Bush-Obama時期的學校改革：教訓
以下，是美國教育部長Betsy DeVos，於2018年1月16日，在美國企業公共政策研究所（American Enterprise Institute）的講稿。
標題為 Bush-Obama School Reform: Lessons Learned
Thank you, Rick, for that kind introduction. Who wouldve thought that after we were last together on a panel in Grand Rapids a couple of years ago, Id be here in this capacity today?
感謝Rick，給我做這樣友好的介紹。幾年前，就是上一次我們在Grand Rapids集會的時候，誰能想到，我今天，可以以這樣的身份站在這裡？
Its an honor to be with all of you at an organization I have long appreciated. AEI is now in its 80th year and in that near century, the Institutes scholars have influenced and shaped the way Americans think about so many issues in the public square. AEI has been – and will continue to be – a treasured constant in this town of transition. And it should be noted thats due in no small part to the leadership of Arthur
Brooks, who brings a unique and compelling perspective. Im grateful to call him a friend.
很榮幸跟大家在一起。我一向都很欣賞美國企業公共政策研究所(AEI)。今年是研究所的第80年。在近一個世紀里，這裡的學者們在很多公共議題上，影響、塑造了美國人的想法。我們好像住在變化不斷的小鎮，而企業公共政策研究所，在過去，在未來，是這裡寶貴的不變地標。我們要感謝Arthur Brooks的領導，是他帶來了獨特，不容忽視的觀念。我很感激有這樣一位好友。
Id like to especially thank Rick and Michael for putting this volume together and for hosting todays important discussions. Both of you have contributed significantly to the policy debates in American education, and, importantly, youve put your distinct perspectives and experience to work with the goal of improving education for all. You
both left the classroom out of frustration, and there are still far too many teachers who share that experience today.也特別感謝Rick和Michael，他們把大家的聲音聚集一處，主辦了今天這樣重要的研討。你們兩位為美國教育的政策辯論，貢獻多多。並且，你們把獨特的視角和經驗，用在改善所有人教育的目標。你們兩位，是在對教育的不滿中，離開課堂的。今天，還有許許多多的教師，有同你們一樣的體驗。
My work over thirty years has revolved around time spent on the outside, looking in. Outside Washington. Outside the LBJ building. Outside "the system." Some have questioned the presence of an outsider in the Department of Education, but, as its been said before, maybe what students need is someone who doesnt yet know all the things you "cant do."
我在過去三十年的工作，是在外面，看向裡面。在華盛頓外，在（教育部）LBJ大樓外。在「體制」外。有人質疑教育部怎麼能由外人領導。但是，有老話說，或許學生們的需要，就是一個人，能無視所有的「不能做」。
To a casual observer, a classroom today looks scarcely different than what one looked like when I entered the public policy debate thirty years ago. Worse, most classrooms today look remarkably similar to those of 1938 when AEI was founded. Take a look at this! These two operating rooms look starkly different, as does this general store and this website. But these two classrooms look almost identical.
對一個旁觀者，今天的課堂，跟我三十年前開始公共政策辯論時，幾乎沒有不同。甚至，今天的大多數課堂，跟1938年企業公共政策研究所(AEI)創建的時代，還是基本相似。看看罷！這兩個工作間，是完全兩樣，再看這個商店，看這個網站。但這兩間教室，基本上還是一模一樣。
The vast majority of learning environments have remained the same since the industrial revolution, because they were made in its image. Think of your own experience: sit down; dont talk; eyes front. Wait for the bell. Walk to the next class. Repeat. Students were trained for the assembly line then, and they still are today.
絕大多數的學習環境，自工業革命以來就原樣保持。因為這些教室，就是按著工業革命的樣子建造的。想像一下你自己的經歷：坐姿端正；不要說話；目視前方。等待鈴聲。走去下一節課。再重複。那時的學生，是按著流水線的方式訓練。今天，依舊是這樣。
Our societies and economies have moved beyond the industrial era. But the data tell us education hasnt.
我們的社會經濟，早已超越了工業時代。但數據告訴我們，教育還沒有。
The most recent Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, report, with which you are all familiar, has the U.S. ranked 23rd in reading, 25th in science and 40th in math. And, you know this too: its not for a lack of funding. The fact is the United States spends more per pupil than most other developed countries, many of which perform better than us in the same surveys.
你們很多人都熟悉的國際學生能力評估計劃（PISA），最近一期的報告顯示 ，美國教育的排名，閱讀第23位，科學第25，數學第40。並且大家也知道，這不是缺乏經費的問題。事實是美國在每個小學生上的花費，超過幾乎所有其它發達國家。在這PISA調查中，他們中間許多國家，都比我們成績更好。
I know that hard truth touches a nerve for everyone in this room. It does so for educators who try to help their students realize their potential. For employers who seek prepared employees. And, most importantly, for parents who only want the best for their children.
我曉得我們這房間里的每個人，看到這殘酷現實，都感慨萬千。同樣心情的，還有教育工作者們，他們要幫助學生們實現自己的潛力。還有僱主們，他們在尋找合適的員工。更重要的，還有家長們，他們只盼望把最好的，給自己的孩子。
Of course there have been many attempts to change the status quo. Weve seen valiant efforts to improve education from Republicans and Democrats, liberals, conservatives and everyone in between.
改變現狀的嘗試，也已經很多次了。我們看見了為改進教育的各種大膽努力，從共和黨、民主黨，從自由派、保守派，還有中間立場的每一個人。
Thats because everyone is aiming for the same result.
因為每一個人，都有同樣的目標。
Everyone wants students to be prepared and to lead successful lives.
每一個人，都盼望我們的學生預備完全，面向成功。
We cant say that sort of public harmony exists in other policy arenas. Not everyone agrees about the outcome or goal of tax policy or energy policy or immigration policy.
在其他公共政策上，我們沒有如此一致。不是所有人都認同一致的稅收目標，能源政策，或移民政策。
Our unity of purpose here presents an opportunity.
在教育問題上有一致的目標，這就是我們的機會。
But while weve changed some aspects of education, the results we all work for and desire havent been achieved.
過去我們曾經改變了一些教育方式，但我們努力和期待都落空了。
The bottom line is simple: federal education reform efforts have not worked as hoped.
結論很明白：聯邦教育改革的努力，沒有獲得期盼中的成功。
Thats not a point I make lightly or joyfully. Yes, there have been some minor improvements in a few areas. But were far from where we need to be. We need to be honest with ourselves. The purpose of todays conversation is to look at the past with 20/20 hindsight, examine what we have done and where it has – or hasnt – led us.
在這件事上，我無法輕鬆說笑。的確，在一些方面，是有少量的進步。但我們遠遠達不到所需要的改進。我們要對自己誠實。今天我們對話的目的，是要清晰地審視過去，察究我們的作為，哪裡成功，哪裡不足。
First, let me be clear that Im not here to impugn anyones motives. Every one of us wants better for students. We want better for our own children. We want better for our communities and our country. We wont solve any problems through finger-pointing.
首先，我要說明我這裡不是要質疑誰的動機。我們每個人都是為學生們更好。我們也是為自己的孩子更好。為我們的社區，為我們的國家更好。我們解決問題，不是通過互相指責的方法。
I also dont intend to criticize the goals of previous administrations education initiatives. In the end, every administration has tried to improve education for students and grow the number who are learning valuable skills.
我也不想批評過去政府的教育目標。就最終目的來說，每一屆政府，都在儘力，為學生改進教育，增加學習寶貴技能的人口。
We should hope – no, we should commit – that we as a country will not rest until every single child has equal access to the quality education they deserve. Secretary Spellings was right to ask "whose child do you want to leave behind?"
我們盼望，不，我們應當投身。我們這個國家要一刻不停地努力，直到每一個孩童都平等地享受，他們應得的高質量教育。（Bush時期的前任教育）局長Spellings給大家的問題依然在理。那時，她問「誰的孩子，你們覺得可以落下？」
But the question remains: why, after all the good intentions, the worthwhile goals, the wealth of expertise mustered, and the billions and billions of dollars spent, are students still unprepared?
但是問題還在：為什麼，那麼多好心好意，宏偉目標，彙集了專業技術，花費了億萬開銷之後，學生們還是沒有預備完全？
With No Child Left Behind, the general consensus among federal policymakers was that greater accountability would lead to better schools. Highlighting Americas education woes had become an American pastime, and, they thought, surely if schools were forced to answer for their failures, students would ultimately be better off.
（Bush時代的）一個也不落下（No Child Left Behind，NCLB）法案，聯邦政策的制定者中間，普遍共識是，更嚴格的問責，就會有更好的學校。埋怨美國教育的失敗，在當時是流行的話題。他們以為，只要逼著學校承擔教育失敗的後果，學生們最終一定會改進。
President Bush, the "compassionate conservative," and Senator Kennedy, the "liberal lion," both worked together on the law. It said that schools had to meet ambitious goals... or else. Lawmakers mandated that 100 percent of students attain proficiency by 2014. This approach would keep schools accountable and ultimately graduate more and better-educated students, they believed.
