In recent weeks, some commenters on my blog have suggested that there is a "false dichotomy" at work in the debate over education reform. We are told we should "tone down" our views in order that we be might be better heard.

I am a firm believer in civil discourse, and believe we ought to seek common ground with others. But I think we have a very real debate featuring different approaches to solving some real problems in our society. Debates such as these are not settled because people simply split the difference between their positions. We need to widen this discussion, and clarify the consequences of the solutions now being pursued by our political and economic leaders.

Last fall, scholar Paul Thomas offered a powerful framework for understanding the two camps of reformers currently contending for public support.



He names one group the "No Excuses Reformers," writing:

"No excuses" has a specific meaning and context in 2012, one associated with corporate education reform endorsed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, and a long list of self-proclaimed reformers who have little or no experience as educators or scholars. Nonetheless, these reformers drive their agendas with slogans such as "poverty is not destiny."

The other group, to which he and I belong, he terms "Social Context Reformers." He explains:

While often discredited by No Excuses Reform narratives as embracing the status quo or, most inaccurately, suggesting children in poverty cannot learn, Social Context Reformers are primarily educators and education scholars who call for a combination of social and education reforms committed to addressing equity: Poverty is destiny, in society and schools, but poverty should not be destiny, argue Social Context Reformers.

Dr. Thomas offered a table which described public school problems and the policy solutions offered by No Excuses Reformers. Below I have built on and expanded his table, including a column that states the Social Context Reform policy solutions as well.

Update: Some have suggested it would be more accurate to term some of the consequences of No Excuses Reform policies "side effects," since they are not necessarily the goals that were in mind. I have revised the column headings accordingly.

We have a very real debate on our hands. There are big differences in the solutions being proposed. We do not need to be uncivil or rude, but we need to be crystal clear about what is happening to our public schools, before they are completely destroyed by the policies now being pursued. And we need to be equally clear about the positive alternatives to these policies, so we can push for them in every community in the nation. Let us make 2013 the year these issues are fully discussed and debated, and let us make this the year we decide to embrace and actively support our public schools.

Update: The discussion below has been revealing -- I have excerpted some of the sharpest comments in a followup post, Revealing Debate Over the Education Reform Dichotomy, which show the implications of the solutions being pursued by the two sides described above.

What do you think of the framework offered here? Is this a genuine dichotomy or a false one?

Continue the dialogue with me on Twitter at @AnthonyCody