An Educational Contrarian

The big questions to me are at the systems level. We intended to build a system that would foment excellence and now everyone is scratching their heads and wondering why we don't seem to be getting there. Implicit in that is the notion that our tests and our standards are themselves systems capable of fomenting excellence and so the problem must be elsewhere. Perhaps instruction? Teacher quality? etc. I noticed that the commissioner blames teaching in one of your articles, but I don't buy that. What is missing is an honest conversation about what the tools we call tests and standards were actually designed to do. Were they designed to foment excellence or were they designed for some other purpose? And if they were designed for some other purpose and we adopt them and don't see the excellence we want, wouldn't it behoove us to lift the hood and see if somehow we have a mismatch? What you've identified in your work is evidence of the mismatch. Our standards consist of...

I find it unremarkable and simply a given that when establishing policy in virtually every professional field: medicine, engineering, construction, etc., policy makers and regulators turn to experts who understand the field. This helps ensure that the technical components are properly addressed and in turn helps ensure that the policies will have the desired effects. I wish policy makers would offer the same courtesy to the field of education. The lone qualification for someone to make education policy in this country is the completion of a high school education, as if having been in a school imparts expertise. I walk through buildings every day and yet that in no way qualifies me to build them. I go to my doctor when I'm sick but that doesn't qualify me to practice medicine. I use a computer but that doesn't qualify me to write code. But education seems to be different, treated as something any idiot can understand, and so no expertise is required to write the laws t...