David Brooks Made Me Wring My Hands: Obama and His Education Secretary Pick
David Brooks's facile, distorted representation of the state of education reform in The New York Times made me wring my hands. In his first paragraph, he speciously outlines two distinct camps of education interests:
On the one hand, there are the reformers like Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, who support merit pay for good teachers, charter schools and tough accountability standards. On the other hand, there are the teachers' unions and the members of the Ed School establishment, who emphasize greater funding, smaller class sizes and superficial reforms.
Problems abound. Let's start with the idea that teachers are villains:
Newt Gingrich made a similar pitch about the "Ed School establishment" when I saw him speak earlier this year, castigating schools of education, departments of education, and teachers' unions as an unequivocally worthless three-headed monster who will stop at nothing to defend their failed schools. Under this Brooks/Gingrich ideology, just about everyone who actually spends time in classrooms is contaminated, reflexively anti-reform, and ought to be thrown overboard, paving the way for a free-market model where teachers and students are paid for higher test scores, and collective bargaining for teachers is a farce of the past. That's a dangerous road.
Also, what's up with Brooks's bizarre conflation of greater funding and smaller class sizes with superficial reforms? Last year at a Bronx public school I taught high school English classes of 33 students. This year at a Washington DC charter school, my classes range between 7 and 20 students. The difference in the attention I'm able to give my students is profound, and it's reflected in their learning. Education is a person-to-person endeavor. Smaller, more personal learning spaces are essential; implicitly labeling a campaign for them as "superficial" holds no water.
And Joel Klein as the reformer hero? Under his tenure, New York City has experienced runaway standardized testing and schizophrenic, punitive assessments for schools , and all under the co-opted banner of "accountability." Teachers and parents are demoralized, and the test scores are stagnant. Handing him the reins of American public school is not the answer.
Michelle Rhee, receiving props from the left and right for her hard-charging methods, is the other "reformer" hero of the moment, currently gracing the cover of Time Magazine with a broom and a frown. I am rooting for DC schools to improve, but Rhee's nuclear approach to administering a catastrophically plagued system in the nation's capital is not at all what the doctor ordered for most of America.
Brooks champions Rhee and Klein as sunny "reformers," but that's code for scorched earth ideologues. He takes a shot at Barack Obama's chief education adviser, Linda Darling-Hammond as their ostensibly gutless, obstructionist rival.
He writes:
Darling-Hammond, a professor at Stanford, is a sharp critic of Teach for America and promotes weaker reforms.Many are still steamed at Darling-Hammond, a teacher quality expert, for her 2005 study "Does Teacher Preparation Matter?" which pointed out that Teach For America corps members leave the teaching profession more quickly than other teachers. Actually, Darling-Hammond has a great deal to offer as a reformer, not a smasher, of the American school system.
In the conclusion of her essay From "Separate but Equal" to "No Child Left Behind", she writes:
...Although there is a strong privatization instinct in Washington at the moment, the American people reiterate in poll after poll that they support public education, are willing to invest in it, and expect it to be a leavening agent for society-- in fact, some might argue, the only one left in America. While there are improvements to be made in schools, schools... will meet the aspirations Americans hold for them only if they are given intelligent guidance and the critical supports they need, while children are assured the health and family supports that allow them to be ready to learn.
Darling-Hammond sees value in nurturing and supporting teachers, not running them out on a rail based on high-stakes test scores. She sees collective bargaining for teachers as fundamentally fair. She understands that while our situation is urgent, we don't need to resort to shock doctrine-caliber panic and blow up our whole system. President-Elect Obama made an excellent choice in bringing her on his team.
David Brooks offers Americans a false choice. Here's hoping our new president will sweep aside that brand of discourse.
Dan Brown is a teacher in Washington, DC, and the author of The Great Expectations School: A Rookie Year in the New Blackboard Jungle. He is not a member of any teachers' union.
