Craig Cunningham on Arne Duncan

He gives a generally positive, and well written review of Obama's Pick for SOE. He even gives some implications about what this means (maybe) for education in this country. Cunningham even predicts the next Chicago School Chief:

"1. NCLB will be drastically restructured to focus on supports for improvement rather than negative consequences for failure.

2. Opponents of charter schools have lost a huge battle. Their expansion will continue dramatically.

3. Urban school districts will receive special attention from Washington.

4. Washington will now begin to push a longer school day and longer school year, and the public will be gently pressured to force the unions to accept this without getting higher pay.

5. Funding for educational research will no longer be tied to ideological criteria such as "evidence-based" practices. Rather, research will be judged in terms of its likely benefit to generalized issues of educational practice.

6. The bowling alley in the White House will be replaced with a Basketball Court.

7. Barbara Eason-Watkins, who has been the quiet but effective and resolute Chief Education Officer of the Chicago Public Schools for the past 6 years, will become Chicago Schools Chief. Barbara (who was also my boss for about 3 months before she took her current position) is smart, friendly, tireless, effective, and has deep experience at all levels of the system. Expect Eason-Watkins to make news within the next few years, most likely by saying things that no white man could say in that position. She may shake things up a bit in Chicago (which would be quite welcome)."

A Good Case for the Arne Duncan Pick

The Washington Post gives their support to Arne Duncan. The first two paragraphs essentially summarize my own ideas for why I am supportive of the Duncan pick, as of right now:

"IT WAS WIDELY expected that President-elect Barack Obama's choice of an education secretary would finally reveal which of the warring approaches to school reform he favors. Instead, his selection of Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan cheered both the disrupters and the incrementalists of education change. That could be a good sign for America's schools -- if Mr. Duncan is able to unite the two sides in support of meaningful improvements.

"In announcing his nomination of Mr. Duncan, Mr. Obama rejected the notion that there must be an either-or approach to making schools better. Both sides, he said, have good ideas and intentions, and he held out Mr. Duncan as someone not beholden to one ideology but capable of creating a new vision for the country's education system."

I have generally fallen on the Linda Darling-Hammond side of the Education Secretary debate (as opposed to the Michelle Rhee side). However, the more I think about it, the more I like the Arne Duncan pick because he really is a decent consensus candidate. He shows that people who aren't gung-ho reformistas in the school reform debate can still work to reform our public schools. Duncan has a lot to work on, so don't expect any miracles. But at the end of the day, Duncan is a high quality choice who seems very capable of handling the job.

Pros and Cons of Arne Duncan

A rundown of his record in Chicago from Alexander Russo:

"Strengths: ▪ Lasted seven years -- a lot longer than many predicted. ▪ State test scores have increased every year Duncan has been in office, according to the board of education. ▪ Duncan has by all accounts improved tremendously as a public speaker. ▪ Sends his daughter to a local public school. ▪ Strong supporter of community schools. ▪ Early critic of NCLB testing, tutoring, and transfer requirements ▪ Chicago participates in Roland Fryer "learn to earn" program. ▪ Tall, skinny, and with a funny name -- just like his soon-to-be-boss! ▪ Has more gray in his hair than it seems from this AP pic.

Weaknesses: ▪ Chicago has never been a finalist for the Broad education prize for urban school reform. ▪ Chicago ’s NAEP scores lag many other big city districts, according to TUDA. ▪ Failed to win substantial concessions from the Chicago Teachers Union in the last contract. ▪ Failed to expand the highly restrictive charter school cap for Chicago (30) . ▪ Renaissance 2010 disrupted the education of thousands of students in the early years esp. ▪ Duncan ’s reform efforts have failed to attract (or retain) white and middle-class families. ▪ Criticized by Blagojevich for only having offered free school bus rides in exchange for the Senate seat."

Arne Duncan: A Safe Choice

There couldn't be a better time to start writing on my blog after a week off from posting (sorry, I've been kind of busy). We now know who the next Secretary of Education is going to be: Chicago School Chief Arne Duncan.

And based on everything I have read about him so far, his choice seems to be about two things. First, he is a politically safe choice because he will most likely not upset either side of the current education reform debate. On the one hand, he is appealing to education "reformistas" because he is a big city school chancellor with a history of trying to reform schools, just like his old boss Paul Vallas (who is now in charge of New Orleans Public Schools) Also, his name isn't Linda Darling-Hammond.

On the other hand, he is at least partially appealing to the more traditional/teacher-friendly (for lack of a better term) side of the debate because he isn't as controversial as a Joel Klein or Michelle Rhee. In addition, Teacher Unions don't hate his guts. AFT head Randi Weingarten even says that Duncan "reaches out (to unions) to do things in a collaborative way."

The second thing his choice indicates is that, simply, Duncan is someone Obama can personally trust. He is from Hyde Park in Chicago, has worked with Obama over the years, and has even played basketball with him (in fact, Duncan apparently has a fairly nice basketball career). Just like other Presidents will pick people for their cabinets from back home (including our present Education Secretary), Obama has done the same thing.

