Greg Richmond, formerly of Chicago Public Schools and more recently the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, has started an interview series where he asks people three questions (which differ by person) about their work or the education sector.
I did one with him that is out this week. We talk about how education is such a powerful a lever for change, what I’ve learned since I was younger, and why data are so often weaponized in this sector. You can read the interview here and some discussion on Twitter here.
This passage, in particular, is sparking some interesting discussion:

A better question might be, “What should choice actually look like for a community?” In affluent communities, parents have lots of different choices, whether it is Montessori, Core Knowledge, or something with a thematic approach. But in low-income communities, the choice is too often the traditional public school, that hasn’t done well for generations, or three different flavors of vanilla. That doesn’t seem like genuine choice.
If we are serious about choice and equity, the choice frame in low-income communities should look like it does in more affluent communities in terms of the range of options that are available to parents — and grounded in what parents in that community desire for their kids. We have not realized that vision in a lot of places and obviously the insane politics around charters don’t make it any easier.