Of course I would have loved to have seen Linda Darling-Hammond become Secretary of Education in an Obama administration. She's smart, honest, compassionate and courageous, and perhaps most striking, she actually knows schools and classrooms, curriculum and teaching, kids and child development. These have never counted for much as qualifications for the post, of course, and yet they offer a neat contrast with the four failed urban school superintendents--Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Paul Vallas, and Arne Duncan -- who were for weeks rumored to be her chief competition.
These four, like George W. Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige of the fraudulent Texas-miracle, have little to show in terms of school improvement beyond a deeply dishonest public relations narrative. Teacher accountability, relentless standardized testing, school closings, and privatization -- this is what the dogmatists and true-believers of the right call "reform." Michelle Rhee of Washington D.C., the most ideologically-driven of the bunch, warranted a cover story in Time in early December called "How to Fix America's Schools" in which she was praised for making more changes in a year and a half on the job than other school leaders, "even reform-minded ones," make in five: closing 21 schools (15% of the total), firing 100 central office personnel, 270 teachers, and 36 principals. These are all policy moves that are held on faith to stand for improvement; not a word on kids' learning or engagement with schools, not even a nod at evidence that might connect these moves with student progress. But of course evidence is always the enemy of dogma, and this is faith-based, fact-free school policy at its purest.
So I would have picked Darling-Hammond, but then again I would have picked Noam Chomsky for state, Naomi Klein for defense, Bernardine Dohrn for Attorney General, Bill Fletcher for commerce, James Thindwa for labor, Barbara Ransby for human services, Paul Krugman for treasury, and Amy Goodman for press secretary. So what do I know?
Darling-Hammond would not have been a smart pick for Obama. She was steadily demonized in a concerted campaign to undermine her effectiveness, and she would surely have had great difficulty getting any traction whatsoever for progressive policy change in this environment. Arne Duncan was the smart choice, the unity choice--the least driven by ideology, the most open to working with teachers and unions, the smartest by a mile-- and let's wish him well.
But there's a deeper point: since the Obama victory, many people seem to be suffering a kind of post-partum depression: unable to find any polls to obsess over, we read the tea-leaves and try to penetrate the president-elect's mind. What do his moves portend? What magic or disaster awaits us? With due respect, this is a matter of looking entirely in the wrong direction.
Obama is not a monarch -- Arne Duncan is not education czar -- and we are not his subjects. If we want a foreign policy based on justice, for example, we ought to get busy organizing a robust anti-imperialist peace movement; if we want to end the death penalty we better get smart about changing the dominant narrative concerning crime and punishment. We are not allowed to sit quietly in a democracy awaiting salvation from above. We are all equal, and we all need to speak up and speak out right now.
During Arne Duncan's tenure in Chicago, a group of hunger-striking mothers organized city-wide support and won the construction of a new high school in a community that had been underserved and denied for years. Another group of parents, teachers, and students mobilized to push military recruiters out of their high school; Duncan didn't support them and he certainly didn't lead the charge, but they won anyway. If they'd waited for Duncan to act they'd likely be waiting still. Teachers at another school refused to give one of the endless standardized tests, arguing that this was one test too many, and they organized deep support for their protest; Duncan didn't support them either, but they won anyway. If they'd waited for Duncan, they'd be waiting still. Why would anyone sit around waiting for Arne now? Stop whining; get busy.
In the realm of education, there is nothing preventing any of us from pressing to change the dominant discourse that has controlled the discussion for many years. It's reasonable to assume that education in a democracy is distinct from education under a dictatorship or a monarchy, but how? Surely school leaders in fascist Germany or communist Albania or medieval Saudi Arabia all agreed, for example, that students should behave well, stay away from drugs and crime, do their homework, study hard, and master the subject matters, so those things don't differentiate a democratic education from any other.
What makes education in a democracy distinct is a commitment to a particularly precious and fragile ideal, and that is a belief that the fullest development of all is the necessary condition for the full development of each; conversely, the fullest development of each is necessary for the full development of all.
Democracy, after all, is geared toward participation and engagement, and it's based on a common faith: every human being is of infinite and incalculable value, each a unique intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, and creative force. Every human being is born free and equal in dignity and rights, each is endowed with reason and conscience, and deserves, then, a sense of solidarity, brotherhood and sisterhood, recognition and respect.
We want our students to be able to think for themselves, to make judgments based on evidence and argument, to develop minds of their own. We want them to ask fundamental questions---Who in the world am I? How did I get here and where am I going? What in the world are my choices? How in the world shall I proceed? --- and to pursue answers wherever they might take them. Democratic educators focus their efforts, not on the production of things so much as on the production of fully developed human beings who are capable of controlling and transforming their own lives, citizens who can participate fully in civic life.
Democratic teaching encourages students to develop initiative and imagination, the capacity to name the world, to identify the obstacles to their full humanity, and the courage to act upon whatever the known demands. Education in a democracy should be characteristically eye-popping and mind-blowing--always about opening doors and opening minds as students forge their own pathways into a wider world.
How do our schools here and now measure up to the democratic ideal?
Much of what we call schooling forecloses or shuts down or walls off meaningful choice-making. Much of it is based on obedience and conformity, the hallmarks of every authoritarian regime. Much of it banishes the unpopular, squirms in the presence of the unorthodox, hides the unpleasant. There's no space for skepticism, irreverence, or even doubt. While many of us long for teaching as something transcendent and powerful, we find ourselves too-often locked in situations that reduce teaching to a kind of glorified clerking, passing along a curriculum of received wisdom and predigested and often false bits of information. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Educators, students, and citizens must press now for an education worthy of a democracy, including an end to sorting people into winners and losers through expensive standardized tests which act as pseudo-scientific forms of surveillance; an end to starving schools of needed resources and then blaming teachers and their unions for dismal outcomes; and an end to the rapidly accumulating "educational debt," the resources due to communities historically segregated, under-funded and under-served. All children and youth in a democracy, regardless of economic circumstance, deserve full access to richly-resourced classrooms led by caring, qualified and generously compensated teachers. So let's push for that, and let's make it happen before Arne Duncan or anyone else grants us permission.
Interestingly, the business leaders and other "free market" advocates who have greatly influenced public education policy over the past two decades have not shared with educators this relentless focus on human capital. Instead their focus for improving schools has been on a stodgy version of standards-based reform, driven by accountability and testing from the top-down. In this view, federal and state education officials and testing companies, along with psychometricians and educational researchers, carefully calibrate incentives and penalties based on test data. ...
Given this, it would be naïve to think we can reform the education system with mere legislation. Such is the complexity and interdependence of the many parts of this system that reform efforts are unsustainable and quickly overwhelmed by the status quo. The "education industrial complex," to paraphrase President Eisenhower's famous warning about the "military industrial complex," composed of bureaucrats, business leaders, and researchers, is continuing to tighten the bindings of data systems and accountability algorithms. ....The real challenge of getting meaningful change, one based on investment in human capital, begins with restoring the stature and credibility of teachers and their unions as leaders in support of world-class schools and high quality learning for all students. Read more at www.educationanddemocracy.net
You all should be ashamed for promoting him! WHO is next? Charles Manson?
The Unibomber? This man should be in prison for life.
*Obama was never a close friend of Bill Ayers; they just sat on a board together.
No!
Some parents are so engrossed in their own careers that they use money to provide the right neighborhood and so their children can compete with their friends material goods. They substitute money for actual parenting and involvement in their children's lives..
Some parents are focused on survival - meals, a roof over their heads, and utilitiy bills, that they are rarely home, and when they are, they're exhausted. They don't have the luxury of the time and money required to be involved in their children's lives.
This reflects societal values:
* Success in the United States is measured by how much money you have and nothing else.
* We don't believe in the equal value of each person or that all people are deserving of human and civil rights.
* The working poor deserve their difficult lives as if the jobs they do aren't required for all of us to live the lives we lead. (Can you imagine an executive cleaning the toilets in his office, growing his own food and cooking it, or paving the roads he drives on?)
* Depriving others of basic necessities is a respectable way to acquire wealth needed solely for bragging rights.
Obama has offered the best educational vision available to us in the form of early childhood education. Yes he has called for more parental involvement but let us get real, this is not going to happen and it is probably a good thing. Most of us never learned how to be parents, we had no role models because those who traditionally provided such were away from home trying to achieve the much touted American Dream.
Where our money needs to be spent is in our day care centers where the average worker neither has nor aspires to have the educational foundation necessary to help our young overcome the fear of things new and strange and inspire in them a life long habits which result in knowledge, understanding and wisdom they will need to deal with the debt George W. Bush has saddled them with.
We need to incorporate these private institutions into our national school systems and increase the wage levels to where they actually offer the compensatory values a truly gifted child care practitioner would find attractive.
And just toss out the window those accountablity requirements for teachers or school systems. Because we all know that is just a mean-spirited, Republican thing to do and the real problem is that public schools are underfunded, right? I challenge you all to read this article from the Washington Post by Andrew Coulson entitled "The Real Cost of Public Education" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.htm
Interestingly enough, the tuition cost for the Obama children's new private school (Sidwell) in DC isn't that much different than the amount spent per pupil in the Washington DC public school system. And supposedly learned individuals scoff at accountability and measuring results? With this kind of money spent only to have the absolutely abysmal state of Washington DC schools it is not logical, rational or responsible to see not see folly in the educational system that Mr. Ayers imagines.
Grades are limiting. Standardized tests take away the goal of education. To learn beyond the introduction to the subject, and to be engrossed in the depth of the subject.
I learned geometry in a classic class of teaching to the text, standardized tests and grades. I failed it. I took the same subject in a summer school class where the teacher had the students teach themselves. We all had a Teacher's Edition of the Subject. The answers were in the back of the book with demonstrations on how the problems were solved. The teacher was there only for guidance.
I fell in love with a subject I had hated. I progressed on my own level to trigonometry. I could tutor others in the subject by the time the class had ended.
Learning is a pleasure, and when done right, it never ends.
This is where the comparison of public schools to charter or private schools falls apart because in these schools you have students from a self selected group of families at the positive end of the educational support spectrum. In charter or private schools, ambitions and resources come together to create a different environment than found in many public schools where the staff expends a much greater percentage of energy fighting negative values toward education within crumbling infrastructure. Its simply easier to be successful when you have resources - both attitudinal and physical.
As a middle school teacher, my hope is that the new education secretary is pragmatic and looks to measuring progress from where we start - our kids and our facilities - instead of against arbitrary politically motivated standards.
I enjoyed your article. I was wondering if the solution is "both"? I have been shamelessly complaining for some time now--my poor colleagues--that we do not "think" in this culture because we are not trained to do so. There is a lot of black-and-white thinking of the either-or variety, a certain type of rigidity that closes people off to other points of view. I have been wondering out loud if there is some way to start a campaign that will encourage our school system to teach kids to actually think. Where is the training for conflict resolution, which would teach people to argue points from the opposite point of view--thus opening them up to seeing the other side and hopefully creating an environment of understanding and peace?
That said, how do we teach kids to, say, analyze history and apply it to the present so they can prevent our society from repeating it--if they haven't memorized many facts to argue their point? They need the facts *and* they need to learn how to think about them.
What I am getting at here is that perhaps we need to focus on factual info and the basics since profs are complaining that the incoming college kids don't even have the basic skills/knowledge to build on.
Yet we also need to teach them to think and question--in other words, push for both in the education system? Is it possible?
I could also apply the past to the present only through historical fiction. And then I wanted to know how history evolved. How one event led to another.