Five Minutes with Newt Gingrich at Ed In 08 Blogger Summit
May 16th, 2008 by Eric GrantAfter introductions by former Colorado Governor and director of the Ed in 08 campaign Roy Romer, the morning was dedicated to discussing policy issues. There was a definite bias towards standards-based reform and working within the system that plays directly into the Map dilemma of Achieving Standards and Personalization; in an increasingly diverse and contextual world, standardized experiences and tests don’t serve the current or future needs of students.
The only part of the conference that broke from familiar and stale ideas was the lunchtime keynote speech, delivered by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. I also got to interview him for a few minutes after his speech. He talked about many ideas, some controversial and some common-sensical. For example, he proposed that the next administration should release its control of state and local government to allow teachers and parents students to decide on what’s best for them. He called for a far more open learning economy that allows innovation from outside to influence or displace the current model. He has argued since 1995 that every child should have a laptop, and now that laptops are dropping towards the $100 mark, this may be possible soon. And he proposed that America incent students to stay in school by rewarding them monetarily and with no taxes on earnings made before age 17 (I didn’t quite follow that one myself).
Eric gives Newt Gingrich a copy of the Map prior to a brief interview
(photo courtesy of Gary Stager)
I asked him what he believes to be the biggest unmet need of students in K-12. His answer was “boredom”. He guessed that 20% of students in school are fully engaged, and that too many are dropping out either internally or externally. And he suggested that we need more project-based learning and more learning relevant to students’ interests.
I also asked him if he believes that innovation and true reform can come from within the existing federalized system, and he repeated a theme from his speech: only if we remove the control over the local schools and free them up to try new things. “We need the exact opposite of NCLB”.
Unfortunately, after this interesting turn of the conversation, it returned to more mundane matters. The afternoon was mostly about blogging; first we had a panel of
journalists from the Washington Post and EdWeek and a few other major
publications. Then we went into breakout sessions on grassroots efforts
and “blogging from the trenches”.
Chatting with Mark Lampkin, Exec Director of Ed in 08
(photo courtesy of Edin08 on Flickr)
I didn’t learn much about the Edin08 campaign or the specific issues it hopes to promote, and I seriously doubt that education will be the big issue in the election this year. How can we hope to engage in a useful dialog about this subject when we remain mired in the minutiae of which tests show what and which schools to close and which teachers to fire? We should be talking about what the students of today need to be effective citizens of the competitive, cooperative, and post-national world tomorrow.
But I did affirm my belief that there are plenty of dedicated champions of change working to fix the system from inside and out. If politicians and DC policy wonks don’t figure out how to fix the old system from the inside before it breaks, a new system created by the outsiders will take its place. So the choice is ours: slow and gradual change from within, or radical and disruptive change from without. Which do you prefer?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for recapping Gingrich’s key points. Maybe it was the buffet or just me knee-jerk reacting, but I totally glazed over right when he started making some UPS tracking analogy.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The need to attend to what Newt Gingrich has to say about public education in America is about as important as following a traffic light in a typhoon — totally irrelevant.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Laura - I had to fight that reaction myself, and was pleasantly suprised. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but at least it got away from the same old mundane discussions about standards and incremental fixes.
Jim - That’s a lovely turn of phrase, but do you have any particular reasons why his comments were irrelevant? I thought many of them held potential for good debate, and there’s value in having a former champion of the conservative side espouse reform and innovation.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The luncheon speech by Newt Gingrich offered the only contrast to the conservative (literally) policy recommendations which prevailed at the event. The Gates Foundation and the Strong American Schools initiative propose (1) “standards”, (2) “qualified” teachers and (3) time to learn. These sham reforms will not elevate overall system performance, since insiders will determine what qualifies as a standard and what qualifies as a proper teacher credential. “Time to learn” will mean “more resources poured down the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel rathole”.
The US State-monopoly school system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry over 150 years ago. “Conservative” properly describes those who work to maintain this system. Until recently, social conservatives have been Democrats, since markets undermine established institutions. William Jennings Bryan (Democratic Presidentisl candidate and Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State) knew this 100 years ago.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Eric,
The primary reason why engaging with Newt Gingrich is irrelevant is because the energy expended is highly unlikely to produce a result that will improve anything. It’s analogous to discussing global warming with George Bush pre-2008, he wouldn’t even acknowledge it was a fact to be dealt with, it was still a matter of opinion. To engage on that level is a waste of time and effort.
Persuading others so that they come together to apply sufficient political pressure to get Bush/Gingrich to change their positions (not their minds, their positions) is a course of action with real potential leverage, i.e., potential for exerting a beneficial result.
Gingrich functions are a provocateur, not a lever of change; his function is to divert the attention and energy of people away from the ideas that have the potential to make meaningful, positive change. That is why he is irrelevant.
I suspect that up close, Mr. Gingrich is an engaging and charming man. I do not mean to belittle his character or impugn his motives. Until proven otherwise, I accept him as an honorable man. It’s just that getting involved with him and his ideas takes us away from matters and people that are much more important.
As a tangentially related aside, I commend to your attention a very lively and informative (and highly opinionated) blog post about Chester Finn at http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/place_at_the_table/2008/04/chester_finn_mugged_by_reality.html