I write so that I think. An odd twist on Descartes' original words, but it underpins the purpose of this blog. I am writing to force myself to think more deeply, critically, and inevitably more dialectically about the state of our schools and the educational research and journalism. Due to the increasingly bitter and diametrically opposed fighting among the two camps in the educational debate, it seems that there are scarce few who use writing as a means of reflection. Indeed, a quick skim through my google reader will read more like a lesson in logical fallacies (primarily ad hominum attacks) than a serious dialogue about our schools.
In one camp, we have those who can criticize almost all forms of change to our most struggling schools: charter schools, merit-based pay, increased reliance on technology, value-added teacher assessment, national standards, closing struggling schools, Teach For America and instead tout Finland (a country almost devoid of poverty and heterogeneity) as the model we should follow. In another, we have choice advocates that have a hard time admitting that market theory does not apply perfectly (or at all) to improving educational outcomes. As they get more enraged with another, both parties use their pulpit more to pontificate and rile up supporters than to actually work through the difficult questions we face.
Most people in the middle fall into one of two categories. Either they site the better articles from each camp and assume the answer lies somewhere in the middle, or they fixate on a particular facet of our educational problem (e.g. educational technology). Once in a while I read someone who is above the lame and unproductive back-and-forth's , but I honestly feel like these posts are too few and far between. I therefore am going to use this pulpit to think, reflect, gather evidence, and hopefully reach some conclusions that are of a bit more value than what I read each day.
