First, I apologize for not getting this up earlier, and will explain in the tip jar why that was.
I fully expected this choice. I am not excited. But as I said in the title, it could have been worse had he picked Joel Klein or - gasp - Michelle Rhee, who are the real favorites of the advocates of "reform" that think the solution to everything is using tests in what most recognize is a destructive fashion.
Let me here simply note that there are some semi-positive things about Duncan as compared to some of the other choices. And ultimately, the policy on education is actually likely to be made in the White House, starting with a president who has been involved with educational policy in the past. In this picking Duncan, viewed as competent by many (but not all) is not dissimilar from keeping Gates as SecDef or picking Clinton as SecState - it provides a face on behalf of policies, lets their supporters feel comfortable about ONE voice at the table, but does not necessarily indicate the direction of the policy.
Today the Boston Globe had a lead editorial entitled Stand up for ed standards. They want Obama to appoint
an education secretary wedded to reform - not one inclined to settle for low standards.
That dichotomy is ridiculous, because of those of us in the trenches have very high standards - ask any of my students. And to imply that those not considered in the "reform" camp because they question our over dependence upon the blunt instrument of standardized tests is absurd.
Unlike some of the pieces which seem to have been a coordinated attack on Linda Darling-Hammond (seemingly organized by alumni and supporters of Teach for America because she has questioned - rightly in my opinion - its entire approach and efficacy) and advocacy for what I think is a narrow view of 'reform' it actually acknowledge some skills Linda has before dismissing her:
Reformers were rattled when Obama named Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford education professor, to head his transition team on education. They see Darling-Hammond as too cozy with unions and the education establishment. That may be a simplistic take on a respected academic. But her expertise does rest in building systems that support effective schools, not shaking up sclerotic educational bureaucracies.
Please note - she is too cozy with unions? IS this not exactly the same mindset which we get from Bob Corker and other Republican senators on the auto maker bailout? Let's go after another core Democratic constituency. There is a reason there are unionized teachers - this nation has a history of abuse of teachers by administrators and school boards. Just like there is a reason for unions in industry, and increasingly in white collar jobs.
But to show how bad things could have been consider the following from that same editorial:
Recent improvements in the nation's schools are the result of relentless attention on standards and accountability. Students in Massachusetts and other high-performing states respond well to rigorous statewide exams, which they must pass in order to graduate. Some teachers might not like "teaching to the test," but they are getting quite good at it, including in some urban districts. At their best, the tests are closely aligned with curriculum standards and measure students' grasp of basic concepts and higher skills alike.
Ummm, NO. This paragraph is so full of holes it is ridiculous. And I will start by noting that the Massachusetts tests were so wonderful that the middle school history test a few years back had as an answer "President John Madison." It presumes that higher test scores indicate something meaningful beyond higher test scores. And it displays that ignorance in one sentence: Some teachers might not like "teaching to the test," but they are getting quite good at it, including in some urban districts. Unfortunately it is this mentality that has been reducing education to little more than test preparation, which may raise test scores but leaves kids turned off to education, and even less prepared for higher education. Those of us in high schools are already seeing the effect in kids arriving after grades 3-8 in a NCLB environment.
One last snippet from this editorial to show how badly off it is, and then back to Duncan:
The nation needs an education secretary whose heart belongs to the standards movement. Names now in play include New York school chancellor Joel Klein; Washington, D.C., chancellor Michelle Rhee; and Chicago school chief Arne Duncan.
For what it's worth, my sources - and there are several - tell me Klein was eliminated from consideration fairly quickly and no serious consideration was ever given to Rhee. She is running her first meaningful organization - DC public schools - and has been doing so for less than two years with at best a mediocre record to date, despite the glorification of her in Time.
Now as to Duncan - he has been around education for a while, and here it is worth noting that he was involved even before he went to work for his predecessor Paul Vallas as his principle assistant. Unlike Vallas - and quite unlike either Klein or Rhee - he has taken the time to try to build some bridges with the union, although here a cautionary note: there was a revolt in the Chicago union a few years back and real reformers took over, and the people around Duncan basically did not like them, undercut them in order to get a more traditional and thus compliant union leadership. That is not my assessment - it is the assessment of people on the ground in Chicago.
