A reader in the U.K. sent this editorial about business leaders’ complaints about poorly educated workers. He thought it was interesting to note that the same laments are heard on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. I have noticed that such laments are often concurrent with a big push to outsource jobs to countries that pay a small fraction of what local workers expect to be paid.
Yet, as I read the editorial, I remembered reading a few years ago that Sir Michael Barber, late of McKinsey, now at Pearson, was supposed to have successfully reformed the British education system. Barber is a big believer in targets and testing, accountability and school closing. His ideas have been influential in supporting the NCLB regime, giving it a patina of legitimacy, based in part on his reputation for having reformed British education.
Barber calls his philosophy of education “deliverology.”
Apparently, “deliverology” saved British education, and now it needs to be saved again.
Schools have this nasty habit of getting unreformed not long after they were reformed. Arne Duncan reformed Chicago, but now it has to be reformed again. Paul Vallas reformed Philadelphia (and Chicago, too) but now it has to be reformed again.
Reforms have this odd life cycle: first comes the press release, then the sustained publicity campaign, and then the reforms quietly dissolve. And the cycle begins again. The Houston Independent School District is on the Broad Foundation’s list of possible winners of its annual prize. Houston was the first district to win the prize some years ago. Then it had to be reformed all over again. New York City has been reformed for the past decade, and chances are that the next mayor will want to reform the reforms.
The only question that remains is not whether the reforms will be reformed, but whether they will be replaced by something different (which would involve admitting that mistakes were made), or whether reformers will do more of the same, with greater intensity.
And so it goes.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why is it that business owners and shareholders and bondholders and elected representatives and judges and corporatie managers behave like moral idiots who believe that economic efficiency, defined only as maximized return on investment, is the sole defintion of public morality and sound social policy? It’s that system, after all, that is producing the graduates that they’re complaining about.
I’m not sure that anyone will admit “mistakes were made”, it will just be a matter of “schools and teachers still aren’t doing their jobs, and now HERE’S this great new thing that my company can sell you”. Data regarding education goes through a manufacturing process: it gets carefully selected, packaged and presented with little critical examination, with the intent of “proving” how poorly students/schools are performing. The reforms are sold to the public as desperately needed to save us all (“Nation at Risk”-style).
But apparently the standards, reforms, standardized tests… keep not working.
“Mistakes” would indicate policy missteps. It would indicate a need to rethink the “reform” approach:
Possibly a different source of disparity in achievement that deserves some policy reform
A different reason students aren’t becoming well-employed citizens after being educated
They won’t admit mistakes because it would mean admitting they have done something wrong again, and again…
This is absolutely familiar – all part of the Global Education Reform Movement (aptly referred to as GERM. Here is a good introduction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-germ-is-infecting-schools-around-the-world/2012/06/29/gJQAVELZAW_blog.html.
I’m dizzy just keeping up. Change for the sake of change, with nothing to show for it. The new ‘reform’ model?
On the contrary, Mark, there’s sadly much to show for it: take a look Unfortunately, Mark, there is far too much to show for it: take a look at Pearson’s revenues, Wendy Kopp’s salary, or Bill Gates’ influence (despite his combination of cluelessness, hubris and insatiable hunger for control).
The constant change, or “disruption” as current management-speak would call it, is strategic. It’s Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, applied to the schools: constant scapegoating, intimidation and demoralization of teachers, conflicting demands (Test prep! No, critical thinking!), and destabilization/fragmentation of school systems allow these takeover/con artists to implement their ultimate project: monetizing the schools down to every child’s last data point.
I agree. I should have elaborated more on my remark. It was meant as a subtle dig at the fact that nothing good has come of this reform change, except more unbridled change.
The human fall-out is immeasurable. This horse mess truly borders on the criminal. I do what I can and encourage others to do the same. As a teacher, I have to dance, shimmy and straddle a fine line. This is another good argument for retaining tenure.
Hopefully, this movement will soon pass. Very quickly I hope, before anymore long-term damage is done. I’ll be ready to teach again, the old-fashioned way.
Perhaps this is a naive question. Can the reformers be held accountable, even sued when the reforms fail? I agree with the previous comment. These reforms often cause immeasurable damage. Do they just get to walk away?
First question, won’t happen. Second, yes, they do get to just walk away. That is how things work for those with power and money. Pretty much always has been that way and until the “peasants” rise up (and that will eventually happen) and take back what is rightfully theirs it will continue that way.