The Problem With Opposition

So we have two camps. On the one hand is the anti-union, pro-charter, pro-testing group called reformers by the MSM (chidingly, "the deformers", by its opposition) and embodied by Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and others. The other side is pro-union, anti-charter, anti-testing, without a meaningful name (chidingly, "the status quo", by its opposition) embodied by Diane Ravitch, Deborah Meier, and others.

The reformers gain a lot of ground by consistently trying to come up with evidence for "what works". Whatever effort they endorse, be it merit-pay, charter schools, vouchers, et al, the true test is always, "did the scores go up?". Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. But the reformers' job is to try something new and see if the scores go up.

Ravitch et al have a mightier task. The problem with opposing the reformers is that you must constantly prove that nothing works. Schools are not the answer; out of school factors mean much more to student success than anything in school. Test scores are either reflective of a narrowing of curriculum, creamed students, or outright cheating. These are troublesome because (1) you are consistently labeled contrarian and working against the children (2) ultimately your suggestions are political and have more to do with tax policy or our social safety net than schools themselves and (3) you have to spend much time writing "take downs" of what the Rhees of this world are doing, rather than focusing on your own agenda.

Can those that oppose "the reformers" come up with a coherent agenda that will help students and win broad public support?