“By the end of the 1960s, the most forceful and persuasive arguments on the ghetto underclass had been provided by liberals, not conservatives. A few years later, just the opposite would be true, even though the conservative thesis of the interplay between cultural tradition, family biography, and individual character remains largely unchanged.”
-William Julius Wilson, “The Truly Disadvantaged” (1987)
Education reform today is dominated by more conservative voices who advocate for fighting the battles of education in the trenches of rugged individualism: the conservative-led education reform movement of the 21st century has emphasized greater state and local-level freedom, innovation and market-based solutions for reaching students. Conservatives chalk up their liberal opponents to be teachers’ unions and the “system” of public education which resists their overtures. As a result, the liberal position has become muddied.
American liberals today need to carve out a new position on education reform, yet have found themselves pinned to defending the status quo without a clear alternative. While conservatives fight for market reforms to education, entrepreneurship and improving the quality and resourcefulness of low-performing school districts, liberals must push for these successful innovations to be replicated, spread equitably and reach all children. In other words, while conservatives push for the education pie to be made better, liberals must argue for the pie to be made bigger to include everyone.
Ideology of Conservative Reform: William Julius Wilson in his groundbreaking 1987 work on social policy issued a call for liberals to create a more substantial argument for inner city reforms. He noted conservative arguments had begun to fill the void of persuasive liberal arguments. The conservative arguments about social reform generally pass accountability to the individual level, looking at the character and history of the person to explain their unequal socioeconomic status. A radical extension of this would be Nevada rancher’s Cliven Bundy’s race remarks of the previous week. Though almost all conservatives disagree with Bundy’s radical views, the logic of self-reliance against dependency connects conservative opinions on everything from race to education.
While Paul Tough’s arguments that student character matters in his popular new book “Grit” are persuasive and attractive, look more closely. Tough has cast responsibility for academic success on the determined character traits of students. He conceals the argument that conservatives typically make through making its converse: positive character traits produce success rather than negative character traits limit success. In the end, Tough’s argument about cognitive skills put the burden for reform back on the students and ask our schools to focus on encouraging soft skills in students to compensate for the brokenness of the system and instruction of hard skills around them.
Soft skills and character are undoubtedly important, but should they be focal points of the conservative policy platform? The attitudes of more conservative reformers about grit extend upward from the individual student to teachers and school leaders. A study of Teach For America Corps Members by the Phi Delta Kappan found the following about their attitudes:
“In fact, in our study of Teach For America (TFA), we found these themes of heroism and individualism repeating themselves among many TFA alumni and current corps members when they reflected on the educational leadership they deemed most desirable for redressing educational inequities. For our respondents, most of whom were on a professional fast track to become leaders themselves, the archetype of the valiant leader in a relentless pursuit of excellence and justice was by far the most frequently cited model of leadership. They were enchanted with the image of a morally virtuous, epic hero.”
Finally, school leaders of the market-based reform movement champion the same kind of self-reliance advocated by teachers and for students. Principal Stephanie Johnson of Maynard Jackson High School is an archetype of this reform ideology. A fierce and dedicated educator, she demands excellence and innovation in her school practices. At a Leadership For Educational Equity Policy Summit yesterday at Emory University, she told a group of Corps Members she values her teachers working 16-hour days to be successful and meet the criteria set out by the State of Georgia for College and Career Readiness for school performance. The rugged individual makes the most of limited resources, showing grit in the face of adversity.
A Fresh Liberal Counterpoint: How much replicable success of these innovative practices can there be if stringent policies to raise test scores and student achievement rely only on rugged individuals to succeed in spite of their environment? Educators are not miracle workers who can make five loaves and two fish feed five thousand. Educators need more loaves and more fish, and a bigger pie. Maureen Downey of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution offered a fresh perspective at the Policy Summit yesterday: why are we talking about grit and soft skills to succeed, when so many problems are explained by how public education’s spending runs at 1/2 to 1/3 as much per student as most private schools in Georgia?
Liberals need to become more ardent reformers, taking good ideas and investing in them to blend the accountability of individuals to improve their schools with the full support of government resources for the same. The reformer Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone has received its share of criticism, but has some key platforms which can be rallying cries for a new wave of liberal education reformers. The Obama administration’s Promise Neighborhoods program implements the platform in a more equitable, replicable and community-sensitive manner:
- Expanded Pre-K Education
- After-School and Year-Round School
- Community Development
- Children’s Health
Education reform needs more diverse voices, but less voices defending the education status quo. The narrative on education reform today, as social reform in the 1980s, is dominated by conservative opinions touting the virtue of individual character and case studies of success. Policies need strong people to implement them, but policies are broken if strong people are forced to succeed despite the policy environment. Rather than find more people, we need better policies.
Education reform today fights the battle like the British at Gallipoli in World War I. Rather than sending our children, teachers and leaders into the brutal trenches of every-man-for-himself, why not take a stand for legislative equity? Improve the policies, strategies and tactics which affect our children from the top down and therefore make the pie bigger? Only then will the character of students, teachers and leaders be met with the justice and opportunity they deserve.