Follow Dan Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danbrownteacher
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
Linda- Darling Hammond is the BEST candidate for taking on the responsibilities as Secretary of Education in this country. We need to promote the vision of redesigning the current overcrowded public school structures into smaller schools. It is obvious that the small school design works for private school students, therefore, all public schools must be redesigned as well, to have a better impact. Linda Darling- Hammond has a great vision.
Thank you Dan Brown. Linda Darling-Hammond is the best possible choice for Secretary of Education. As a long time educator, I've had the privilege of working within the educational reform movement. Ms. Darling-Hammond, through her own hard won experience as a classroom teacher and subsequent leader in the fields of educational policy and research, represents the very best thinking we now so sorely need. She understands that the way students are assessed determines what they will learn and how they will think. This means evaluating students on multiple measures, not high stakes tests. It also necessitates reinstating the social and economic safety net for poor families and neighborhoods.
Linda Darling-Hammond would address these concerns and more. Her inspired leadership would offer our youth the kind of quality education already available in the top ranking educational systems of the world, i.e., UNICEF’s top ranking went to South Korea, Japan, Finland, Canada and Australia. As we already know, the U.S. came in towards the bottom.
There are those like David Brooks who seek to move us further in the direction of top down, corporate education. We simply cannot afford this status quo. We must change or we will continue our downward slide. Ms. Linda Darling-Hammond has the well informed vision, wisdom and knowledge to lead us out the wilderness.
Selecting a Secretary of Education is quickly being re-framed by competing ideas of accountability and the future of education. With that has come a rush to label ideas as either "reform" or "establishment" (see Brooks, 12/5/08). Such steps are in stark contrast to the Barack Obama's candidacy, which was built on a platform of inclusion -- moving beyond stale and divisive ideologies and finding common ground. The values at the core are equity, opportunity and possibility for all children. The re-authorization of NCLB and economic challenges ahead make it imperative that we reaffirm three core values in supporting educational reform:
* the holistic development of all children (not just reading/language arts and math standardized test scores);
* deep and extensive educator preparation and in-service staff development; and
* the development and support of entire organic communities that support quality teaching and learning, not the disenfranchisement of many to make way for quick structural reforms.
We believe that David Brooks has it exactly backward in referring to Joel Klein as an exponent of reform and Linda Darling-Hammond as representing the establishment. We strongly support the policy platforms of educators like Linda Darling-Hammond who have worked throughout their careers for policies and reforms built on the above core values.
Dan Brown nailed it in his critique of David Brooks" NYT op-ed on the status of school reform and his assessment of who should serve as President-Elect Obama"s next Secretary of Education. Mr. Brooks has mislabeled SOE candidate Linda Darling-Hammond and her storied career as teacher, researcher, policy leader, and advocate for children. Because she has questioned short-cut alternative certification programs that do not prepare teachers for high need schools, Mr. Brooks sees her as anti-reform. Because she has questioned NCLB and its narrow focus on current multiple-choice, standardized tests, Mr. Brooks believes she is a purveyor of anti-accountability. Because she calls for teacher performance-pay plans that are built from more than these narrow, 20th century assessments as measures of teaching effectiveness, she is viewed as promoting the status-quo. Bizarre.
If Mr. Brooks had looked carefully at the facts he would learn that Dr. Darling-Hammond has created charter schools that are sending at-risk students to college while serving as laboratories that truly prepare teachers for teaching in high need schools. She has helped states and school districts develop 21st century assessments that will measure our students" readiness to compete in the global marketplace. She has helped teacher unions focus on teaching and learning and enforce high standards among their ranks. Dr. Darling-Hammond does not just pontificate about our nation’s public schools, she is changing them and the teaching profession that students deserve.
Dan Brown has it exactly right, as does this writer. To cast Linda Darling Hammond as anti-reform is to see the reality through a very distorted looking glass and to rewrite the history of reform in American Education. In fact, it is Linda-Darling Hammond who has represented meaningful change in education, not proponents of a simplistic, "private sector" model of so-called accountability.
David Brooks has a penchant for creating straw men and false dichotomies. It's a shame that he is participating in a divisive campaign to discredit one of America's most articulate and effective advocates for progressive change in education as an ":anti-reform" agent of the status quo.
