Gadfly is certainly correct to be left cold by David Broder's (non)verdict on the differences between how teachers and the general public view education reform efforts. (See "Edu-commentary.") Broder's inconclusiveness is not, however, due to a paralyzingly subtle understanding of the issue. Rather, it is simply superficial journalism, in the vein of, "Boy, we are going to have problems if the paradox I've described is true. I'm not here to advocate solutions, though, or to even suggest a step in the right direction." Which brings us to George Will.
Gadfly writes, "Is Will suggesting that the right incentives cannot overcome the resistance to raise standards?" Well, yes, he is - and he's right. I agree with Gadfly that incentives can help encourage better teaching. Merit pay for teachers is long, long overdue. That would address some of the "school officials" who Will thinks need to be shamed into action. However, market-style incentives only go so far, and they certainly don't touch the more important segment of Will's group of beratees: America's parents. Will's column is, in fact, an observation about culture, not policy: "The problem with American education is not public parsimony; it is the habits and values prevailing in private in U.S. households."
The idea that the rampant anti-intellectualism in this country can be eliminated through any kind of policy-based "incentives" seems unrealistically sunny to me. Will's central point stands: education officials will not be embarrassed by this country's lack of learning unless their constituencies are as well. The silver bullet of market-style incentives flies only so far in a country in which students don't know math, but are encouraged to feel like they do.
Justin Castle
Washington, D.C.