Bush總統，「熱心的保守派」，和Kennedy參議員，「自由派之獅」，在這法案上合作。它要求學校必須達到規定的目標……否則……立法議員們規定，2014年，100%的學生必須達到「精通」(proficiency)的級別。用這方法問責學校，最後就會畢業更多，受更好教育的學生。他們是這麼以為的。
Turns out, it didnt. Indeed, as has been detailed today, NCLB did little to spark higher scores. Universal proficiency, touted at the laws passage, was not achieved. As states and districts scrambled to avoid the laws sanctions and maintain their federal funding, some resorted to focusing specifically on math and reading at the expense of other subjects. Others simply inflated scores or lowered standards.
結果，並沒有。事實是，像今天已經報告的，NCLB法案跟本沒有促進更好成績。立法時誇耀的目標，沒有取得。各州各學區只忙著避免法律制裁，延續聯邦撥款。有些學校，只得專註於數學和閱讀，而犧牲了其他的學科。還有學校，僅僅是寬鬆給分，或者降低標準。
The trend line remains troubling today. According to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress data, two-thirds of American fourth graders still cant read at the level they should. And since 2013, our 8th grade reading scores have declined.
這個趨勢到今天還是讓人心憂。跟據最新的國家教育進步評估(National Assessment of Educational Progress)結果，美國三分之二的四年級學童，仍然不能達標。從2013年來，我們的八年級學童閱讀分數，已經下降。
Where the Bush administration emphasized NCLBs stick, the Obama administration focused on carrots. They recognized that states would not be able to legitimately meet the NCLBs strict standards. Secretary Duncan testified that 82 percent of the nations schools would likely fail to meet the laws requirements -- thus subjecting them to crippling sanctions.
Bush政府強調的是NCLB法案的大棒，Obama政府就專註紅蘿蔔的一面。他們承認了，各州不可能合法地達到NCLB的嚴苛標準。（Obama政府的）教育局長Duncan證實，全國82%的學校，可能難以達到法案的要求——因此遭遇制裁，只會使它們更加癱瘓。
The Obama administration dangled billions of dollars through the "Race to the Top" competition, and the grant-making process not so subtly encouraged states to adopt the Common Core State Standards. With a price tag of nearly four and a half billion dollars, it was billed as the "largest-ever federal investment in school reform." Later, the Department would give states a waiver from NCLBs requirements so long as they adopted the Obama administrations preferred policies — essentially making law while Congress negotiated the reauthorization of ESEA.
Obama政府的方法，是以上億的懸賞，推出「邁向顛峰」(Race to the Top)的競爭。撥款的過程，是明顯地引導各州，接受「共同核心課程標準」(Common Core State Standards)。花費近45億，這號稱是「聯邦史上最大筆教改投資」。後來，教育部決定，給各州免於NCLB法案的要求，條件是，要接受Obama政府喜好的政策——本質上，就是立了新法。而那時國會還正在談判，是否重新批准（1965年Johnson時期的）初級二級教育法(Elementary and Secondary Education Act)。
Unsurprisingly, nearly every state accepted Common Core standards and applied for hundreds of millions of dollars in "Race to the Top" funds. But despite this change, the United States PISA performance did not improve in reading and science, and it dropped in math from 2012 to 2015.
毫不意外的，幾乎所有州都接受了共同核心的標準，申請了上億「邁向顛峰」資金。但是儘管有這樣的改變，美國在國際學生能力評估計劃（PISA）中，閱讀和科學項目上沒有出現進步，而數學成績卻在2012到2015年下滑了。
Then, rightly, came the public backlash to federally imposed tests and the Common Core. I agree – and have always agreed – with President Trump on this: "Common Core is a disaster." And at the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.
而後，理所當然的，聯邦設置的考試和共同核心，受到了公眾的反彈。我同意，一直都同意Trump總統所說的，「共同核心就是個災難。」在美國的教育部，共同核心已經死了。
On a parallel track, the Obama administrations School Improvement Grants sought to fix targeted schools by injecting them with cash. The total cost of that effort was seven billion dollars.
與此同時，Obama政府設立學校改善基金(School Improvement Grants)，目的是修復問題學校。方法，是給它們注入資金。這項目的總花費，是七十億。
One year ago this week, the Departments Institute of Education Sciences released a report on what came of all that spending. It said: "Overall, across all grades, we found that implementing any SIG-funded model had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment."
