No, I do not have any announcements to make. In one sense I wish I did, because my inbox is overflowing with messages and petitions on behalf of this potential candidate and against that one. I hear rumors, people assure that their inside sources tell them, and I know nothing more about the decision process than does anyone here.
I am hearing a number of names consistently. These include three current heads of urban school systems: Joel Klein in New York, Arne Duncan in Chicago, and Michael Bennet in Denver. I also here advocacy on the part of Doug Christensen, formerly the statewide Commissioner in Nebraska. And many advocate on behalf of Linda Darling-Hammond, professor at Stanford and co-chair of the education policy section of the Transition effort. Other previous names - such as Colin Powell, Jon Schur (founder of New Leaders for New School) Inez Tenenbaum (headed SC schools), and others, are now in theory off the radar. But what do I know? I teach high school government? And who cares what I think?
And yet so many have sought to sway me on behalf or against one or the other that I finally decided I would offer what I could. Take it for wat it is worth - and remember that basically I am one high school teacher.
I am NOT going to link to all the various editorials and columns. Let me start by saying that the recent David Brooks column against Darling-Hammond displays his typical vacuity, and demonstrates why the only positive comment one should offer about his writing is that at least he is not as bad as William Kristol, and both are real embarrassments to the New York Times.
I similarly reject much of the editorial advocacy of writers who have no real understanding of education, who are overly enamored with test scores, and who far too often jump on the bandwagon of the latest so-called "reform" which is often more of the wrongheaded approach to education which has characterized our past several decades of national and often statewide educational policy.
Finally, before I begin my review of the "candidates" let me note my personal belief that America's schools could do with radical change, but not of the kind so often advocated by the editorial pages of the Washington Post, or exemplified by the hiring of the totally unqualified Michelle Rhee in DC and the absurd glorification of her in the recent Time Magazine piece. If we really want meaningful reform, we might have to start in a very difficult place - what is the purpose of public schools? Absent agreement on that fundamental question we will inevitably be talking past one another, coming from entirely different perspectives about the purpose of school.
I have met only one of the five people whose names I have included as possibilities, and that is Doug Christensen, who was one of my panelists at the 2nd YearlyKos in Chicago in 2007, and whose work I greatly respect. I am on the edge of a group which is strongly advocating for his selection, and believe me, I think he would be a wonderful choice. Someone who knows us both and has spoken with him recently assures me that Doug has no interest and is happy in Nebraska. Except I note this - he is on the email distribution list of the group that is advocating on his behalf, and in the week I have been on that list I have not seen any effort on his part to turn off the advocacy. Doug has appropriate managerial experience and he is an educational professional. His willingness to stand up for Nebraska's unique approach - during his tenure the only statewide test was in writing and it was graded in school, and all assessment for accountability was school based - drew great plaudits from many in education exasperated and frustrated by the damage the overemphasis on testing for accountability was doing to our public schools. Nebraska has all of the issues of public education, from urban schools in places like Omaha, to rural schools (as of 2005 they still had 75 one-room schools in the rural western part of the state), to English language learners (primarily Hispanic from the families of workers in the meatpacking business). And Doug certainly knows the issues of federal-state relations as well as anyone in the educational policy community, having lived through battles with the Bush Department of Education.
Joel Klein was unqualified when Michael Bloomberg hired him, and he remains unqualified now. His track record in New York is not particularly impressive, despite the arguments of some of his advocates, notably those from Teach for America who have been attempting to destroy Linda Darling-Hammond because she has been critical of them (and for the record,I have also been critical enough that a ranking official asked for a meeting with me to try to persuade me they had addressed most of my concerns - they have addressed some, but my underlying concerns remain, and had I any doubts I look at Michelle Rhee, a product of TFA, and my doubts get reaffirmed). Klein is a lawyer who really does not understand education. he is in the position he is - as Rhee is in hers - because of a belief by mayors (Bloomberg in New York and Fenty in DC) that they should control the running of schools. Tht model was pioneered in Chicago, with Paul Vallas (who incidentally lost a gubernatorial primary to Rlod Blagojevich), who later went on to do damage in both Philadelphia and New Orleans.
