David Gamberg, superintendent of two neighboring school districts in Long Island–Southold and Greenport–has taken the lead in trying to forge a vision for the renewal of public education. He is one of the brave superintendents who have organized meetings with his peers, with fellow citizens, with other educators, to think about how to improve the public schools. He, along with his fellow superintendents in Shelter Island and Shoreham-Wading River, brought together renowned experts to discuss ways to strengthen the education profession though collaboration and teamwork, rather than falling for the false promise of competition. Competition in the small towns and villages on the North Fork of Long Island would shatter communities, not strengthen them. I have met with David Gamberg; he is very proud of the music programs in his community schools as well as the garden where children raise their own vegetables. He is a kind person, who cares about children and those who teach them. Imagine that.
In this essay, Gamberg considers the choices before him and his colleagues:
Two Roads Diverged…
David Gamberg
…no this is not Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken, but it is where we stand—at a crossroads in education. We have two competing views of how we as a nation should travel into the future. On one side exists a technocratic solution—the system has failed or is failing, and therefore a radical change is necessary. This is the disruptive innovation view. To those who subscribe to this view, the covenant that we have had with public education since the days of Horace Mann in the 1850s is no longer what drives this most fundamental democratic enterprise. They would carve up neighborhoods, sort and select human beings into winners and losers (children and adults alike), and treat learning like a business.
On the other side exists a powerful vision to promote the core values and practices established by the highest achieving educational systems on earth. Many exist here in America, while others are thriving in both large and small countries outside the U.S.
Don’t be fooled by the protagonists that stand at the fork in the road waving a false banner of bad business practices trying to lure the public. Their claims suggest the road ends with the pot of gold promising that we will regain the lead in a globally competitive market place. Cheered on by celebrities and the media elite who fail to see the potholes in the road that no banner of merit pay, standardized testing, vouchers, and charter schools will repair—this is a road to ruin. This crowd of cheerleaders claims to see great promise in racing, competing, and overcoming society’s challenges with “Taylor like” dystopian metrics used to beat others, where only the strong survive.
A road that celebrates childhood, and one that sees professional teachers and teaching as being indispensible to building the future of our nation is a stark contrast to our foray down the path of slick silver bullets that dominate the landscape of the current reform agenda. Don’t be misled. There are no easy “microwavable answers” to what we must do to promote the best for our children in America’s schools. Intractable issues like poverty, civic engagement, and the preservation of an enlightened citizenry will not be solved by tougher standards, market driven schemes, and a divided public education system.
At issue is a choice of how we can best serve our democracy. This is not a choice between the public and private sector, the left or right on the political spectrum. It is, however, a choice between a society that advances the principles of how individuals and organizations perform well, given the best evidence available, or how we might follow a narrow band of profit driven, unproven metrics that leads to potentially corrupt and short sighted returns.
Evidence abounds that the current reform agenda is reeling with mistrust, broken communities, and a simplistic attempt to leverage what works in some “ business sectors” and misapply it in others.
The alternative to the current agenda is not a pipe dream. This is not some nostalgic yearning for the good old days. Rather, hard won victories in strengthening the professional work of educators and forging lifelong habits of mind in our youth that will serve both themselves and the larger society well do exist. It is a wise path that sensible leaders and thoughtful adults espouse for themselves, their families, and their communities. In the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”

Eloguence, from another historically informed educator, a humanist, not a technocrat or hedge fund manager. May this tribe increase and with voices that are as clear as this.
LikeLike
Totally going to share this with Leadership Team today.
btw, anyone had “Influenceology” come up at their schools? (Dufords?)
Thoughts?
LikeLike
wait. . .it’s Dufour. Not influenceology. schoolimprovement.com
LikeLike
Don’t we have Sweden & Chile as proof that market driven reforms don’t work? The education systems in these two countries need publicity – especially Sweden in contrast to Finland. If the American public knew what market reforms have led to there, they’d be less willing to drink the Kool Aid here.
I myself don’t understand fully how a socialist country like Sweden went down the road of educational privatization. There is little media attention (or an Amanda Ripley) writing news stories or books about Sweden. It should serve as the canary in the coal mine.
LikeLike
We passed the fork in the road in 2002. We drove down the road of punitive, test-based reform under NCLB for ten years, The powers that be had the opportunity to amend/rewrite/eliminate the NCLB (ESEA) act but instead they put their foot on the accelerator (CCSS). Good-bye fork, hello rabbit hole.
After receiving a reply from a once respected democrat, Chuck Schumer, regarding the petition to STOP COMMON CORE TESTING, I am beginning to lose all hope. Every politician in Washington has been sucked into the Black Hole that formed in 2010 when democracy collapsed in on itself as a result of the *Citizens United ruling. They’re all in bed together, making love in a very large pile of money.
*Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), (Docket No. 08-205), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
LikeLike
A 238 year experiment gone horribly wrong.
LikeLike
Ironically I sit here listening to Bob Dylan sing,
“It’s not dark yet, but it’s gettin’ there.”
LikeLike
Let’s for a moment assume that Citizens United is a correct interpretation of the Constitution.
Then what?
LikeLike
Interesting word choice . . . “correct.” That’s a rather narrow way to see it, don’t you think?
As if there is a “correct” way to live life. An good discussion you might have started here, Archie.
LikeLike
Then the founding father’s screwed up. No one’s perfect, especially when your a pioneer.
LikeLike
In their defense, it was probably very hard for any founding father to imagine CEOs getting 100 million dollar holiday bonus checks
LikeLike
You are avoiding the question. What if political contribution are in fact legally protected free speech. I already know you don’t see it that way, but do you have any reasonable argument about its unconstitutionality. NYTeacher is at least direct in arguing that the original drafters of the constitution were wrong to protect free speech in that way.
I might argue that your position represents the greater of two evils, that limiting campaign contributions runs a greater risk of diminishing freedom than limiting them.
What if money really IS legally free speech.
What then do you advocate?
I hardly think wanting to have the country ruled by the constitution rather than the whims of individual persons is narrow at all. I’m surprised that you would think abiding the fundamental law of the land could be considered “narrow” just because it results in a policy you don’t like.
If we don’t have rule of law, what would society be like?
LikeLike
I mean, of course, not limiting them.
LikeLike
In 72 hours, 2,860 letters/emails have been sent to Washington DC by outraged parents and educators from all across the country. Read their comments and add your own feelings and experiences.
STOP COMMON CORE TESTING.
http://www.petition2congress.com/15080/stop-common-core-testing
And I sit here thinking that over one thousand concerned citizens, parents, and educators are going to receive email responses from Washington that basically say, “Didn’t you get the memo? I was sucked into the Black Hole that formed when democracy collapsed in 2010. Welcome to the plutocracy. Oh, and by the way, FU and your child centered world.”
LikeLike
NY Teacher, I got that memo and am thoroughly disgusted. NY teachers need to vote Green Party.
LikeLike
And Gillibrand’s letter also appeared to be the same boilerplate response.
LikeLike
Nimbus, You know that if you could spend 5 minutes talking with either Schumer or Gillibrand that they would demonstrate just how clueless they are on Common Core/high stakes testing issues. Lip service only. Really bad lip service at that.
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch made readiness the number one issue that parents and communities can provide to help the teachers and schools. Page 227 -235 of the Reign of Error. The report on the Century of School Battles in Left Back did not deal with the most at risk age 0-6 children which is telling in itself because our nation did not deal with it. Outcomes from this age 0-6 period without testing is more than critical. It is first things first to the solutions and the end in mind for the most at risk.
Educators want us to attend to the wellbeing of the children, everyone of them will say the earlier the better. In that light chapter 28 of the Absorbent Mind authored by Maria Montessori is most appropriate for the 21st century education requirement. “It updated” would gather practical support from all corners and the middle when exposed as the path to near early education utopia. Today, there is not a focus on the readiness of 100% of the children until it is too late and the most at risk are impacted the most… but, the schools are left recovering after the first miss. Take all the reforms being proposed and filter them through the first things first capacity constraint of being ready to read, count and understand positive expectations before kindergarten.
Everybody has a point to make, but this early reading (language) capacity could be seen as the pinpoint. Every school in every territorial district, charter, voucher, magnet, and system whatever has kindergarten teachers with a focus on the incoming kindergarten skills. Who is ready to read, count and understands positive expectations, or not? Over time, and right now, the public school district has the advantage to make sure the children are ready through its position as the collaborator of choice and the logical protector of Vollmer blueberry quality. Districts could take unique positions because high quality starts at age 0-6 and the public systems are in position to do more, even if it costs more and has to be restructured into the whole system. Ready means there is no gap against the world definition of ready and that has tremendous market value. Baldrige quality processes allows for the self definition of the whole system quality based on the end in mind.
In short order, these huge efforts in the community with the culture groups are rewarded by ready children, attendance growth and reformers that have figured out what is first things first. This can be done with one per district very most solid effort that sets the pace for the community that can be listed on the to do sheets and word of mouth ranking. In the beginning the constraint is not the providers, it is the attitude (mom and district) and the new money to make new deliveries to kindergarten. If the delivery is 100% ready (great blueberries) the district can use old money to pay back the bridge and pay directly for future world class readiness and its extension from innovation and savings. If the delivery is not 100% ready the school knows what the problem is in positive terms of solution.