一年前的這一周，教育部的教育科學所(Institute of Education Sciences)發布了所有花費的報告。裡面說道：「總的來說，在所有年級中，我們發現以學校改善基金資助的幫助，對數學或閱讀成績，高中畢業率，或大學錄取率，都沒有顯著影響。」
There we have it: billions of dollars directed at low-performing schools had no significant impact on student achievement.
這就是我們看到的：數億資金，投入在表現不好的學校，對學生的成績，沒有顯著影響。
These investments were meant to spark meaningful reforms. Schools were encouraged to significantly alter their teaching staffs, fire the principal or change the structure and model of the school. But most glossed over those recommendations. They simply took the federal money and ran the school the same old way.
這些投資，本來是要用作有意義的改革。鼓勵學校大量更換教師，開除校長，或是改變學校架構。但是大多數學校，只是聽聽那些建議，然後拿了聯邦的錢，一切照舊。
So where does that leave us? We saw two presidents from different political parties and philosophies take two different approaches.
那現在的我們是什麼情況？我們看著兩任總統，從不同政黨，不同觀念，嘗試了兩種不同方法。
Federally mandated assessments. Federal money. Federal standards. All originated in Washington, and none solved the problem. Too many of Americas students are still unprepared.
強制的聯邦評估。聯邦資金。聯邦標準。都是從華盛頓發起，都沒解決問題。太多美國學生，依然沒有為社會預備。
Perhaps the lesson lies not in what made the approaches different, but in what made them the same: the federal government. Both approaches had the same Washington "experts" telling educators how to behave.
或許，這教訓不在於兩種方法有何不同，而在於兩種方法的共同之處：就是聯邦政府。兩種方法都是由華盛頓「專家」告訴教育者該怎麼做。
The lesson is in the false premise: that Washington knows whats best for educators, parents and students.
教訓，就在這錯誤的前提假設：華盛頓知道，什麼對教育者，對家長，對學生們最好。
Rick, youve rightly pointed out that the federal government is good at making states, districts, and schools do something, but its not good at making them do it well. Getting real results for students hinges on how that "something" is done.
Rick，你剛剛指出了，聯邦政府擅長讓州、學區、學校做事情，但是不擅於讓他們把事情做好。而要在學生身上獲得真實的效果，關鍵就在這些「事情」要怎麼做。
Thats because when it comes to education – and any other issue in public life – those closest to the problem are always better able to solve it. Washington bureaucrats and self-styled education "experts" are about as far removed from students as you can get.
因為在教育上，還是公共生活的其他事情上，最接近問題的那些人，才從來都是更能解決問題的人。華盛頓的官僚和自認的教育「專家」，正是距離學生們最最遙遠的人。
Yet under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Washington overextended itself time and time again.
但是在共和黨和民主黨的兩任政府中，華盛頓一次又一次的越權。
Educators dont need engineering from Washington. Parents dont need prescriptions from Washington. Students dont need standards from Washington.
教育者不需要華盛頓設計的工程。家長不需要華盛頓開的處方。學生也不需要華盛頓制定的標準。
Throughout both initiatives, the result was a further damaged classroom dynamic between teacher and student, as the focus shifted from comprehension to test-passing. This sadly has taken root, with the American Federation of Teachers recently finding that 60 percent of its teachers reported having moderate to no influence over the content and skills taught in their own classrooms.
經歷了兩種方案，結果是師生間的課堂關係，更加受傷害。教育的焦點，從理解，換成了考試和通過。這個現象已經可悲地生根，美國教師聯合會(American Federation of Teachers)最近發現，他們60%的教師報告，對自己課堂的教學內容和方法，他們無權決定，或只能有限影響。
Let that sink in. Most teachers feel they have little – if any -- say in their own classrooms.
我們想想罷。大多數教師，感覺對自己的課堂，沒有或只有很少發言權。
That statistic should shock even the most ardent sycophant of "the system." Its yet another reason why we should shift power over classrooms from Washington back to teachers who know their students well.
這個統計數字，該震醒那些對「體制」最熱心的支持者了。這是又一理由，教我們應該把課堂的權力，由華盛頓，還給最了解自己學生的教師。
Federal mandates distort what education ought to be: a trusting relationship between teacher, parent and student.
聯邦法令扭曲了教育本來的面貌：就是教師、家長和學生間的信賴關係。
Ideally, parent and teacher work together to help a child discover his or her potential and pursue his or her passions. When we seek to empower teachers, we must empower parents as well. Parents are too often powerless in deciding whats best for their child. The state mandates where to send their child. It mandates what their child learns and how he or she learns it. In the same way, educators are constrained by state mandates. District mandates. Building mandates... all kinds of other mandates! Educators dont need Washington mandating their teaching on top of everything else.