The evidence of Dr. Darling-Hammond's career-long contributions couldn't be clearer. She has the vision, experience, and credentials as a teacher, scholar, school reformer, and catalyst for positive change to be on anyone's short list for Secretary of Education.
However, a more important point is being lost here. During his campaign, President-elect challenged Washington to move beyond its partisan differences in a search for solutions to our most pressing problems. The chief litmus tests for any proposed innovation need to be effectiveness, fairness, scalability, and most of all are they in the best interests of children.
Dr. Darling Hammond was a key advisor to the President-elect. No one is in a better position to judge the kind of leadership she offers or the kind of partner he requires to bring the change we need to education. The chorus of bloggers, commentators, and ideologues agitating against Dr. Darling-Hammond's appointment represent the old-style politics of division at its worst. Let's hope the President-elect ignores the noise in the system and concentrates on what matters most: appointing a Secretary who can help lead the nation in reinventing its public schools.
David Haselkorn
I've written the same idea on other posts; Linda Darling-Hammond would continue to set us back. I do not question her strength in pedagogy, but her idea of education policy is for government to create a Utopian society therefore making it easier for teachers to teach. If we wait for this to happen we lose generations. This is the number one civil rights issue of our time. Teachers, students and parents to be held responsible for educational outcomes. Unions are such an integral part to our society, but all too often the teacher's union is on the side of the teachers, not the students and have even said so.
Teacher's can make a difference in a child's life. They can make a difference as far as a student being fed breakfast in the morning or a parent checking homework at night. Linda Darling-Hammond's positions are actually very "conservative" as far as not having any new ideas. Let's just fix society, pay teachers more and make sure they all go to a traditional ed school that has no new ideas on how to educate teachers.
I write in support of Linda Darling-Hammond for Secretary of Education. Darling-Hammond is a cutting edge education reformer, an early champion of standards and accountability, high school reform, assessment reform, and equity and excellence. About 20 years ago, Darling-Hammond reconceptualized accountability to center on the learner. That is the current conception of accountability. As the executive director of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, nearly 15 years ago, Darling-Hammond introduced the now popular idea of a competent caring teacher in every classroom as every child's right. She has tirelessly promoted teacher education reforms. She has gotten the cooperation of diverse, often oppositional constituencies for these reforms: legislators, policy makers, practitioners, and unions. As a uniter not a divider, Darling-Hammond is uniquely qualified to achieve Obama’s goals. Darling-Hammond has started and supported charter schools and works with the Washington DC Charter Schools organization. She has opposed harmful practices such as hiring untrained and unqualified teachers, the privatization of public education, the improper use of standardized tests, and the proliferation of low-level-test-prep curriculum.
The so called reformers are about reforming management, not educational. They erroneously think that changes in management will result in changes in teaching, learning, and student outcomes. Educators know from past experience that changing management policies does not change education.
If the Obama administration will be smart to appoint an educator to be Secretary of Education. They won't find one better that Linda Darling-Hammond.
I usually like David Brooks a lot. His decency and recognition that we’re all in this together have made him a favorite journalist. But his December 5th NY Times piece reminded me how easy it is for journalists and policy-makers to fail to appreciate the complexities of teaching the nation’s children, and lapse into technocratic paradigms and market concepts when suggesting how schools might be improved. One would think that the business and conservative leaders who have bullied educators for the last 20 years, alarming people by linking bad schools with a bad economy, would have enough to do explaining the economic fix they have put us in. And boy, does he get it wrong on Linda Darling Hammond. Her critiques of Teach for America are the same ones most people who examined the program deeply would make, and her “weaker reforms” make a lot more sense that the simplistic fixes championed over the past decades by a host of edu-business leaders. More importantly she retains a clear memory of kids and classrooms and what you and I as “consumers” in the system want for our children, and pursues her tasks accordingly. I wish I could say that about those other folks who, the longer they remain in their publishing suites, board rooms, and government offices, continue to lose touch of the realities of young people, their hopes and dreams, their challenges and vulnerabilities, and the demands of teaching in and leading challenging schools and classrooms.
