The latest fashions in the American education system are, as usual, inspiring raucous debate.
I try to take sides in these arguments. Isn't it my job to explain who's right?
But I wonder.
There is much chatter, for instance, over education historian Diane Ravitch's fiery assault on Ben Austin, founder of the Parent Revolution organization. The California parent trigger law Austin sponsored just cost a Los Angeles principal her job.
Fifty-three percent of parents at the Weigand Avenue Elementary School in the city's Watts neighborhood signed a petition to fire Irma Cobian after three years of low scores. The school board obeyed the law and let Cobian go.
But 21 of the 22 teachers at the school said they were so upset at the firing that they would seek transfers to other schools.
Ravitch called Austin "loathsome" for ruining "the life and career of a dedicated educator." Ravitch said "there is a special place in hell" for those who administer and support Austin's "revolting organization."
We are also embroiled in a national argument over the new Common Core standards - and associated curriculums - being installed in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
It would take at least a semester course to understand the jargon in that fight. But some combatants, among them former George W. Bush administration official Williamson Evers, have been clear.
They say the new standards are an intrusion by the federal government into local school decisions.
I am against the parent trigger.
Most parents lack the time, energy and expertise to determine what has to be done to fix their schools. They can easily be manipulated by cynical outsiders, as has happened in some of the parent trigger clashes.
If they are unhappy with their school, the better move is to switch to another one, perhaps a charter.
I am leery of the Common Core. The educators who have drawn up the new standards are smart, conscientious people, but research indicates that changing standards and curriculums rarely brings improvement in learning.