I realized over the weekend that Duncan was sure to be the choice when Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, said nice things about him. Now, I don't know her, so I want to be somewhat cautious. I know she is also planning to try to work out a modus vivendi with Michelle Rhee. I have heard that she is angling for a spot in the administration, and it is possible that her nice remarks about Duncan, which gives Obama some cover in appointing him, may help her in such an endeavor. I do not KNOW that is her intent, and do not mean to imply that she does not fully stand behind her kind remarks. I am offering what information I have, with the cautionary note that it is discussion, not documented, but part of the wallpaper against which this picture is being hung.
There has been an attempt to reframe some of our battles about education. It is called A Broader, BOLDER Approach to Education (and yes, I have written about it before but you do not need to go back and read that diary, thus no link is provided). Let me again quote some of the material from the statement to which many, myself included, affixed their signatures, (and what is in bold delow is in italics in the original):
Given the limitations of conventional policy, including NCLB, we believe that the time has come for U.S. policy makers to rethink their assumptions and adopt a broader, bolder approach for education—one that is powerful enough to produce a large reduction in the current association between social and economic disadvantage and low student achievement.
This broader, bolder approach breaks with the past by embracing an expanded concept of education in two respects. First, conventional education policy making focuses on learning that occurs in formal school settings during the years from kindergarten through high school. The new approach recognizes the centrality of formal schooling, but it also recognizes the importance of high-quality early childhood and pre-school programs, after-school and summer programs, and programs that develop parents’ capacity to support their children’s education. It seeks to build working relationships between schools and surrounding community institutions.
Second, the broader, bolder approach pays attention not only to basic academic skills and cognitive growth narrowly defined, but to development of the whole person, including physical health, character, social development, and non-academic skills, from birth through the end of formal schooling. It assigns value to the new knowledge and skills that young people need to become effective participants in a global environment, including citizenship, creativity, and the ability to respect and work with persons from different backgrounds.
The broader, bolder approach we support is also informed by research. While recognizing that the relations between cause and effect in education are often ambiguous, the new approach incorporates policies and practices whose effectiveness is reinforced by the preponderance of evidence presently available from serious research. In particular, the approach is informed by a large and powerful body of literature from researchers over the years who have examined the powerful impact on student achievement of numerous contextual and environmental factors such as early learning, parenting, health, poverty, and the cognitive, cultural, and character development that occurs outside schools.
I bring this to your attention because I would like you to note that among the orginal co-signers one finds real progressives in education like Pedro Noguera and Deborah Meier, one also finds Linda Darling-Hammond and Arne Duncan. What is interesting is that one does NOT find Joel Klein nor Michelle Rhee.
So as I said, for that reason alone, it could have been worse.
Could Darling-Hammond wind up in the White House helping shape policy? I have heard that discussed, and it makes far more sense than putting her in an executive role for which she does not necessarily have previous relevant experience.
But remember - Obama has made clear that he has strong ideas on education. He is FOR merit pay for teachers - and I believe he has said that it needs to be based on things other than student test scores. There is room for some agreement across the educational spectrum on that. He is opposed to vouchers. He seems open to charter schools, and depending upon how they are structured and overseen, I remind people that they are still "public" schools of a fashion. Here it is worth noting that the NYC affiliate of AFT, UFT, actually runs a NYC public charter school. And Obama has said he values things like art and music which have been being pushed aside by NCLB.
So, Duncan provides a certain amount of cover for Obama. And will be a key voice, but not the only voice, on education.
All of which is interesting, but probably not all that important in the short term. There has to be a reauthorization of NCLB. There will probably NOT be major changes because there is no money to fund them, or even to fully fund the current mandates. There may be an effort to freeze the clock on AYP until the current mandates are fully funded.
The major initiative with respect to schools in the short term is likely to be in the stimulus package, in the form of rebuilding and retrofitting decrepit and obsolete school buildings. There is well over 100 billion in deferred maintenance just to bring school buildings fully up to code. And that by itself will make something a difference in the learning environment - it is hard to learn when it rains in the classroom, or when there are not enough working toilets so they stink and overflow, or when the HVAC is so obsolete it is either over 90 or under 50 in the classroom.
I am not excited by Duncan. I am somewhat disappointed that it is not bolder choice. And I will be watching tomorrow to see if there are more members of an educational team announced, such as someone in the White House (I actually do not expect it, but consider it possible).
I would have preferred one of the people who has run a state department who truly understands the nature of education. Names that come to mind are Doug Christensen from Nebraska and Peter McWalter from Rhode Island. Perhaps one or the other will wind up in the key position of Assistant Secretary for K-12.
So that's my initial reaction. Sorry to be so verbose but I felt I had to provide some context.
And remember it could have been worse
Peace