And Mayoral control has given us Arne Duncan. Here we have to remember that Duncan plays hoops with Obama. He has been somewhat more sympathetic, at least on paper, to some of the ideas of people who are viewed as progressives within educational policy circles, having been an original signer (along with Darling-Hammond) of A Broader, BOLDER Approach to Education. And yet n his watch the damage to Chicago public schools that many noted under his predecessor, Paul Vallas have not really been rectified. Still far too many minorities do NOT get access to qualify education, with increasingly their time in schools being diminished to little more than test prep.
I do not view either Klein nor Duncan as venal. I happen to think both operate with a fundamentally flawed view of what schools can and should be, and really have little grasp of the real role of teacher. And I have to say from all I have heard from the educational policy circles to which I am connected there would be strong resistance to both, although some in the AFT are willing to support Klein because he is to them a known quantity - they are heavily based in NYC.
As for Bennet, his name has only come up recently. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek seems to be his strongest advocate. I have not been in recent touch with Jon, who overlapped with my wife at Harvard and whom I have known for more than two decades, to explore if in fact he has any real inside information, or if he is simply making the case for someone he likes. Bennet has not given the press any Shermanesque denials. Like Klein and Duncan, he came to his current position without a prior background in either educational management or educational policy. He took over Denver School in 2005 after having served as chief of staff to Mayor Hickenlooper. For those who don't know, Denver has a merit pay system in place, one designed with the assistance of the teachers. The local teachers' union seems to lie him, because apparently he has helped make that merit pay system function. And the "reformers" (which is the sobriquet that somehow those whose ideas about school seem to be all about 'accountability" in a way that does little to improve education in a meaningful fashion) also like him. I knew little about him until his name surfaced recently. I do know his brother James is an editor at the Atlantic. It is not clear to me that he has the requisite knowledge and understanding to be put in charge of DoE at a national level. But remember - OBama told the teachers' unions that he is interested in merit pay, and Denver is considered by some the best example of how to make it work, so that might elevate his stock.
That leaves Linda Darling-Hammond. Allow me to quote her biography as listed at the wbsite for "A Broader, BOLDER Approach to Education":
Linda Darling-Hammond is the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, where she has launched the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute and the School Redesign Network. Professor Darling-Hammond has also served as faculty sponsor for the Stanford Teacher Education Program. Prior to Stanford, Darling-Hammond was the William F. Russell Professor in the Foundations of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. There, she was the founding Executive Director of the National Commission for Teaching and America’s Future, the blue-ribbon panel whose 1996 report What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, catalyzed major policy changes across the United States to improve the quality of teacher education and teaching. Her research, teaching, and policy work focus on issues of teaching quality, school reform, and educational equity. Among her more than 200 publications is The Right to Learn, recipient of the American Educational Research Association’s Outstanding Book Award for 1998, and Teaching as the Learning Profession (co-edited with Gary Sykes), recipient of the National Staff Development Council’s Outstanding Book Award for 2000.
Alfie Kohn, whose name is anathema to the "reformers"because of how critical he is of their approaches especially to testing and who is a hero to many in the progressive wing of education, has a piece up in The Nation, written largely in response to some of the attack against Darling-Hammond, attacks apparently with some orchestration, and at least the tacit if not active support of those associated with Teach for America, of which she has been critical. In Beware School "Reformers" Kohn begins with this:
If we taught babies to talk as most skills are taught in school, they would memorize lists of sounds in a predetermined order and practice them alone in a closet. --Linda Darling-Hammond
I want to take a moment to present Kohn's deconstruction of "reform' as it is far too often considered:
To be a school "reformer" is to support:
§ a heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests to evaluate students and schools, generally in place of more authentic forms of assessment;
§ the imposition of prescriptive, top-down teaching standards and curriculum mandates;
§ a disproportionate emphasis on rote learning--memorizing facts and practicing skills--particularly for poor kids;
§ a behaviorist model of motivation in which rewards (notably money) and punishments are used on teachers and students to compel compliance or raise test scores;
§ a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling, the point being to prepare children to "compete" as future employees; and
§ charter schools, many run by for-profit companies.