在理想中，家長和教師共同協作，幫助孩子發現他（她）的潛能，追求他（她）熱愛的專業。當我們授權於教師，我們必須也授權給家長。太多時候，家長在什麼對自己孩子最好的決定上，毫無權力。州政府決定他們的孩子去哪裡上學，學什麼內容，還有怎樣學習。同樣的，教育者也被州政府的規定所束縛。還有學區的規定，教學樓的規定……形形色色的各種規定！教育者不需要，種種規定之上，還有華盛頓來規定他們的教導。
But during the years covered in your volume, the focus was the opposite: more federal government intrusion into relationships between teachers, parents and children.
但是儘管你們呼籲了多年，現實仍然反向而行：聯邦政府更加介入教師、家長和學生的關係之中。
The lessons of history should force us to admit that federal action has its limits.
過去的教訓，應該是逼著我們承認，聯邦行為，有它的局限。
The federal-first approach did not start with No Child Left Behind. The push for higher national standards was present in the Clinton administrations "Goals 2000" initiative. Before that, we had President George H.W. Bushs "America 2000," also calling for higher national standards. These followed the Reagan administrations "Nation at Risk" report, released in 1983. That report gave dire warnings about the countrys track if education was not reformed. "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today," the report warned, "we might well have viewed it as an act of war." That came after President Carters giant nod to union bosses: the establishment of the Department of Education, with the ironic charge to "prohibit federal control of education."
聯邦優先的方法，不是起源於「一個也不落下」。推動更高的全國標準，在Clinton政府的「目標2000」方案就有。再往前，是George H.W. Bush總統的「美國2000」，也是要設立更高的全國標準。這些都在1983年Reagan政府的「國家危機」(Nation at Risk)報告之後。那份報告，嚴肅地警告，如果沒有教育革新，國家可能脫軌。「如果有非友好的外部強權，試圖將今日的平庸教育水平強加於美國，」這份報告稱，「我們將視之為戰爭行為。」而這也是在Carter總統向工會大佬低頭之後。就是那時我們才建立了教育部。目標也極為諷刺，是要「禁止聯邦對教育的控制」。
The trend is evident. Politicians from both parties just cant help themselves. They have talked about painting education in new colors and even broader strokes. But each time, reform has not fundamentally changed "the system." Each attempt has really just been a new coat of paint on the same old wall.
這個趨勢是明顯的。兩黨的政客都不能自已。他們說的是要以更多色彩，甚至更粗筆觸地描繪教育。但每一次，改革都沒有根本地改變「體制」。每一次嘗試，都只是在同一面牆上，刷一層新漆。
When we try the same thing over and over again, yet expect different results, thats not reform – thats insanity.
當我們拿同樣東西，一遍遍重試，還期待有不同的結局，那不叫改革，那是腦子壞掉。
We will not reach our goal of helping every child achieve his or her fullest potential until we truly change. Let me offer three ways we can move forward in that pursuit.
我們這樣做，不可能幫助所有孩子發揮最大潛力。除非我們真正改變。請聽我講，向這目標前行的三個要點。
First, we need to recognize that the federal governments appropriate role is not to be the nations school board. My role is not to be the national superintendent nor the countrys "choice chief" – regardless of what the unions "Chicken Littles" may say! Federal investments in education, after all, are less than 10 percent of total K-12 expenditures, but the burdens created by federal regulations in education amount to a much, much larger percentage.
首先，我們要認清聯邦政府的合適角色。它不是全國的學校董事會。我的角色，不是全國的校監，也不是全國「選校負責人」——不管工會那些「天雞」(Chicken Littles)怎麼說！聯邦在教育的投資，在所有12年級(K12)教育的開支中，畢竟只佔不足10%。但是聯邦法規給教育帶來的負擔，遠遠超過這個百分比。
The Every Student Succeeds Act charted a path in a new direction. ESSA takes important steps to return power where it belongs by recognizing states – not Washington -- should shape education policy around their own people. But state lawmakers should also resist the urge to centrally plan education. "Leave it to the states" may be a compelling campaign-season slogan, but state capitols arent exactly close to every family either. Thats why states should empower teachers and parents and provide the same flexibility ESSA allows states.
