I am generally underwhelmed by this response to my column. But what I find interesting is a common rhetorical tactic among policy wonks, particularly of a liberal stripe. They assume that because a column doesn’t mention X, Y and Z, the columnist must be ignorant of X,Y and Z. And, even better, such lacunae provide the wonk in question to list these items as if it means something. It’s like name-dropping authors and book titles. Here’s what I mean:

In casting the debate as a choice between “greater funding” and “blow the whole thing up” Goldberg betrays a woeful ignorance about today’s education policy landscape. What about the standards movement, which has for the first time given parents and the public meaningful information about student and school performance and focused educators on the goal of improving student performance? What about successful school turnaround efforts in San Diego, Sacramento, and elsewhere? What about Teach for America, the New Teacher Project, and other programs that aim to bring a much needed dose of new talent into the education system? What about performance pay, career ladders, and other efforts to make teachers truly accountable professionals and link teachers incentives more closely to actual public goals for schools? What about the charter school movement, which in barely 15 years has created nearly 4,000 new PUBLIC schools nationally, including, yes, too many bad ones, but also including some incredible successes–such as the KIPP and Achievement First networks–and expanded real choice for parents? Goldberg needs to take a look at Education Sector’s website.

Me: Leave aside the obvious point that this alphabet soup of policy-goodness hasn’t done much to brag about except provide education wonks talking points and junkets. There’s a larger point that should be made. Education “reform” is a perpetual motion machine designed to rearrange shuffleboard courts on the Lusitania (No more Titanic metaphors for me!). By claiming that anyone who doesn’t wade deep into the wonkery is unqualified to propose a “blow-up the system” solution is in effect saying that nobody can propose blowing up the system. Which, at the end of the day, is exactly what the reformers are saying. I’ve spent my fair share of time on education wonkery (I even talked to Al Shanker about it numerous times before he died). And I am not dismissing all of the efforts as pointless. But baiting me into the weeds is not a rebuttal, it’s a trap.