"...I usually like David Brooks a lot. His decency and recognition that we"re all in this together have made him a favorite journalist..."
==========================
You're kidding right????..........
Brooks, and his ilk, are part of the problem. He is king of the "Straw Man Argument".
The problem is that there is no "one size fits all" to solving our educational issue, but you'll need:
1) Mentorship -- children need a support structure not just in school but outside of school.
2) Expect Excellence -- I had a wonderful teacher who refused to give me an "F" on a paper. She made re-write it until I got a B. She expected excellence from me without reward. If you read that Time's article you find out that Ms. Rhee "pays" the students to do good. The money is stored in an account and at the end of the year they can withdraw.
3) School Uniforms -- I stauchy believe in focusing a child mind while they're in school. Having some children show up to school with $300 worth of clothing, while other are less fortunate is a distraction. Plus it actually saves money for the parents
4) Breakfast should be free for all students.
5) Recent education graduates should be required to be a teachers aid for 3 years before getting their own class. This will allow the the newbie to get experience, and the veteran teacher will get some extra help in the classroom. Atleast, try to make the teacher better
Unlike Larry221, I dislike David Brooks deeply. Brooks's mind is stuck in the past century. It's obvious that we're in the same boat & it is sinking into a rough sea of adversity. But from Larry221's 2d sentence to the end of his comment-he's right on.
Thanks for the post. It is well done. Chancellor Rhee uses a management style currently advocated by a number of school business managers including Joel Klien of New York City and others.
Teachers have not been respected, consulted, nor listened to. You can not improve schools without working with – not against the teachers.
The bottom line is that this form of arbitrary management has not worked to improve student achievement. Yes, she has closed schools and fired teachers, but have the students scores have not improved? This brand of drive by school reform produces headlines but has not improved the schools. The pattern is clear, generate a lot of controversy, impose harsh conditions, make claims based upon one or two years data, and then move on quickly before the data from several years of failed efforts catches up with you. A new “leader” is brought in and the process starts all over again.
These management approaches have not worked.
So now, Michelle Rhee is consulting in Sacramento to the new Kevin Johnson Administration. It amazes me given the state of schools in D.C. that she has time to be a consultant here.
see more at http://www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com
David Brooks would like to divide the possible candidates for the next Secretary of Education between those he calls reformers and those he claims represent the status quo. Yet, both of the superintendents he describes as reformers – Klien and Rhee, manage districts with dropout rates over 50%; hardly evidence of success. Both have gained tough reputations for holding teachers accountable, yet neither has made clear how they should be held accountable for the decisions they make. The real division among the presumed contenders for Secretary of Education is between those who have a narrow view of reform - raising test scores is all that matters), and those who have a broader view - addressing student needs and creating conditions that support learning must be central. Linda Darling Hammond has the broad view and given our nation’s history of failure, especially in districts serving poor children, it is clear that what the nation needs now is a leader who’s vision extends behind that narrow view that has dominated education policy for the last eight years and has left many children behind. – Pedro A. Noguera
I'm disturbed by recent attacks in the media, particularly David Brook's Op-Ed piece by David Brooks, which have attacked Linda Darling-Hammond. I am neither a member of the teachers' union, nor am I a teacher-educator connected to a university, but I am a lifelong educator and have been a teacher, staff developer, principal and local superintendent in New York City.
What's amazing to me, as someone with a doctorate in education, is that
reform and accountability are now synonymous with standardized testing.
Fill-in-the bubble testing is not a reform and does not
equate with either teaching OR learning. If this were the case, it
would be more in evidence in the private schools to which President-Elect
Obama, and other members of the ruling class, send their children.
Furthermore, if testing and accountability were true reform measures, they would not be touted by conservatives like Brooks, and would most certainly be reflected in increased NAEP scores and high school graduation rates, which have remained flat or declined in New York. To declare otherwise is to prove the old adage, "Figures lie and liars figure!"