I think you might find Kohn's piece worthwhile, and let me offer one more selection, which is how he ends:
Duncan and Klein, along with virulently antiprogressive DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, are celebrated by politicians and pundits. Darling-Hammond, meanwhile, tends to be the choice of people who understand how children learn. Consider her wry comment that introduces this article: it's impossible to imagine a comparable insight coming from any of the spreadsheet-oriented, pump-up-the-scores "reformers" (or, for that matter, from any previous Education secretary). Darling-Hammond knows how all the talk of "rigor" and "raising the bar" has produced sterile, scripted curriculums that have been imposed disproportionately on children of color. Her viewpoint is that of an educator, not a corporate manager.
Imagine--an educator running the Education Department.
an educator running the Education Department - now that would be a refreshing change. Consider - Rod Paige was not really an educator. He took over Houston Schools having been a professor of Physical Education, and while I will not dismiss that background in its own context he had little understanding of the nature of K-12 public education, and despite the awards he received Houston schools did NOT make progress during his tenure, although people in the system did learn how to cook the books to make them look good. And of course Spellings has no background of working IN education, even though she worked ON education in the Bush administration.
Yet the problem is not limited to the soon to be ended Bush administration. Since Education was established as a separate Cabinet Department, here are the secretaries:
Shirley M. Hufstedler
Terrell H. Bell
William J. Bennett
Lauro F. Cavazos
Lamar Alexander
Richard W. Riley
Rod Paige
Margaret Spellings
In case you are wondering, only one of those was experienced as a K-12 education, and whose major focus was education, and that was Bell, appointed by Reagan of all people. Others may have served as University presidents or held high government positions elective or appointive, but they were NOT educators. And that might be a refreshing change.
I do not personally know Darling-Hammond, although I am well aware of her work. A part of me would love to see Doug Christensen be considered, especially given he battles he fought on behalf of his teachers, students, and schools against what could have been the devastating effects that would have occurred had Spellings gotten her way in imposing her viewpoint of how NCLB should be applied.
But I cannot argue against the choice of Darling-Hammond. In fact the possiblity positively excites me. She is highly respected within the professional community, and has taught at two of the most prestigious schools of education, Teachers College Columbia and at Stanford. She hs thought long and deeply on issues of teacher preparation and teacher quality, which are far more important to improving our schools than is the emphasis this administration has placed on test scores.
I have been told that there are people in the Transition who are watching the blogs, especially with respect to education. I was told that for some reason they seem to be concerned with what I think. I find that hard to believe, because were it true I am not that hard to contact. Still, the recent flood of messages lobbying for and against candidates has compelled me to consider whether i should write on this position and the putative candidates, and on Thursday night I decided it was probably time, because I would suspect that a choice is fairly close: if in fact my voice is to carry the weight some ascribe to it, then I have to speak.
Let me also note this - the Obama girls have been fortunate to attend a school (Lab School in Chicago) which is not subject to the strictures of NCLB within which all of us as public school teachers operate. In that they have been fortunate, and by all accounts it has enabled them to flourish. I am quite familiar with the school they will attend - Sidwell Friends is a Quaker school, one recent headmaster (Earl Harrison) was a good friend, one of my wife's closest friends is a graduate, and as a side note while our Meeting House is under reconstruction Langley Hill Monthly Meeting where I am enrolled meets on the campus. There is very much of a valuing of the uniqueness of the individual. I am delighted the girls will get to experience that kind of education.
Which leads me to what I really want to say. I would hope that the President-elect would realize that every child in the U.S. should have access to a similar enriching education, that it is should not be the privilege of the wealthy and the powerful. I would also hope that in considering whom he wants to head his Department of Education he ensure that person has a vision that at least allows for such a possibility.
I do not believe that any of the three urban superintendents without a background in education has the requisite understanding or breadth of vision to truly transform our schools. Having read Darling-Hammond's work over several decades, I know that she does. And it is for that reason that I strongly urge that she become the ninth Secretary of Education as a Cabinet department.
And now I actually do hope that people are paying attention to what I think, because if they are, then maybe they will listen, and I will have done more good for education in this country than anything else I do, with the sole exception of going into my classroom every day and giving my students the best education I can.
Peace.