Can We Move Past Market-oriented "Reforms" to Policies That Actually Work?
For over a decade now, a group of self-proclaimed reformers has argued that, notwithstanding a lack of research-based evidence to support their claims, we should put our trust -- and our public money -- in their policy agenda. School district leaders like Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, and the mayors who backed them, would have us believe that virtually all it takes to close stubborn race- and income-based achievement gaps is evaluating teachers and schools on the basis of student test scores, closing schools that are deemed "under-performing," and replacing "failing schools" with charter schools. With the backing of the Obama Administration and organized, well-funded advocacy groups like Rhee's StudentsFirst, as well as Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform, 50CAN, and others, these "reforms" are starting to look more like the new status quo.
A new comprehensive assessment by the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education of these reform efforts over the past ten years should do more than call into question their logic and efficacy. It should put to rest, once and for all, the notion that opportunity gaps with their roots in family and community poverty can be addressed through quick-fix reforms that treat low-income and