In his last post Paul posted a question for me asking what the current point of divide is among Democrats. It's a good question, but in asking Paul also reminds us that the real point of this discussion is to call attention to his great book, so let me do that again: It's a really good book that you should read regardless of where you come down in these various debates.

Paul interpreted my previous post to be somewhat dismissive of the interventions that the "Bigger Bolder" calls for because I was vague in my wording. That was just a style issue of writing for a blog and not my intent. The "Bigger Bolder" crowd does offer specific interventions, which overall I strongly support (although less because there is overwhelming evidence, something that is debatable, but rather because it's a compelling logic model for how to approach some of these problems).

My objection, and the objection of many others in the reform community, is that there is not even a forceful top-line statement about how schools can do a lot better, or bear some of the responsibility. Instead, the manifesto argues that:

The potential effectiveness of [No Child Left Behind] has been seriously undermined, however, by its acceptance of the popular assumptions that bad schools are the major reason for low achievement, and that an academic program revolving around standards, testing, teacher training, and accountability can, in and of itself, offset the full impact of low socioeconomic status on achievement.

There are two problems with this statement. First, we can quibble about what "major" means, but where is the forthright acknowledgment that schools are a substantial part of the problem of low-achievement for minority and low-income youngsters? Schools are not the only cause of the achievement gap but they do a variety of things once students are in school that exacerbates it rather than closes it. Poor and minority students are least likely to get the best teachers, the most resources, the most challenging curriculum, and so forth. Whether or not we win the debates on expanding access to pre-kindergarten education, health and dental care, and other supports, we can do something about those other issues right now.

Second, the No Child law merely holds schools accountable for having most students pass state tests in reading and math at a level the state decides constitutes "proficiency" (and rest assured the states are not racing each other to set that bar as high as they can...). So although researchers differ about just how much good teachers can close the achievement gap and how durable the effects of having good teachers are, offsetting the full impact of demographics is a rhetorical feint and not the actual policy. The law merely requires that most students get over a relatively low bar. The fact that so many schools are having so much trouble with that bar should be the cause of outrage rather than the bar itself. But, in education we have a bad habit and a long history of shooting the messenger.

Had the "Bigger Bolder" manifesto led with a statement about schools and then called for a broader agenda as well, I doubt we'd be having this debate right now. Again, it's the all else equal issue. As I wrote on my blog at the time, the basic calculus here is that everyone is not for both strategies when it gets to the level of specifics. One way to test that hypothesis would be for an enterprising journalist with the platform of a national magazine to put the question to signatories of both and see what happens. If you know such a person, Paul, it could be a useful exercise! As you point out, doing both strategies would, of course, be the best way to expand Geoffrey Canada's ideas and vision. But, getting to specifics around school reform, especially school reforms that have adverse consequences for some adults in the system, has long been a stumbling block with some of the people active in organizing "Bigger and Bolder" coalition.

And, while I'm pretending to be your assignment editor, you can also try to find out why Republicans from the South keep voting against proposals that would send more money to their states to improve the schools there. That is a big part of the answer to Alex's question about why we can't invest more here. Another part of the answer can be found in Kevin Carey's outstanding American Prospect article about how the Democrats too often approach these issues. Demonstrating to taxpayers that these investments will drive real changes in student learning would help change the politics, too.