As one who has long worked as a liaison between teachers in the K-12 system and the college, I found Franklin's overall analysis and criticism on the mark. Most of the current "public school debate" is indeed "vacuous," and worse! He is right in pointing out that there are many hidden agendas at work in attacks on the content, methodology, and organization of public school systems. I also agree that public education is under siege and that we are caught in a kind of bind, a strange situation in which our society seems to be moving in two contradictory directions at once: worshiping educational values while regularly diminishing educational institutions; or as Franklin notes, while the media reports problems almost daily, "state and city politicians only talk about cutbacks, getting more for less" (Franklin, 1996). Knowledge, skills, and "smarts" are promoted as keys to a good life and a bright future in a post-modern technological society. Yet, our public schools, and public colleges for that matter, are criticized almost daily from many different directions for what they lack rather than for what they offer. These contradictory goals and criticisms are upsetting and confusing, particularly from an educator's viewpoint, since most teachers see themselves as hardworking, serious, and underappreciated.

Yet there is a certain sense to the whole mess. People who come under economic and social pressure need to seek redress from the institutions that are servicing them rather than from the community at large. Many seem angry that the schools, hospitals, government, industries, etc., are unable to solve all of our problems. Many feel that the schools have not afforded us the kind of infinitely malleable training we can use to adapt to surprising new economic conditions. The slow or stagnant growth of the American economy has led to a search for cost reduction, and the public schools are a likely target particularly since a large share of their efforts goes into educating people who don't seem to succeed very well in life, or who need extra help. "These people" end up costing "us" money by way of taxes, welfare, compensatory education, and job programs. As Franklin points out in his article, there is a strong element of class and race divisiveness with the so-called debate over the future of public education. I don't doubt this for a minute!

However, the Franklin article offers a general view of the public schools from an "outside" reference point. This is not to belittle the arguments or the sentiments offered about what is happening; but there is an inner dimension that I see as largely missing, and that is the practitioner's perspective on change and "reform." Images of teachers usually depict them as cogs in a school machine, polarized somewhere between paragons of virtue and moralizing buffoons, but seldom as policy setters Joseph & Burnaford, 1994).

Franklin seems more concerned with the broad sociological and historical ramifications of the public school debate, and offers a useful overview of its shape and history. Sometimes, he throws out critical remarks without any deeper analysis, such as his annoyance with "critical thinking" being used "ad nauseam." I happen to think that the critical thinking/cognitive science approach is very exciting and useful, possibly the wave of the future (Schon, 1982). so, it is the personal school-based element which is lacking in the article, a perspective from inside (Jackson, 1968).

I would, therefore, like to supply some "insider" views about the public schools. Even better, of course, would be additional remarks from practitioners in the field, say a principal or a few teachers. The "horse's mouth" approach would be very enlightening in an academic discussion. Having strong roots in the schools, I will try to supply a bit of this first-hand experience, albeit with the humble recognition that I am an academic, too, and probably suffer from a good deal of intellectual distortion on this subject.

That the public schools have contributed greatly to American society is, I think, almost beyond dispute. Open to all comers, the public schools have nurtured many generations of migrants and immigrants who have become full-fledged and productive citizens. However, this has not been achieved without a good deal of debate, squabbling, posturing, and tension throughout our history, greatly intensified since the turn of the century with the growth of a vast comprehensive school system (Spring, 1988). I would argue that there have been many previous "reform" movements, with programs and suggestions coming out of right, left, and center competing for the power to shape the public systems. There has also been competition for the private systems as well, but this is much less well known and much more fragmented than the larger public systems. In neither private nor public systems has any single point of view or philosophy prevailed. All have influenced the school culture in some way, but not one, to my knowledge, has dominated, neither progressives nor essentialists, conservatives or liberals. But each would like to hold sway.

What is remarkable about the system is its stability. The public schools have always resisted big changes and general reforms, viewing the suggestions of "outsiders" with suspicion and sometimes outright contempt (Sarason, 1971). I think that people who want change often forget to find out what is going on right now (or then) in a real live public school. There are usually good reasons for "things being the way they are," but critics don't care much about "what is" because they have their own political, social, or ideological position to push. And these critics rarely ask the "system" what it needs or would like to develop.

Franklin has an agenda too, and so do I. And so do most of the recent "reformers." A big question is who has the power to implement change, and for whose goals? As professional institutions, schools resist suggestions because they fear intrusions and interventions by special interests or philosophies which will distort the teaching-learning process. Whittle Communications, for example, which recently sought to create a kind of private/public hybrid, TV and advertisements on site, was an educational program that has largely failed.

