The longer I work in public policy, the more I think about conventional wisdom.
These little nuggets of thought – -some essentially correct, others partially so, others not at all — are the building blocks of a shared narrative that profoundly shapes how we see the world, and thus how we act within it. While some methods of changing public policy involve directly influencing key decision makers through persuasion, bribery, etc., most amount to engaging in a chaotic struggle to force ideas through the hourglass-center aperture that controls access to conventional wisdom and as such the public mind. It’s a low-success rate / high-payoff business. The vast majority of ideas and findings die lonely, anonymous deaths. But if, by dint of force or accuracy or plain dumb luck, you can maneuver an idea past the point of increasing returns, the result is close to miraculous. The web of human communication begins to exponentially multiply its force and breadth. Suddenly the idea is everywhere, and, having gotten there, it’s very hard to extract. Depending on your point of view, it becomes a constant asset or a persistent obstacle. Either way, it’s difficult to ignore.
Really getting a grip on the present state of conventional wisdom can be tricky. Newspapers and general-interest magazines are reliable sources, but they’re still influenced by personal idiosyncrasies — a particular reporter or editor may have certain opinions and experiences that shape the tenor of coverage and commentary. Political platforms and the views of politicians are another good measure, but they’re also individual-dependent. If a senator’s husband happens to be a special-ed teacher, her view of IDEA will no doubt be affected.
No, to really get a piece of unadulterated education zeitgeist circa the present day, you have to find a popular and basically unserious media outlet that only bothers to think about education in any way shape or form while assembling some sort of essentially ridiculous “100 Agents of Change” list that includes among the Top Twenty world-historical figures like Judd Apatow, Tina Fey, and the guy who invented Twitter. I refer, of course, to Rolling Stone magazine. Coming in at number 98 we find U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Here’s what RS has to say:
WHAT HE’S CHANGING: The expectations for public education in America. The ex-CEO of Chicago’s public schools has the resources — $100-billion in stimulus funds — to turn the crisis in our schools into opportunity. Duncan is committed to removing obstacles to innovation — including bad teachers — and intercepting at-risk kids before kindergarten.
FRIENDS SAY: “He just wants to find and scale the ideas that work, period,” says Wendy Kopp, CEO of Teach for America.
NEXT FIGHT: Working with the politically powerful teachers’ unions to match pay to classroom performance.
That last sentence would be made a lot more accurate by changing the word “Working” to “Fighting” (or the word “with” to “against”), but otherwise this is probably a pretty good snapshot of Secretary Duncan CW as of right this minute. And he should be worried. $100-billion is a lot of money in nearly every context except public education, where it represents only about 1/6th of what we spend on K-12 schools every year. And it’s really only 1/12th, because it’s $100 billion over two years. And it’s really much less than 1/12th, because a big chunk of that money is for universities and Pell grants. And it’s really much less than that, because most of what’s left isn’t for education reform but basic macroeconomic stabilization, keeping teachers and professors from being laid off.
In reality Duncan has a little more than $5 billion to influence states that have a long and sordid history of taking federal money and then actively working to subvert the goals for which the money was allocated. It’s hard, slogging, bureaucratic work and it’s not going to catalyze a sea change in the way our massive, decentralized education system operates. Education isn’t energy or health care, issues where federal initiatives can have an immediate and transformative effect on national policy. This is a case where sky-high expectations on the front end almost guarantee some level of disappointment down the road.