Linda Darling-Hammond knows this, which is why she is so scary to "reformers" like Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and Wendy Kopp and her TFA minions. Testing and test preparation are easy; teaching, learning, and real accountability for them are hard, time-consuming and expensive, just like private school education.
Great post.
The corporate ed-world's appropriation of the word "reformer" irks me to no end. Rather than demonize the term like the GOP managed to do with the word "liberal," the educational Right has bought the term "reformer" (with the help of Brooks, Newsweek, and Time recently) and, as you note, worked a disappearing spell on the fact that smaller classes, better assessments, and better support are also "reforms."
Again, well-done. I just went to Change.gov's education page http://change.gov/page/s/educationn) to tell the Obama team that Darling-Hammond is the right choice for Secretary of Education.
As a product of the chicago public school I am all for a swiping radical reform advocated by the likes of Michelle Rhee. Most teachers in public school are incredibly incompetent and their failure to prepare student is injustice. We need teachers with advanced or a graduate degree in order to meet the need of 21st century education and if we are to compete with indians and Chinese student. We need innovative math and science curriculum and encourage student to got to graduate school. We should reward teachers with advanced degree and institute a merit based pay system where teachers with highly achieving student get rewarded. We need to end property tax based education funding if we want to end education disparities and level the the playing field.
Whenever a Republican says the word "reform," just mentally substitute "destroy" and it all makes a lot more sense.
Truth #1: Most public schools do a good job. The ones that don't---and are the reason this debate exists---are located in poverty-stricken areas with enormous cultural and economic deficits. Schools reflect the communities in which they operate.
Truth #2: Teachers' unions have no public credibility and it's their own fault. Tenure is an awful system
that shields the incompetent and provides no benefit to children. Unless and until teachers' unions admit this fact and agree to eliminate the concept of tenure, the public will rightly view unions as nothing more than tools to extract economic benefits for their members.
Truth #3: "teaching to the test" is bad...."drill and kill" test prep...blah blah blah...Spare me! When tests are well-crafted and consistantly---and HONESTLY---administered, they absolutely and accurately measure achievement and permit quality comparisons. Teachers who complain that you can't measure "creativity" and "curiousity" and other airy-fairy notions are right----and nobody cares. Furthermore, the teachers mouthing such bromides don't really care either---they only use them to excuse their own poor performance, a grossly cynical exercise.
Truth #4: All educational reform efforts should have one, and only one, goal: subject-matter mastery by children. Period. Full stop.
Lots of wrong conclusions here. Maybe you can ask yourself a few questions, Why did they institute "tenure" in the first place? Could there actually be a reason is it good? Do you not feel ridiculous making the argument that the people that become teachers do so because they are greedy,money grubers. Yes you are brilliant.
Truth #1: you were not taught critical thinking skills.
Re: Truth #3: The problem to "teaching to the test" is very real and it is hurting our children's education. We are not living in a utopian educational world of quality assessments designed to help students and teachers. We are living with punitive HIGH-STAKES tests, which are overwhelmingly low-quality and measure low-level skills. No single test should ever be used to make a critical life decision for a child (grade promotion, graduation) or a teacher/principal (keeping one's job). Teachers are absolutely right to speak out against this misuse of testing. They see first-hand how it is strangling their ability to engage their students in deeply complex learning. And despite your casual dismissal that "nobody cares" that creativity and curiosity can't be measured, I am a parent of a first-grader and I DO care.
I agree and respect your premise that there is a whole lot of knee-jerk reaction to the challenges facing education and the solutions that people are attempting.
But we must start before the solution with the problem. America's schools are not graduating great students by any measure. The first proof of this is that they are only graduating 75% of their students in the first place!
In order to solve the problem, we must first define success. Until we do this, no solution has meaning.
I have attempted to begin this discussion here: http://interacc.typepad.com/synthesis/2008/12/whats-the-goal.html, and would welcome your participation and debate to first define success, and then bring the power and ingenuity of Americans to bear on solving it.
Thank you
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