每個學生成功法 (Every Student Succeeds Act) 在新的方向划出了路線。初級二級教育法ESSA是其重要步驟。就是要歸還權力，承認各州，不是華盛頓，應當圍繞他們自己的人民，來制定教育政策。州議員們，也應該抑制自己的慾望，避免集中地計劃教育。「讓各州自決」這句競選口號，可能已經深入人心。但州政府，也並不是最接近每一個家庭的。這就是為什麼，各州應當授權於教師和家長，提供ESSA所允許各州的靈活政策。
But lets recognize that many states are now struggling with what comes next. State ESSA plans arent the finish line. Those words on paper mean very little if state and local leaders dont seize the opportunity to truly transform education. They must move past a mindset of compliance and embrace individual empowerment.
但是，我們要承認，許多州目前正糾結接下來的改革。各州的ESSA不是終點線。如果各州和地方領導不能抓住機遇，真正地改變教育，那些紙上的言語沒有絲毫意義。他們必須超越「達標」的心態，而真正擁抱個體的授權。
Under ESSA, school leaders, educators and parents have the latitude and freedom to try new approaches to serve individual students.
在ESSA之下，學校領導，教育者和家長將得到自由，嘗試新的教育方法，服務於每一個個體的學生。
My message to them is simple: do it!
我給大家的信息就這樣簡單：去做！
Embrace the imperative to do something truly bold... to challenge the status quo... to break the mold.
擁抱真正大膽的方案……挑戰現狀……打碎模具。
One important way to start this process is to make sure that parents get the information they want and need about the performance of their childrens schools and teachers. ESSA encourages states to be transparent about how money is spent, down to the school-building level.
開始這進程的重要方法，是要確定家長們，可以得到他們所需所要的信息，就是他們孩子的學校和教師的表現。ESSA鼓勵各州財務公開，一直透明到學校大樓。
Some states have developed information that is truly useful for parents and teachers. Others have worked just as hard to obfuscate what is really going on at their schools. To empower parents, policymakers and teachers, we cant let "the system" hide behind complexity to escape accountability.
有些州已經建立系統，提供對教師和家長真正有用的信息。還有些是同樣努力地，遮掩他們學校的狀況。要授權給家長、政策制定者和教師，我們就不能讓「體制」躲藏在繁文縟節之後，逃脫了問責。
We must always push for better.
我們必須不斷改進。
ESSA is a good step in the right direction. But its just that – a step. We still find ourselves boxed in a "system," one where we are in a constant battle to move the ball between the 40-yard lines of a football field. Nobody scores, and nobody wins. Students are left bored in the bleachers, and many leave, never to return.
ESSA是正確方向上好的一步。但也只是，一步而已。我們會發現自己還是在「體制」裡面，好像永遠在球場中間的40碼線之間來回戰鬥。沒有得分，沒有勝利。學生們在看台上無聊地等待，很多人離開，再不回來。
So why dont we consider whether we need a new playbook?
那我們為什麼不創造一個新戰術呢？
That brings me to point number two. And, to finish the analogy... lets call a new play: empowering parents.
這就是我的第二點。繼續上面的類比，我們稱這是新戰術，就是授權家長。
Parents have the greatest stake in the outcome of their childs education. Accordingly, they should also have the power to make sure their child is getting the right education.
家長在他們孩子的教育上，最有份參與。相應地，他們也應該有權力，確保他們的孩子獲得合適的教育。
As Deven Carlson points out, there is little constituency in America for the top-down reforms that have been tried time and again. In order for any reform to truly work, it must attract and maintain the support of the people.
像Deven Carlson指出的，自上而下的改革，在美國的所有選區，都反覆進行過。任何改革要真正起效，就必須吸引民間的長期支持。
I have seen such support for parental empowerment. The more parents exercise it, the more they like it. This growing support is why states are responding to that demand one by one. Its also why sycophants entrenched in and defending the status quo are terrified. They recoil from relinquishing power and control to teachers, parents and students.
我在授權家長這件事上，看見了這樣的支持。家長們越使用他們的權力，就越喜愛。不斷增長的支持，就是各州一個接一個，陸續響應這種要求的原因。也是守舊為現狀辯護的人，現在驚恐的原因。他們畏縮，就怕權力和控制，還給了教師、家長和學生。
Well, Im not one bit afraid of losing power. Because I trust parents and teachers, and I believe in students.
唉，我一點也不害怕失去權力。因為我信任家長和教師，我也相信學生。
Equal access to a quality education should be a right for every American and every parent should have the right to choose how their child is educated. Government exists to protect those rights, not usurp them.
平等享受高質量教育，應該是每個美國人的權利。每個家長應當有權選擇，他們的孩子該受怎樣的教導。政府的存在，是要保障這些權利，而不是奪取。
So lets face it: the opponents of parents could repeal every voucher law, close every charter school, and defund every choice program across the country.
