…unions are fighting the premise of accountability rather than helping
teachers to deal with it.
–Paul T. Hill, Center on Reinventing Public Education, in this online discussion.
Much mental percolation this blandly hot Summer on the whole kit-n-kaboodle of public education, and reading discussions like that linked above result in both unaccustomed deep thinking and a strong urge to take a nap.
What will NCLB Version 2.0 look like? What should it look like? With 79 quadrillion players in the K-12 education game, how it is possible that there are 79 quintillion points of view? How can any useful consensus exist in a rapidly, and illogical, expanding universe of viewpoints?
Perhaps more importantly, in a thick tropical forest of ideas, initiatives and policy, where does one choose to machete their own points home? Especially when our blades have been dulled by electing a President who is right on so much, but certainly seems to have some shortcomings when it comes to public school education.
What, you think I have an answer for ya?
No. No answer here. Just plenty of questions. But a few things are starting to make their way through the dense theoretical canopy. For instance:
- Despite the federal nature of any NCLB Version 2.0, the best way to impact actual delivery of the legislation may well be at the State Department of Public Education level
And yes, that’s one bullet all by itself. More most likely to come, but I’ll leave it at that for now and continue percolating between Summertime naps on some others. To make a very long explanation far too short, my sense is that the federal game of NCLB Version 2.0 (when it comes) is already rigged for “more accountability…more…more…more!”, and our best means of attack is to game the game when it comes to turning “more accountability!” into actual test construction, delivery and statistical interpretation.
Just like NCLB Version 1.0.
More later…now time for a 8:30 a.m. Summertime nap.