Battle Metaphor Revisited

Eduwonk's post about things education reformers could learn from counter-insurgency experts made me think, as it did Emily. To take the battle metaphor (scroll to the bottom of that link for the original post) further: a true "win the hearts and minds" strategy for education reform would realize that overarching federal goals need support on the ground in order to take hold.

I agree with Leigh that federal efforts at reform have often been "lost in the translation"--but I don't think we should use that historical fact to conclude that local reforms are the only or even the best way to produce lasting changes to the education system. In my mind, the general absence of national-level vision and leadership in the field of education largely contributes to the chaotic and wheel-spinning nature of ed reform in this country.

If our ultimate goal is to create a new education system--one that does a better job of producing equitable outcomes--I think we need two things. First, a strategic operation plan on the federal level (NCLB is a start), with someone practical and responsive in charge of marshalling the overall implementation effort (Spellings seems to be doing a better job than her predecessor in this regard). Second, and equally important, we must cultivate buy-in from the local foot soldiers of reform--the teachers and communities that ultimately enact the vision. As Eduwonk argues, the "oil-spot" strategy of developing strongholds of success could help break down pockets of resistance elsewhere: once we have some proof that a new system works better than the old, people may start to come around.

Eduwonk suggests reformers send in "troops" from TFA, New Leaders for New Schools, and Broad to help establish these successful strongholds. But if the analogy holds, the US Department of Ed is the military occupation of Iraq, reform saboteurs are the insurgency, and these organizations are the education policy equivalent of NGOs (particularly interesting, read the bit about the evolutionary stages of development NGOs. Looks a lot like how these ed organizations are developing!).

I've yet to decide what I think, but my question is this: if we're talking about creating larger systemic change, what are the implications of non-governmental actors taking a lead in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people on the ground?

A further point to consider: many of the reform hold-outs we're trying to win over also happen to be opposed to these organizations. Even if it was proven that alternative certification programs can consistently produce real, positive outcomes, would that be enough to win the approval of those bent on resisting substantial change?