Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform
A couple of weeks ago, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a provocative commentary "Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin While not taking a partisan position on the candidates, I was non the less disturbed by Brooks' over simplification of education issues particularly when it comes to reform efforts. As I mentioned to several colleagues, I was just about ready to write to Brooks about the false dicotomies he had created when I read the following letter to the editor by Clifford Konold from UMass at Amerst. He says it right!
Published: June 17, 2008
To the Editor:
Re “Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform” (column, June 13):
To decide whether Barack Obama is serious about change, David Brooks decided to evaluate his policies on education. Fair enough. But to do so, he presents a dichotomy within the Democratic Party of “status quo” versus “reformist” thinkers.
I’ve spent a career trying to improve learning in the schools, so I was a little confused when I couldn’t figure out which team I was on. I contacted several colleagues, including ones I often argue with, and they couldn’t locate themselves either in this portrait.
Thus Mr. Brooks has painted a clear border through a complex landscape and then concluded that Mr. Obama is wishy-washy because he has footprints on both sides.
Perhaps this maneuver will convince a few more that Mr. Obama’s talk of change is only rhetoric. But I trust that neither Mr. Obama nor John McCain will buy into this simplistic distinction. Education is too important an issue.
Clifford Konold Amherst, Mass., June 13, 2008 The writer is a research professor at the Scientific Reasoning Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
= = =
Comments
Amen to professor Konold.
It makes no sense for us to politicize a set of important and complex education dilemmas, none of which we yet have the knowledge or resources necessary to resolve.
David Brooks' column was useful in highlighting a variety of perspectives on education reform, but Brooks did his readers a disservice by characterizing selective educators as policy combatants.
I would posit that the public school reform approaches of Michelle Rhee and Tom Payzant have more in common than not.
And to the extent to which there are policy alternatives, why should candidate Obama (or McCain) be pressured to select but one path?
One hopes that the Presidential candidates are wiser than columnist Brooks and promote substantive and innovative solutions wherever they might be found.
Posted by: A Knowledge Alliance Board Member | June 23, 2008 03:40 PM
well stated, Board Members!
Posted by: The Sourcerer | June 23, 2008 03:49 PM
GZHJRM fjosahfjk hajkfhs jkahfshafuksahfuas f8syaifa765978thsgjknd sjkgdjksbgjkds
Posted by: 1800 | July 3, 2008 02:23 PM
mAGTRv fadfsad sa faf saf safsafadfsad sa faf saf safsafadfsad sa faf saf safsa
Posted by: 1800 | July 4, 2008 03:02 PM
BnO06M htdioghrdeioh uerhuy h3oh iohgdfiogho isdfhio sdjhdf
Posted by: flow1800 | July 21, 2008 11:14 AM