So, Obama came down on the wrong side? Late?

Let's review. Before the local control councils there was... what? A massive, centralized bureaucracy, unfriendly to those who happened to be poor or found within a minority group. That unfriendliness manifested as a cultural war which played out in Chicago schools, guided rewards and punishments for employees, and alienated local communities. It's really quite understandable where the desire for these local control councils came from, isn't it?

Once the local councils wrested control over Chicago schools, it's not surprising to me that they would want to exercise that control, sometimes viciously. Inertia is always present in any school system. It takes some serious wrenching to move it onto a new track.

Unfortunately, that new track was not better than the old one, in terms of educating students; on that, we agree. But in terms of political empowerment and community involvement, it surely was better. I think that counts for something. Not enough, but something.

The problem with the testing hawks' viewpoint is that people are not parts, to be milled and measured to exact tolerances. Overstandardization will stultify and repress more than it will educate. The true measure of success isn't a nudge on a statistical chart, but the activation of a child's curiosity and interest. Perhaps we need to recall once again that success in education means, above all else, teaching children how to learn, producing the desire to learn, and instilling the habit of critical thinking.

Test statistics don't measure any of those things very well, if at all.

We came to understand over a century ago that simple memorization of an approved list of "facts," while lending itself nicely to testing, would not achieve the goal of education. Let's re-remember it, shall we?

Education doesn't start in schools, it starts in communities. So much depends on the home, on families, during the first five or seven years of a child's life. The failure of our system is a failure of our communities, not just schools. Re-jiggering schools alone will not pull us out of this mess. But drawing communities more closely into schools will, at least, build a bridge. We have to reach parents as well as children if we want to turn this around, and the local councils might be a step in the right direction.

During this heated debate, Obama didn't pretend to have all the answers, unlike the testing hawks, who are quite clear about what the answers are, in their judgment. Nor did he attempt to stifle debate - which is, after all, an exceptionally democratic stance for him to take, don't you think? Debate needed (and still needs) to happen. Scholastic failure and community involvement ought to be discussed, vigorously.

I think we need to find a formula for success which makes education a community activity, not just a school activity. We've got to find ways to light up young minds from the start. What they learn isn't as important as that they learn, come to enjoy learning, come to seek it out. Making that happen means a lot more than who gets the principal's job or how Johnny did on his last test. It means creating an environment, from birth to adulthood and beyond, in which each child is nurtured and loved, provided adequate nutrition and exercise, kept safe from harm and free from toxic exposure, and encouraged to grow.

There's an old saying among Quality Assurance specialists: "you can't test quality into the product." The testing hawks have forgotten that bit of advice. You can't make an educated, successful adult by running a child through more and better tests. It's a lost cause, and if Obama isn't vocally sympathetic to the testing hawks in Chicago, I, for one, don't mind a bit.

Quality won't come from testing, and centralization is a red herring; you don't have to centralize to improve quality. Have we forgotten? My grandmother was educated in a one-room school house that never had more than 12 children in it at one time - all grades. Half of them were her own siblings. No central authority perched at her teacher's elbow and told her what tests to use, or threatened to fire her if statistics weren't looking up. My grandmother went on to become a teacher herself, as did two of her sisters, one of them a principal. Almost everyone engaged in this debate today has similar antecedents. Why, exactly, are people so terrified of decentralization?

Quality can arise, or fail to arise, in any politically organized or disorganized system. It's a mystery to me why we've let the testing hawks drive us onto this unfamiliar industrialized terrain where every student is expected to be interchangeable, and statistics are more important than setting minds afire. It's distracting us from the real causes of our failures.

I laugh when I hear Republicans say "No Child Left Behind." America has managed to leave entire communities behind, children included. Proposing more and better testing is just another way to sort out the worthy from the unworthy, the haves and will-never-haves. We're ruthlessly stratifying our society, which I guess is ok if you happen to be a rabid authoritarian. It's not so good if you love democracy, warts and all.