Broader, Bolder…and hollow
Thursday, August 14, 2008Written by: Uncle Charley
It’s sad to see when some who push a policy agenda rooted in deep, heartfelt compassion try to cover up the agenda’s defects with a façade of scholarly research. Such is the case with the allegedly new “Broader, Bolder” approach to education reform, and in particular the American Federation of Teachers’ so-called “evidence.”
Research guru Jay P. Greene exposes the hollow case underlying the agenda:
The Broader, Bolder folks provide a list of “background papers” to support their cause. But those papers are very far in the background in that only a handful of the more than 100 studies cited actually assess the effects of providing students with additional services. And even fewer look at the effects of public schools providing those services. Before we endorse a bold new plan for education wouldn’t we want at least a few evaluations of pilot programs in which public schools actually provided the full set of services being advocated? I can’t find one such evaluation in the list of 100+ studies provided.
If we were to believe the issue at stake is whether kids might benefit from improved health and social services, then it would be a no-brainer. But before we go and spend lots of money and risk our schools losing their focus on their important missions, the real question that needs to be asked is whether schools as institutions are well-equipped to deliver these services. Apparently, no such evidence can be found. And judging from the results of Great Society welfare programs, government institutions—schools or otherwise—aren’t likely our best bet to get the job done.
What’s most remarkable is that the AFT can ignore the research on school choice - which consistently shows small but real, favorable gains from various pilot programs - and oppose vouchers and tax credits. Yet with scarcely the batting of an eye, the union can conjure up support for a “Broader, Bolder” agenda without any evidence that it will work on a small, piloted scale? And then to have the hubris to portray the research as saying something it does not. Someone must be getting paid well.
I see this kind of desperation as a sign that the larger battle is being lost by school choice opponents. Just remember: While it may make you feel good about yourself to go Broad and go Bold, the evidence isn’t there to give us confidence of success.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Once again, a false choice between school based health centers
and school reform. We desperately need both. The benefit of having healthy kids ready to learn is fairly obvious. It is also clear to anyone that reviews the achievement and attainment data that far too many kids are not making it in today’s schools. A quality education remains the best lever for lifting people out of poverty.
My problem with much of the “Broader, Bolder” approach is what it does not say about how to radically improve achievement aside from longer days. Could you imagine having to stay in your typical big public urban high school from 9-5 PM on top of a summer session? And you think we have dropout crisis now with 50% not making in Denver’s schools.
Having healthy kids ready to learn is necessary but is wholly insufficient to get kids where they need to be as 21st century American adults. Much more needs to change (see here http://www.educationequalityproject.org/principles/ here http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/NationatRisk.htm here http://www.skillscommission.org/executive.htmand and a growing number of other reports. Our schools are not currently designed to prepare all kids to be ready for college, work and citizenship in today’s world.