我們要面對這樣的事實：授權家長的反對者，可能在全國範圍，廢除每一條教育票證法(voucher law)，關閉每一間特許學校，停止撥款給每一個學校選擇計劃。
But school choice still wouldnt go away. There would still be school choices... for the affluent and the powerful.
但是學校選擇，跟本不會消失的。還是會有人要選擇學校……只是，要有錢，有權。
Lets empower the forgotten parents to decide where their children go to school. Lets show some humility and trust all parents to know their kids needs better than we do.
我們要授權給被遺忘的家長，讓他們也能決定他們的孩子去哪裡上學。讓我們謙卑一些，相信所有的家長們，比我們更懂得，他們孩子的需要。
Lets trust teachers, too. Lets encourage them to innovate, to create new options for students. Not just with public charter schools or magnet schools or private schools, but within the traditional "system" and with new approaches yet to be explored.
我們也要信賴教師。我們要鼓勵他們創新，為學生們創造新的選擇。不只是公立特許學校，磁校，私校，還可以是在傳統的「體制」里，還可能是尚未發掘的新式教育。
What weve been doing isnt serving all kids well. Lets unleash teachers to help solve the problem.
我們已經做的，還不能很好服務所有的學童。我們要鬆綁教師，好讓他們也來幫助。
You know, Ive never heard it claimed that giving parents more options is bad for mom and dad. Or for the child. What you hear is that its bad for "the system" – for the school building, the school system, the funding stream.
大家曉得，我從沒聽誰說，給家長選擇，是對父母不好。對孩子，也沒有這樣的道理。你們聽見的，都是對「體制」不好——對學校，對學校系統，對資金流不好。
That argument speaks volumes about where Chicken Littles priorities lie.
拿出這樣的論據，我們就明顯知道，那些「天雞」看重的是什麼了。
Our children deserve better than the 19th century assembly-line approach. They deserve learning environments that are agile, relevant, exciting. Every student deserves a customized, self-paced, and challenging life-long learning journey. Schools should be open to all students – no matter where theyre growing up or how much their parents make.
我們的兒童，應該得到，好過19世紀流水線的教育。他們應當享受靈活，相關，讓他們興奮的學習環境。每一個學生，都應該獲得個別的，按自己進度，有挑戰的終身學習之旅。學校應該向所有學生開放——無論他們成長在哪裡，也無論他們的父母收入多少。
That means no more discrimination based upon zip code or socio-economic status. All means all.
不再有成長地區和社會經濟地位的區別。所有，就是所有。
Its about educational freedom! Freedom from Washington mandates. Freedom from centralized control. Freedom from a one-size-fits-all mentality. Freedom from "the system."
這是教育的自由！自由於華盛頓的規定，自由於中心化的管理。自由於一種方法，適用所有學生的心態。自由於教育「體制」。
Choice in education is not when a student picks a different classroom in this building or that building, uses this voucher or that tax-credit scholarship. Choice in education is bigger than that. Those are just mechanisms.
教育選擇，不是學生在這幢樓或那幢樓里選擇課堂，用這張憑證，或那個抵稅的獎學金。教育選擇比那些更大。那些不過是機制。
Its about freedom to learn. Freedom to learn differently. Freedom to explore. Freedom to fail, to learn from falling and to get back up and try again. Its freedom to find the best way to learn and grow... to find the exciting and engaging combination that unlocks individual potential.
教育選擇，是學習的自由。自由地以不同方式學習，自由探索，自由失敗，從失敗中學習，再成長……找到自己熱忱的專長，釋放個人的潛能。
Which leads to my final point: if Americas students are to be prepared, we must rethink school.
這就講到我的最後一點：要讓美國學生們預備完全，我們必須重新思考學校。
What I propose is not another top-down, federal government policy that promises to be a silver bullet. No. We need a paradigm shift, a fundamental reorientation... a rethink.
我所倡議的，不是又一個自上而下的聯邦政府政策，要許諾什麼靈丹妙藥。不是這樣的。我們需要的，是模式轉變，根本的重新定向……是重新思考。
"Rethink" means we question everything to ensure nothing limits a student from pursuing his or her passion, and achieving his or her potential. So each student is prepared at every turn for what comes next.
「重新思考」，就是我們質疑一切，保證沒有任何事情，阻礙學生追求他（她）的熱愛，實現他（她）的潛能。讓每一個學生，在每一個階段，預備好將來。
Its past time to ask some of the questions that often get labeled as "non-negotiable" or just dont get asked at all:
有些問題，常常被視為「不容探討」，或是根本無人問起。
Why do we group students by age?
