Whether you say it was the right time, the right circumstances, or the right message, Barack Obama’s win last Tuesday can largely be attributed to his sharp division and disagreement with many of the policies and players in the current administration.
But as he gears up to take over the Oval office in less than two months, the president-elect won’t be able to do a clean sweep of the cabinet and other top level positions as the Washington Post reports.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s term, for instance, doesn’t expire until 2010, while FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III appointment doesn’t end until the year after that. But as the Post notes, there are reasons beyond the practical to keep a few familiar faces in the White House.
The most important reason being continuity which can only serve to make what’s sure to be a rough transition easier. The process of relinquishing and turning over power from one administration to the other got me thinking about the thousands of schools across the country in the midst of restructuring.
As you well know, under NCLB, if a school fails to make AYP for five years they must enter into restructuring, which can take many forms, the most severe being a complete overhaul of the schools, including ransacking every staff member. Sound familiar?
But is it a good idea? In late September, the Center on Education Policy released a compilation of studies had conducted on the restructuring efforts in schools in five different states: California, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio; states that had among the highest number of schools in restructuring mode.
Their findings were sobering: only 19 percent of schools studied made AYP in the 2006-2007 state tests. Though some states and schools achieved better results than others, the study still called into the question whether change, simply for the sake of change is a good idea. Clearly, it hasn’t been as effective as one would have thought.
Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor
