Who (Or What) Fouled Up The Education Secretary Decision?
In a transition that has overall gone relatively smoothly, the still-incomplete process of picking an Education Secretary -- usually considered one of the least important and most easily-filled Cabinet posts -- has turned a prolonged, openly antagonistic debacle.
What's happened? Part of it is circumstantial. Another part is generational. But there are other, more concrete factors at play here -- some of them with strong implications for the future of school reform.
Part of what has happened is circumstantial. After eight years of No Child Left Behind (and maybe 20 years of accountability-based reform efforts), school reformers who favor broader reforms and more traditional approaches have been pushing back against accountability hawks and nontraditionalist reformers -- since long before the election wrapped up.
This intense infighting -- roughly parallel to internal debates over single payer or mandatory health coverage -- was almost bound to flare up after the election.
Another part is generational. While some of education's most experienced reformers -- former governors Hunt and Romer, for example -- are considered to be past their best years, the younger generation of reformers -- Rhee, Duncan, Schnur, et al - doesn't yet include among them a leader who is widely acceptable.
The country as a whole may be ready for a young new President, but the education community isn't ready for a young new Education Secretary.
But there are other, more concrete factors at play here.
By going silent after the election, the Obama education team created an information vacuum that undid all the previous moths' carefully balanced speeches and policy papers. Forced to go cold turkey after the election, the school reform community went a little bit crazy.
It didn't help that, during the campaign, Obama had given educators the floaty feeling that he was "with" all of them, rather than coming down clearly on core issues like test-based accountability.
The transition team made another obvious mistake by appointing controversial Stanford professor Linda Darling Hammond to head the policy review team. Even without her history of opposing Teach For America, Darling-Hammond had been away from the East Coast for 10 years, and away from DC for much longer than that.
A more familiar, neutral figure would have helped calm the waters, while at the same time introducing the education community to campaign staff like Heather Higgenbottom, who is moving to the Domestic Policy Council.
The clunky moves of the accountability-oriented group Democrats For Education Reform didn't help, either. They wrote a cynical memo that flamed antagonisms among educators when it (predictably) became public. Some of their members -- most notably the over-excitable Whitney Tilson, have piled on against Darling Hammond in ways that seem unwarranted.
Even more problematic, DFER threw New York City superintendent Joel Klein overboard without a fight, prematurely turning to a compromise candidate, Chicago's Arne Duncan. Klein had been DFER's nominal figurehead and was their most qualified Cabinet contender. Unveiled too early, Duncan was already left hanging out there too long before the Blagojevich ("how much can I get for a Senate seat?") scandal came along last week.
Last but not least, the mainstream media did little to inform the debate over the various candidates, resorting instead to rehashed speculation and half-formed criticisms. There has been no real look into the nuances of Darling-Hammond's accomplishments, which include charter schools, or Duncan's performance, which includes strong support for community schooling.
In immediate terms, the unpleasantness of the past six weeks will resolve itself shortly. We've been promised a full set of Cabinet nominations by Christmas.
Looking ahead, however, the transition process has revealed deep fissures among education reformers, new challenges to the Obama education team, lackluster coverage from the education media, and the absence of an experienced, moderate education leader who is acceptable to either side of the reform divide.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The tragedy in our school system is astounding! We should have known that for the past 20 years or more, we have been falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world when it comes to education. The Department of Defense has been aware of this and I had an excellent education while living abroad in the late 70's and early 80's. Why is it that military kids get such a better education than kids across the country? So why has it taken so long for this to come to light?
The blame for much of the problems lie in the fact that education spending is tied to residential home taxes. Basically, if you live in a nice area, your schools are safe and well funded; however if you live in a bad area, your schools are deplorable and the education you receive is sub-standard. This must change people. Education IS the future of our planet and it is our children who will pay the ultimate price.
NCLB epic fail.
I'm a Special Ed Teacher with severe autistic kids. My kids are capable of learning but not on grade level. We're talking about kids that don't speak. How completely stupid to waste several days each year for standardized testing. And then I have to pick IEP goals that are on grade level. For example I have a 3rd grader who is on a Kindergarten level. I am going to spend all year teaching him to read 20 words and +1 addition with manipulatives. So why does his IEP goal need to say that he will be working on long division?
NCLB no rich "normal" kid left behind.
Snwbnny9: I agree with you 100%. We are the only country in the world that tests 100% of our children ... Other countries only test the top 10% ... Thus, when USA compares our test scores to theirs it's like comparing an apple and an airplane. Other countries educators are allowed to discipline the students similar to the way OUR schools used to be able to do.
The USA should only test top 10% of our kids (for a better comparison)
The USA should PUT discipline BACK IN THE SCHOOLS!
Leave No Taser Behind...
Actually we do not test 100% .Private schools are not required to test.
The decision was made, and announced over a month before Obama is to take office. There may have been some infighting, but he has certainly chosen somebody he knows well and is well regarded. I agree the media hasn't given this selection much attention, but it makes sense that economy and security related cabinet positions would take center stage. Health and the environment are also key issues. Still, it's not like he ignored Education or bobbled the ball. Maybe it looked like a mess to you, Mr. Russo, but to us spectators it looked like just another piece of orderly transition.
You complain about the media not doing a proper job with this issue. Then you do the same. You do not specify a definition of reform or accountability. Therefore the words float free in the ozone. The right wing, neoconservatives have hijacked the process by framing voucher supporters as "reformists," and Linda Darling-Hammond as wedded to the teachers union and a supporter of the status quo. You fell for it. Darling-Hammond's RESEARCH established that Teach for America and other short-term teacher preparation programs fail to yield stable, high achievement. They are not cost-effective because most of them leave the profession after a short stint with the reality of classrooms. Her research shows that better professional preparation promotes better achievement in pupils. Yet her RESEARCH is not credited. Rather, she is framed as an opponent of Teach for America, a darling of neoconservatives and others who want to undermine public schools. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEACHERS UNIONS. Try to do your homework next time.
Thank-you for your response.
The process hasn't been fouled up at all. All we have is the buzz of the different partisans and speculators, which is about par for the course, and media pundits who need to create news when there isn't any, Alexander Russo and pieces like this one included.
Do you really know what Darling-Hammond is doing Russo? I agree that her credentials probably don't qualify her for the job, but her present role may be focused on careful vetting of all the possible candidates and a thorough look at the conflicting currents, all designed to help Obama make the decision. He has never said she's a candidate, nor has she. Do you know that she is or is that just another case of buying in to the rumor mill.
And why am I wasting my time writing this. (slapping my own hands).
The end.
Mark Phillips
Marin Independent Journal
SFSU
It has looked to me as if Teach For America has been trying to hijack the process and announcing support for picks that weren't yet made.
Another reason why spending on higher education may correlate with negative economic growth is that once students get into an academic environment, they are saturated with leftist politics and want to become lawyers or environmental activists who sue companies for creating products and try to prevent anybody from doing anything ("The Phantom Gains of College Aid," Steve Malanga, PostOpinion, Dec. 11).
If colleges encourage more students to study engineering and science, something useful might come out of it.
Yeah, that MUST be it. Commie intellectual elitists and ACLU members, the lot of 'em. Oh yeah....tr
Recent research has shown that although many professors are leftist, their politics has little impact on the students politics.
Science and engineering appeal little to students because the real profit has been in business, easier to get with half the amount of work required.
students don't study engineering and science degrees in this country with the same fervor they do business, law, and the like because after 40k in student loans they have trouble finding a job to use their degree in. not to mention the fact that our science programs before college suck. we have some of the most abysmal scores in that department, unless of course you go to a well funded public school or a private school. it has nothing to do with the politics of the teachers. depending on the classes one takes in college you may not even discuss political affiliations. it hasn't come up in my math, health care, speech, or chemistry classes. poli sci maybe (duh), my english class (which used a text book about social justice and diversity) but thats about it. if i have any kind of political discussion its far more likely to be with another student than my teachers.
it doesn't make sense to encourage students to pursue degrees that they might have a hard time finding a job with in this country. we gotta pay of their student loans somehow. not to mention the fact that by the time we reach college most of us are pretty sure how we feel about politics, if we're interested in it at all.
Should teachers - not administrators or politicians - have a weighted vote in the selection process?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