為什麼我們要把學生們按年齡分組？Why do schools close for the summer?
為什麼學校夏季要關門？Why must the school day start with the rise of the sun?
為什麼學校課程必須日出就開始？Why are schools assigned by your address?
為什麼要按你的住址安排學校？Why do students have to go to a school building in the first place?
為什麼學生們非要去教學樓里學習？Why is choice only available to those who can buy their way out? Or buy their way in?
為什麼學校的選擇，只有富人可以花錢買來？Why cant a student learn at his or her own pace?
為什麼一個學生不能按自己的進度學習？Why isnt technology more widely embraced in schools?
為什麼學校里沒能更廣泛地擁抱新科技？Why do we limit what a student can learn based upon the faculty and facilities available?
為什麼我們用師資和設備，來限制學生可學的知識？Why?
為什麼？
We must answer these questions. We must acknowledge what is and what is not working for students.
我們必須回答這些問題。我們必須認識，對學生哪些有效，哪些無效。
Now, I dont have all the answers or policy prescriptions. No one person does. But people do know how to help their neighbors. People do know how they can help a dozen students here or 100 there. Because they know the students. They know their home lives. They know their communities. They know their parents. They know each other.
現在，我沒有所有的答案，也沒有所有的政策處方。沒有人知道。但是大家知道怎樣幫助鄰里。大家知道怎樣幫助這裡的十多個學生，或是那裡的一百個。因為他們認得那些學生，他們了解他們的生活。他們熟悉他們的社區。他們認識他們的家長。他們彼此認識。
That means learning can, should, and will look different for each unique child. And we should celebrate that, not fear it!
就是說，學習對每個孩子，可以，應該，也將會是獨一無二的。而我們，應該為此慶賀，而不是懼怕！
Im well aware that change -- the unknown – can be scary. That talk of fundamentally rethinking our approach to education seems impossible, insurmountable.
我當然明白，改變，未知，可能讓人恐懼。根本地重新思考我們教育的方式，這樣的說法聽起來，不可能，不可行。
But not changing is scarier. Stagnation creates risks of its own. The reality is...
但是不改變，更加可怕。停滯，也帶來自己的風險。事實是……
we should be horrified of not changing.
我們應該為不變感到恐懼。
Our children dont fear their futures. Think of a newborn, born into hope -- not fear. They begin life with a clean slate. With a fresh set of eyes to see things we dont currently see. Thats how students begin their lifelong learning journeys... with unlimited potential... yet with limited time.
我們的孩子從不畏懼未來。看那新生嬰兒，滿懷盼望，毫無恐懼。他們從白紙開始。他們雙眼所見，是我們未曾見識的。這就是學生們開始他們終生學習之旅的樣子……無限的潛能……要在有限的時間裡實現。
Their dreams, their hopes, their aspirations, their futures cant wait, while another wave of lawmakers puts yet another coat of paint on the broken "system." One year may not seem like much to an adult, but its much too long for the child who still cant read "Goodnight Moon."
他們的夢想，他們的盼望，他們的渴望，他們的未來，不能再拖延。不要等著下一波立法，在破舊的「體制」上再添層新漆。一年對成人似乎不算什麼，但對那些還不能閱讀的孩子，一年實在太長。
We, the public, cant wait either. Education is good for the public.
我們公眾，也等不了。教育對公眾也一樣有益。
Everything else – our health, our economy, our continued security as a nation -- depends on what we do today for the leaders of tomorrow. It follows, then, that any educator in any learning environment serves the public good. If the purpose of public education is to educate the public, then it should... not... matter what word comes before school.
其它的一切，我們國家的醫療、經濟、持續的安全，都依賴於我們今天，為未來領袖的預備。也就是說，任何學習環境里的教育者，都是為所有公眾做了貢獻。如果公共教育的目的，是教育公眾，那就不要糾結於學校的形式和類型。
What matters are the students the school serves. What matters are their futures. Weve been entrusted with their futures not because we asked to be, but because its a duty to destiny – theirs... and ours. It all depends on what we do now.
關鍵，是學校所服務的學生們。重點 ，是他們的未來。他們的未來，已經託付給我們。不是因為有誰請求，而因為這是責任所在。這關乎他們的未來，也是我們的未來。一切，就看我們今天的作為。
When our grandchildren tell their children about this moment in history, let them say we were the ones who finally put students first.
有天，我們的孫輩要跟他們的孩子講述，歷史中的此時此刻。請讓他們說，是我們，終於實現了學生優先。
推薦閱讀：