I've been monumentally disappointed with the complete lack of nuance and in the education reform community's debate about the Obey amendment to HR 4899, aka Edujobs. If we are actually trying to change any congressperson's mind before this amendment passes or dies, we are going to have to step up our game in a big way.
First, how imminent are teacher layoffs, and how dangerous would they be? Constituents are rightly worried that class sizes will balloon and that the worst schools would be hit hardest, since they have the youngest teachers most vulnerable to ?last hired, first fired.? Those who aren't so scared of class size increases ? such as Stafford and Checker ? have failed to make a convincing counterargument. Just because class size and achievement are not well correlated does not mean than an instant wave of firing will do no harm.
Second, if the $10B fund is necessary but the money should come from somewhere else, then from where? I understand that the Department of Education floated around some alternatives but that they were rejected by the Congressional Budget Office as not actually viable. Would this not be a good opportunity to trim the fat at other ineffective programs? Do we really have no alternative idea here?
These are basic questions, people. Members of congress will eventually have to vote and make tough decisions to weigh the costs and benefits of the competing priorities of reform, program cuts, and jobs. They will not be much helped by those who seek to unilaterally protect Race to the Top, education jobs, or both.
So far, in the commentary, only two people from the reform community have suggested any compromises: Scott Lilly and Mike Petrilli. They both said, in effect, that a cut to the Race to the Top wouldn't be all that bad; Lilly because he's somewhat skeptical of the reform initiatives, and Petrilli (on yesterday's podcast) because ?he's afraid there aren't actually enough great proposals out there to merit the full $4.35B. Anyone else?
- Mickey Muldoon