Each district and school has simple points to organize around the goal of more high quality throughput, less in process and less cost in total. What is first thing first to increase most dramatically the throughput? Decide! What to change? What to change to? How to make the change? If district were to do this they would own the local market again. In the concept of turnaround logic, if you don’t change what is first thing first you will have to come back later to fix what could have been fixed first things first. Leadership of the turnaround logic working with dependent events does not have more than one or two capacity constraints that are first things first. No Choice will not go away.
LikeLike
A little foggy, but essentially correct. First things first. An ounce of prevention . . .
LikeLike
So offing beautiful. I say again the last two elections PROVE that the public schools have failed the democratic electorate because the majority chose UNWISELY.
LikeLike
Just as the supposed majority elected the POS Georgie Porgie in the two prior so I tend to agree with you about that being a “failure” of the public schools to educate properly.
LikeLike
Oops, that supposedly should be POTUS.
LikeLike
I get, “POS”. Can I assume that TU stands for Totally Useless?
LikeLike
God, I like your attitude!
LikeLike
That is one sweet acronym we just put together
Piece Of Totally Useless Sh** – in the case of George W, I would say worse than useless. He did irreparable harm to this country. His legacy is 15,000 veterans without arms or legs.
LikeLike
Yeah, Duane, you are right. As we look back at the Bush terms, he is equally culpable with the other statists in the Democrat party in promoting over spending. He tried to fight two wars without asking for the taxes to fund them, and look where we are now.
George Bush’s mistakes, of course, do not justify the present administration’s multiplying and compounding them. Lyndon Johnson tried having guns and butter at the same time too, without taxing higher for the war. If he had, we wouldn’t have had it. If congress would insist that the people be taxed for the wars they permit, rather than the country borrowing (from our enemies (China)), people would look at those wars with a more skeptical eye than we did back then.
Up until now, I’ve always sort of assumed that the people in government know what they are doing. This president has made it abundantly clear that they don’t, and that realization has clarified some of the truly bad policy going back even to Kennedy.
The Russians were pesky back then too, even as they are today. We thought we had neutered them, but Putin is showing they weren’t by screwing as many countries as he can get away with.
Does our bet still hold? War by next April 15th? I prefer Clausthaler.
LikeLike
Lets clear the fog to positive expectations based on these starting points. Quoting David’s Start.
“A road that celebrates childhood, and one that sees professional teachers and teaching as being indispensible to building the future of our nation is a stark contrast to our foray down the path of slick silver bullets that dominate the landscape of the current reform agenda.
At issue is a choice of how we can best serve our democracy. This is not a choice between the public and private sector, the left or right on the political spectrum. It is, however, a choice between a society that advances the principles of how individuals and organizations perform well, given the best evidence available
Evidence abounds that the current reform agenda is reeling with mistrust, broken communities, and a simplistic attempt to leverage what works in some “ business sectors” and misapply it in others.
The alternative to the current agenda is not a pipe dream… It is a wise path that sensible leaders and thoughtful adults espouse for themselves, their families, and their communities. In the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”
Now—Turnarounds are caused by lack of net cash flow. School districts by and large still have their cash flow no matter so they can make turnarounds until they get tired and quit and maybe get replaced. Yes they quit and restart one at a time whether we see it or not, as such. They quit and restart on a common boiled down goal of more high quality throughput, less in process waste and less cost in total relative to the throughput.
Many new school reform efforts are driven by lack of high quality and starting in the middle of dependent event processes will never create the highest quality possible. Starting in the middle might even be a waste of effort giving rise to mistrust, broken communities, and simplistic attempts to leverage what worked someplace else.
However, if and when reform efforts are working on first things first (like ready to read before kindergarten and mom’s attitude about that) and the next dependent event is strengthened with the effort the reformer starts a continuous improvement method of meeting exactly the requirement of the local system.
On this basis the local district can have a positive expectation of meeting the goal as soon as they start working on first things first right the first time. That method leads to the concept that high quality is free because there is no way to process dependent events less expensively than doing first things first right the first time with each and every effort monitored. With the expectation of less downstream effort required because less remedial effort is required a bridge loan that can be paid back from innovation and savings is appropriate to build the capacity to do first things first right the first time.
With that logic a school district can start the process now, nothing else is needed to start. Except, it is most important to start with the most significant constraint — to impact the throughput in the greatest manner. That constraint is generally not disputed. But it is often seen as -important but not critical- because doing first things first is not as easy as it sounds when there are many dependent events and the measurements are started in the middle of the process.
LikeLike