Freedom and community tend to lose their meaning when separated from one another. Real community means people freely choose to be in community. And real freedom can only be protected by a community that loves freedom and institutionalizes it as a shared, public moral commitment.

Next, in Part 3: how the two great camps in the debate over accountability – advocates of technocracy and choice – are, in different ways, trying unsuccessfully to sidestep the core problem of building consensus in a pluralistic society.

Stay tuned! Your thoughts are very welcome as always.


The Next Accountability: What Do We Want from Schools?

August 3, 2016

Little-sprouts_-Grow-bean-sprouts-in-your-back-garden

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Today the newly renamed EdChoice launches Part 1 of my series of articles on The Next Accoutability, previewed with an introduction a few weeks ago.

I argue that the education reform coalition is coming apart because we don’t agree about what we want from schools:

The movement was well served in many ways by its various edifying impulses: to “close the achievement gap,” to “put parents in charge,” etc. But it has been haunted for decades by a growing awareness that these moral impulses do not always cohere easily.

The question, “What do we do if putting parents in charge doesn’t, by itself, close the achievement gap?” has been debated at every education reform conference I’ve attended. Such debates were lively and interesting intellectual exercises, so long as not much hung on them.

We lack consensus on what we want from schools because in a pluralistic society with religious freedom, we want to respect diverse opinions about the highest questions in life. But this leaves us with an incoherent education policy:

Our freedom to disagree about transcendent things does not mean that public policy can escape the responsibility to ask what is good, true and beautiful. In fact, the very assertion that it is good to have the freedom to disagree about transcendent things is itself an assertion about what is good, i.e. about transcendent things.

The challenge of pluralism is also an opportunity for us to discover a fresh vision of human potential that embraces the freedom to disagree about the highest things:

School accountability should be grounded in an understanding of human potential aimed at building up free communities, open to pluralism under the rule of law and respect for human rights, where people achieve and appreciate the good, the true and the beautiful in the midst of their differences over those very things.

I outline how we can understand educational goals for the head, the hands and the heart in ways that point toward the possibility of coherence in a pluralistic society.

Coming in two weeks: Part 2, looking at how teachers and schools actually carry out the task of educating students in the midst of our uncertainty about the highest goals of education. It is here, I will contend, that we will find clues to how we can hold schools accountable more effectively. Stay tuned!

As always, your comments and feedback are greatly appreciated.

 


Expert Ratings- A Cautionary Tale

July 15, 2016

GB Screenshot

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

A few months ago, I was on a panel discussing the incorporation of user reviews into the K-12 space for things like digital courses and ESAs. One of my fellow panelists expressed skepticism about the entire project until I noted that Rotten Tomatoes allows both “expert” and “user” reviews of movies. With this, he expressed contentment so long as the experts got their own ratings for separate consideration.

It has long been my experience using Rotten Tomatoes however that the user ratings tended to be much more reliable than the critic reviews. Last night I got a double barrel reminder of this when I allowed a 74% fresh critic rating convince me to go see Ghostbusters before the audience score came in (the studio released the film yesterday).

The 44% rating of the audience is incredibly generous. The 74% critic rating reveals some sort of deep divorce from reality. This movie is about as terrible as:

Star Trek V

Apparently 2o+% of people are just unwilling to admit that they paid to see a bad movie. What more proof? The critics nailed this one:

Highlander 2

Sometimes both the critics and the audience gets it wrong, but the critics get it more wrong. This would be the case with Ghostbusters 2016 and:

Jones Sometimes the critics and audience agree on a stinker:

Waterworld

So in the end, I’m happy to have “expert” reviews included, but if 74% of them thought that the hot mess I saw last night was a good movie, it says something important about relying solely on experts. Like everything else in life “experts” are not to be trusted.


Bending Spoons with Andy Smarick

July 11, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Following up on Greg’s post on Andy Smarick’s great post on accountability and how our current systems are based upon premises on their way to being out of date. It brings to mind this scene in the Matrix:

 

You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Andy took the red pill- welcome aboard the Nebuchadnezzar!


“Public” Is Not “Government”

July 8, 2016

untitled

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Andy Smarick is starting to have the most important realization about accountability – that the government school monopoly has corrupted not only our systems of accountability but even our conception of what accountability is. There is no need for a single, uniform accountability system in each geographic zone, and there is no need for accountability to be government-controlled.

