By John Thompson.

Educators now have to endure another wave of kinder, gentler soundbites by the corporate-funded the “Third Way.” The new spin, called “TeachStrong,” isn’t much different than the old song and dance. Perhaps, this time, corporate reformers will be a little less devoted to test, sort, reward, and punish, but the new initiative’s agenda comes from the same place as the old public relations campaigns. The Billionaires Boys Club hires top-dollar market experts and then they push a campaign driven by polling numbers, not a diagnosis of education’s problems and solutions.

You can call it the “Third Way” or “TeachStrong” but it is still the same Sister Soljah tactic. Corporate-funded Democrats try to appeal to swing voters by looking macho. Democrats still assume that voters are so angry about the decline in their economic prospects that they have to show that progressives aren’t wimps. Democrats then demonstrate their toughness by beating up loyal allies such as teachers and unions. Of course, this new coalition includes organizations, like the Broad Foundation and the TNTP, that would use disruptive and transformational change to destroy unions, local school governance, university education departments, and the due process rights of teachers. The Third Way will just take a lower profile stance as the overt teacher-bashing of the last decade as TeachStrong is recast as “‘modernizing and elevating’ the teaching profession.”

At the risk of annoying some allies, I would also add that the hands of union leaders are tied. They must participate in the process and seek to steer it away from the catastrophic competition-driven policies of the Duncan administration. Regardless of how the market-driven reformers behave, teachers and unions must play as constructive of a role as possible. In doing so, we must explain to the non-education press and to patrons how corporate reform became the new “status quo,” how it failed, and why it is doomed. They used test and punish to create the education version of the Model T assembly line speed up. Rather than use incentives and disincentives to recreate the world of Henry Ford, we need schools to prepare children for the 21st century.

The Billionaires Boys Club got plenty of mileage out of their charter school narrative, for instance. We must remind urban-dwelling reporters, however, that charters were consistent with the gentrification and the 1990s redevelopment which was based on cities trying to lure sports teams and conventions away from each other. But the more constructive urban policy is “place making,” or the building of neighborhoods where our diversity can create vibrant communities.

A great new name for a type of 21st century place making has emerged – “third places.” The Atlantic Magazine’s Derek Thompson describes third places as a response to massive job loss. Thompson’s A World Without Work mentions an Oxford University study which predicts that in two decades half of American jobs could be done by nonhumans. As steady, well-paid work disappears, he says, working people are creating communities separate from their homes and offices that could become “central to growing up, learning new skills, [and] discovering passions.”

Thompson’s description of alternative places for making a living in a cutthroat global marketplace is rooted in the perhaps apocryphal conversation between Henry Ford II and Walter Reuther. Ford supposedly cited the rise of robots and asked, “Walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay union dues?” Reuther responded, “Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?”

Sure enough, as jobs and paychecks disappeared, so did the demand for the products that were made cheaper by technology. Moreover, corporate powers have used their deep pockets to force both political parties to implement their political agendas. The wages and the quality of the lives of workers and families were sacrificed for the maximization of profits. However, Thompson describes bottom-up efforts to create “a flourishing post-work society” where people build rich lives around the nurturing of children, as well as the care of the ill and elderly, and the expressions of artistic and artisanal talents.

Thompson cites a historian, Benjamin Hunnicutt, who notes that the Greek root of the word “school” means “leisure.” “We used to teach people to be free,” says Hunnicutt, “Now we teach them to work.” In other words, as paid work disappears, so does the rationale for turning schools into a utilitarian economic institution. Education can once again be seen as primarily as preparation for living healthy, creative, and meaningful lives.

Some of the enormous profits produced by technology and pro-business economic policy could be invested in public institutions and public centers where people can meet, socialize, bond around crafts, make of art and other products, and communicate across generations. Unlike the competition-driven schools pushed by the data-driven crowd, public schools where holistic learning is valued would be true partners in these third places. Full-service community schools (and high-quality early education) should be promoted as the cornerstone of place making.

I’m impressed by the suggestions of Thompson and others who speculate how we can create a prosperous, fulfilling, and healthy society in a post-jobs world, but that is not my point. Frankly, I could not resist the pun where dynamic “third places” displaced the tired old school reform spin of the “third way.” I was also impressed with his concluding scene where a 60-year-old displaced worker goes to graduate school so he can respond to his “true calling,” and become a teacher. (I’m equally impressed that Thompson is grounded in reality and not wowed by fads such as performance evaluations as a way to drive systemic change.)

The point is that test-driven, competition-driven school reform is an impoverished vision of education that is unworthy of a democracy. Rather than spouting more poll-driven soundbites to garner a few more votes, we must engage in a meaningful conversation with the American people about what types of schools we want for our kids. In the rapidly emerging post-work society, public schools – not bubble-in competition – can provide the safe place for self-expression.

To true believers in “transformative” change, teachers may not be any different than taxi drivers who supposedly need to be replaced by Uber. They may not view classroom as a sacred place, central to democracy. They may see no more harm in the market disrupting places of learning than in Airbnb defeating hotels on the economic battleground. Treating students like output measurements, to them, is no worse than a business practice that steals customers from competitors.

Even though cut-throat competition might maximize profits, it is not a path towards holistic and engaging instruction for whole human beings. Corporate reformers won their victories through the edu-politics of destruction but their time has passed. This is the time and place for a truly inspiring vision and school improvement agenda. I believe voters are ready to embrace schools as centers for learning, growth, self-expression, and community-building.

What do you think? Is TeachStrong just the same old spin? Can schools and  third places work together? Regardless of the specifics, can’t we create a better vision of school improvement than the “Third Way?”

Weightlifter image from Velvettangerine, used with Creative Commons license.