Tuesday, February 9, 2010

When Policy Becomes Ideology � The Quick and the Ed

When Policy Becomes Ideology � The Quick and the Ed

When Policy Becomes Ideology

February 9th, 2010 | Category: Uncategorized

Last week Andy and I offered some ideas on the best way to characterize the theoretical and ideological divisions in education policy. Justin Cohen followed up:
I like Andy’s “Choice/Accountability” matrix, it’s far superior to the dichotomy that both of their posts reject. I worry, though, that it conflates “choice” and school-based “autonomy.” Right now, most state laws are structured such that charter schools – which are almost always schools of choice – have more autonomy than other actors in the public system. This doesn’t have to be the case. There’s no theoretical fiat preventing all other public schools from having higher levels of school-based autonomy, it’s just that the bureaucratic, policy, and collectively-bargained constraints of most traditional systems create (surmountable!) obstacles to school-based autonomy…Kevin’s point – that KIPP’s existence is a more powerful reason for chartering than any pure market teleology – illustrates a pretty important, yet nascent, debate: is choice in public education a means or an end? If choice is an end, the pure market version of ed reform settles for a reality wherein there are winners and losers when scarce resources are allocated – that’s literally what markets do. If choice is a means, it is one part of a substantial toolkit for ensuring a higher quality education for all children. It’s a really important distinction that doesn’t get talked about enough.
I think that’s right. For example, I know a woman who founded a charter school here in DC. She has a graduate degree in management from an Ivy League university, which she could have used for all manner of self-enriching purposes. Instead, she decided to devote every waking hour to education. But going to work for the DC Public Schools wasn’t a viable option. Educating disadvantaged urban schoolchildren is difficult in the best of circumstances and DC’s circumstances were, at the time, among the worst: dysfunctional and fractured governance, crumbling facilities, a broken special education system, a bloated and