Go read his post. Then remember that you read it here first. Not only the idea of families holding schools accountable but the idea that many other kinds of social organizations (think tanks, churches, civic groups, etc.) could help them do so by building family-driven structures of accountability.

My only complaint is that the title on his post reinforces the same error he is awakening from. The title is “Public Accountability vs. Consumer Accountability.” Since none of the language in the post itself reflects the extreme myopia we see in that title, I’m betting the title was composed by the smug technocrats at Fordham.

Welcome aboard, Andy! Soon enough you’ll realize these insights aren’t going to find an easy home at Fordham, but we’ll be here to welcome you as you pursue them.

Update: Ironically, I mispelled “error”!


The Next Accountability

July 6, 2016

Little-sprouts_-Grow-bean-sprouts-in-your-back-garden

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Today the Friedman Foundation carries the introduction to my forthcoming series, The Next Accountability. In this series I will make the case that the education reform movement is being pulled apart by differing visions of “accountability”:

Our forefathers built the education reform movement on a foundation that all reformers shared: We need to hold schools accountable, so they’ll give kids the education we want them to get. Now we’re discovering cracks in the foundation. It turns out we don’t agree on what we want, or on how we get schools to deliver it.

These differing visions of accountablity are really differing visions of what education is for – which are in turn differing visions of what constitutes a good human life:

A few of us, however, think that all this technocracy is precisely what we have been fighting against all along. It is essentially an extension of the old regime’s philosophy: We’re the education experts, and we know best! It’s just as impersonal and unresponsive to the real needs of real people as the blob. It’s as if we defeated the Soviet Union, and then celebrated our victory by imposing communism on Western Europe and North America.

For this reason, supporters of choice are going to have to get beyond talking points and canned rhetoric about “markets” and “competition”:

America needs to rethink what we really want from schools. Whether of the old or new variety, technocratic systems fail not only because they can be manipulated by greedy and incompetent people or because they lack sufficient information about client preferences (although these things are also worth remembering)—technocracy fails more importantly because it is based on a wrong understanding of what education is for.

Knowing what we want requires us to reawaken to who we are. All the great thinkers who have cast big visions for education, from Plato and Aristotle to Aquinas and Locke to Rousseau and Dewey, agreed that knowing something about what it means to educate children ultimately requires us to know something about what it means to be human. If opponents of technocracy can’t say something about that, all our rhetoric about markets and competition is chaff in the wind.

In the forthcoming articles in this series, I will lay out a vision of what we want from schools, and how we can create new approaches to accountability that will help us get what we want, without falling into the technocratic trap.

Follow the link and read the introduction to get a sneak preview of what that will entail.

Championing a different vision of accountability may increase the current conflicts in the education reform movement rather than decrease them. Technocracy is rooted in a vision of what education is for – of what is good for human beings – that many people in the education reform movement really believe in. We shouldn’t expect them to give it up without a fight.

But, as I will argue, a fresh vision can attract new allies. In many cases they will be more powerful allies than our current technocratic coalition partners, who are increasingly dismissive of us and our concerns anyway. And if we’re not willing to fight technocracy, even when it comes from our friends (in many cases former friends, who turned on us as soon as they thought they could) what was the fight against the blob all about in the first place?

It is only through that kind of conflict that really historic progress gets made. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not interested in renegotiating the terms of segregation. He came not to reform it but to exterminate it. We too must fight not for a renegotiation of terms with the technocratic beast, but for its end.

The remainder of this series will launch shortly after Friedman Legacy Day on July 29, when the Friedman Foundation will be making big announcements about its future. One thing I can promise you: we will never leave behind the mission to fight for justice and freedom that has always animated the foundation, which is Milton’s greatest legacy to us.

In the meantime, I welcome your feedback and look forward to the next stage of the fight!


Liberty and Justice for All

June 1, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Kingsland writes a hilarious post on five theories of change in K-12 philanthropy.  Over on the Ed Next podcast, Paul Peterson explains why he believes top-down command and control improvement strategies have jumped the shark and calls for a renewed focus on choice as an improvement strategy.