Go further

Rick Hess makes a reasonable point: "Imagining you can use an interesting and novel (if overhyped) domestic grant program as the foundation for revamping foreign aid is peculiar."

He fails to explain why.  And that blinds him to a relevant question: Why is an interesting and novel (if overhyped, and not that novel) domestic grant program as the foundation for revamping domestic aid not peculiar?  Why would something that would not work on foreign purposes work for domestic purposes?

He adds another sharp insight: "I'm kind of surprised to learn that the Pulitzer Prize-winning Friedman believes our biggest failure in Middle East diplomacy has been not talking with Hamas about proficiency rates."

He fails to turn this reflection into an interesting question: Why is not talking about proficiency rates not our biggest failure in education?  Or, if you prefer to cancel out the double negatives, why is talking about proficiency rates part and parcel of our biggest failure in education?


Lastly, Hess writes: "And, the frustrating thing, is that for things like teacher evaluation and school turnarounds, how you do them matters a lot more than whether you do them." Go further, Rick and tell us who "you" are (is?).  If the doers are the teachers themselves, the practitioners in and of the field, that will result in a much different process and outcome than if "you" is reformers motivated by interests distinct from those of the teachers and learners.