More What’s Next

David Brooks in The Times and the Wash Post ed board weigh-in on what they want to see in the next secretary of education.  In a word, reform.  Past “what’s next” items hereUpdate:   TNR jumps into the fray.   Update II:   Jonathan Alter and an AP story with a lot of signalingUpdate III:  Newsweek v. NewsweekHoward Fineman here.  Update IV:   More TNR!  Update V:   Jonathan Zasloff on labor pains.

3 Replies to “More What’s Next”

  1. Brooks: Totalitarian Liberal

    Big government republican warmonger, David Brooks, wants education reforms and makes fun of those dependent on who becomes the next Sec Ed. These ‘Kremlinologists’, says Brooks, have everything on the line. True, the group is made up of big unions, educrats and reformists vying for control of the policy spigot. But these players are not so easily separated into interest vs. reformer.

    The false dichotomy between reformers and interests becomes clearer when one looks closer at the proposals and candidates being offered. None of the reform proposals or candidates address the fundamental issue of education: government vs. market. No Beltway interest wants to end central control; they just want to use it for their own purpose.

    The system is the prohibitive factor itself. The Sec Ed and the charade surrounding its appointment are symptoms of an inherent sickness. In creating a false dichotomy Brooks ignores what should be the key concern: the mass accumulation of vast power in one national office. This conscious omission by Brooks shows him for what he really is, a totalitarian liberal.

  2. A major reform is needed in the area of teaching mathematics. The applicant pool of good math teachers has continued to dwindle while we continue to import science from India and China. It’s a trend that will threaten the U.S. economic and military power.

    The solution is to treat math differently than other subjects. We need to admit to ourselves that math is an important and difficult subject. Since it is the driver for science, it is imperative that math education be reformed.

  3. David Brooks considers Rhee and Klein the only reformers in a system that is constantly under reform???-no one in the ed system ever talks about watering down standards-as he suggests unions and the education establishment would do-It is because Linda Darling Hammond does not put as much credence in the small number of elites in the TFA corps–Hammond supports and wants to improve the practice of the people who have made a long standing commitment to the profession-I wont a career educator in the position of Ed Secretary-someone who has dedicated their whole life to improving schools—Klein-a former Prosecutor-Rhee-a reluctant pushy leader and policy wonk-I think LDH would bring a strong research background-wonkiness and stability to the edsector-I suggest Brooks take a look at Hammond’s book “Preparing Teachers for a Changing World” here is the real reform—

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.