I use "reformers" in quotes because this word can cover a multitude of different, often antagonistic, positions espousing contrasting agendas. Sizer wants "essential" schools where we have "students as workers" who will exhibit "mastery" by graduation (Sizer, 1984). This position seeks to reform high schools by stressing good solid content and quality teaching, but tends to overlook social issues and denigrates the school as a community care institution.

Diane Ravitch, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and many others seek, in my view, to recapture a golden past when we really knew what the common values of America were all about, and we could teach these to the newcomers and to the underclass, thus giving them a share in a unified culture. This position overlooks the nature of current immigration as compared to past immigration, and overlooks the nature of internal movements of poorer ethnic and racial groups. For example, African-Americans are now part of every major section of the nation, and not confined to the rural South. Immigrants arrive from nearly every part of the world now, rather than being of European origin. The vast majority choose to or must send their children to the public school system.

At the turn of the century, there were problems wherever ghettoes developed, and the press and reformers wrote about these difficulties and were widely read. Jacob Riis is a prominent example of a progressive reformer who visited "slum" schools and complained, lo and behold, of their poor, crumbling conditions, of insufficient supplies, poorly trained teachers, etc. In some ways, even with our wondrously advanced technology and electronic systems, much the same divisions and complaints seem to be heard every day or two in the New York Times of 1996.

What many people don't see is that schools are very complex entities: single classrooms are complex; teachers are complex carriers of knowledge and attitudes; students' programs are complex mixes of subjects and levels; school buildings are complex communities; and the communities that surround them have complex relationships with each other and with their schools. Those who offer "one size fits all" formulas for improving the public schools forget that their system has a life of its own, and has long established policies and practices which are reasonable to them. Even reformers with lofty and generous goals like Theodore Sizer (who also has a lot of financial backing for interference in public life) have been frustrated in attempts to change large urban schools, either individually, or wholly.

Tension is inherent in the system, whatever your ideology, because administrators, teachers, parents, and students like to follow traditions laid down long ago rather than undergo abrupt changes in the rationales that are often left unexplained. Of course there are many schools, administrators, teachers, and systems that could use a good shake up, some new ideas, and a shift in personnel. But these changes usually come through slow, democratic, rather than "top-down" authoritarian means if they are to really have a long-term impact (Cuban, 1988). Top-down ideas may be good, but are usually doomed to be dissipated by the time they reach the front lines of teacher-student interaction. As an agent of change myself (or so I like to think) I have experienced these difficulties up close, especially when I am selling the idea of introducing critical thinking into literature or social studies. Even the best and most palatable of ideas must be introduced carefully, preferably with administrative support, discussed with the teachers so they understand the goals and techniques, and then field tested with the students. None of this, I have found, is very interesting to the public or to many funders, but this is what change is made of and there are good reasons for the resistance to reform.

Schools, and the teachers who are its key players, change all the time, but are wary of rapid changes, new philosophies, and big innovations because they have seen too many fads come and go, too many political hotshots bursting onto the scene causing problems for political gain, and then fading into the night (Richardson, 1990). They have also seen relatively little in the way of solid emotional and financial support from pundits, critics, or political leaders. They usually have very little training. After all, workshops cost money! In fact, the reform effort of the last decade has been accompanied by decreasing rather than increasing school budgets, particularly in urban centers. This breeds a cynicism about "big ideas" from the "outside" and also breeds a stronger internal professional bonding, building a bulwark against the critics. Sometimes this bonding can build a school or system where you would be very happy to send your children, but at other times it also builds an entrenched, narrow-minded, and stagnant bureaucracy. There are many dilemmas (Berlak, 1981).

Personally, I am more interested in what is happening inside the system than in listening to its external critics. Perhaps that is how I feel now after having read a dozen or more reformers and seen little in the way of practical results in the average classroom that I visit. It makes one a bit distrustful of utopias, of whatever origin or construction.

Unlike heavenly utopias, the tensions of a school system are very dramatic and riveting, particularly through the eyes of a student or teacher or parent. The players usually don't worry about the big picture, but about their improvement of learning scores on tests, how to teach a better and more effective lesson on polynomials today, or how to hold a more exciting discussion of the good, old civil war, or techniques for bringing atoms to life for a bunch of bored, urban kids, half of whom may not understand English very well. The school players are worried about quality and quantity: how many students are in a classroom, are the texts up to date, do students have job opportunities, is anyone around to help someone with dyslexia, when to file a union grievance against the principal, and so forth.

To introduce change that will last, the ideas of the reformer must enter the very complex and mundane world of the schools and show that the new concept will make a difference in the life of a child, teacher, parent, and administrator. All ideas are filtered through the system as it currently stands, a system that is doing pretty well with very limited resources and a lot of problems, but could do better, maybe a great deal better, under the right circumstances.