WHY THE BEST ISN'T SO BAD: MODERATION AND IDEALS IN EDUCATIONAL REFORM

摘要

In Moderating the Debate: Rationality and the Promise of American Education, Michael Feuer counsels reformers to "satisfice": moderate their expectations and accept that flawed reforms can be good enough. Implicit in Feuer's view of satisficing is the assumption that moderating expectations entails eschewing ideals and replacing optimal goals with modest, real-world solutions. In this essay, Deborah Kerdeman agrees with Feuer that moderation is vital for reform, but maintains that embracing moderation does not contradict pursuing goals. To show how goals and moderation work in concert to promote reform, Kerdeman examines and reframes Feuer's assumptions about ideals. She also distinguishes moderation from satisficing and argues that satisficing, not ideals, can be deleterious to reform. Kerdeman concludes that sensible policy and research, while important, will not necessarily help reformers embrace moderation; cultivating moderation instead requires ongoing self-examination.