I do have some concerns. While he is clearly a safe pick, is that all he is? Is the fact that he didn't pick either a Linda-Darling Hammond or a Michelle Rhee a sign that Obama wants to reach out to both sides of the education reform debate? Or is it just a sign that Obama wants a politically safe pick because education won't be that high of a priority? Plus, as good of a job as Duncan has done in Chicago, will that actually transfer over to a national level? Duncan was in charge of just one school district (even though it is a huge one), but will now be in charge of thousands of school districts in 50 states. Needles to say, it is harder to micromanage things.

Also, it would be nice to have an Education Secretary who has actually taught inside a class. Oh, well.

I personally would have preferred a Linda-Darling Hammond, but I am not opposed to Duncan as a choice. Maybe he is exactly what our education system needs. Let's give the guy a chance and see what he can do.

Picture comes from This Week in Education.

D.C. Reacts to Rhee's Time Cover

Some people are happy about Rhee's Time cover because it brings more support and attention to reforming the D.C. Public School (and reforming the nation's education system in general). Other's aren't fans. A quote from the by Cathy Reilly, head of the Senior High Alliance of Parents, Principals and Educators from the Washington Post:

"I don't know what she was thinking," Reilly said. "I don't think sweeping things out is the way to go, and that way of relating to people metaphorically sends a message right down to the children."

Overall, the Post article was filled with mixed on reactions to the Time cover.

The Ball Buster

I am referring to the woman in the picture above, D.C. School Chancellor Michelle Rhee. Some might gasp at such a description, but I can't think of a more appropriate description. Michelle Rhee is a ball buster. And yes, you do need a ball buster to do the job that Ms. Rhee is trying to do. For better or worse, she is now the de facto face of education reform in this country.

Certainly, she has a tough task at hand, and no one can doubt that she needs to get tough to do it. But there is also a lot of room to worry. This part of the Time article has already given a lot of people pause, including myself:

"In many private encounters with officials, bureaucrats and even fundraisers–who have committed millions of dollars to help her reform the schools–she doesn’t smile or nod or do any of the things most people do to put others at ease. She reads her BlackBerry when people talk to her. I have seen her walk out of small meetings held for her benefit without a word of explanation. She says things most superintendents would not. “The thing that kills me about education is that it’s so touchy-feely,” she tells me one afternoon in her office. Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn’t respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. “People say, ‘Well, you know, test scores don’t take into account creativity and the love of learning,’” she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. “I’m like, ‘You know what? I don’t give a crap.’ Don’t get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don’t know how to read, I don’t care how creative you are. You’re not doing your job.”

Fair enough, but standardized tests also don't take into account the seriousness with which most students take them given there is no link between the test scores and grades. Don't even get me started with the issue of human grading of more subjective test questions. And as far as education being too "touchy-feely", students are not robots. People, especially young people, are highly emotional, and complex beings that come from numerous different backgrounds. They respond to different methods of teaching, discipline, evaluation, etc. in different ways. Don't get me wrong, there should be strong discipline, tough standards, and accountability. But it isn't so black and white.

Another concern with Rhee that myself and others have is that she may go too far in trying to shake things up. Yes, things need to be shaken up, but how much is too much? Robert Pondiscio makes a better argument than I can on this point:

"Here’s what worries me: accurate or inaccurate, fair or unfair, the increasingly confrontational, impatient, blunt, even rude public persona that’s affixing itself to the Washington, DC schools chancellor runs the risk of getting in the way of what Michelle Rhee wants to accomplish. I’ll put it bluntly: piss off enough people whose help is essential to your success, and your failure becomes inevitable, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Then for years to come, the answer to the reforms anyone proposes becomes, “Oh yes, we tried that in Washington under Michelle Rhee and you remember how that worked out.” If she fails, Michelle Rhee’s failure will not be hers alone. At worst, she runs the risk of damaging the ed reform “brand” for a generation."

Rhee kind of reminds me of another famous education reformer:

Granted, this is an exaggerated comparison, and I'm not saying that this is the way to do things. But Crazy Joe and Ms. Rhee both have more in common than people think. And without question, both are ball busters when it comes to education reform. Let us all hope that Rhee does what she needs to do to get the job done without going overboard.

Why is the Nation Really at Risk?

Over at Education Policy Blog, Kenneth Bernstein just posted something that is very important. It sums up many of my own views regarding the problems of the education reform debate, and I feel anyone who cares about American education should read it.

The post starts off with a long expert from Carl Glickman's post, the Latest Nation at Risk Report, at the Forum for Education and Democracy blog. Glickman edits parts of the famous Nation at Risk report so that it reflects the realities of today's America, specifically, it's economic problems. The following comes from the epilogue:

"There will be some angry readers out there who will bristle as I have lifted some of the exact wording of the Nation at Risk Report of 1983 and changed the word “schools” and “public education” to "business and financial institutions." And yes, I have taken plenty of liberties to extend and add sentences to define all business and financial leaders and stock market manipulators as untrustworthy, immoral, dangerous people who have let our country down; crushing the day to day lives and long term hopes of the large majority of Americans who can not afford to lose their jobs, their homes, and their savings. And my business friends -- if there still are a few left -- will bristle at the idea that educators and lay people, with no experiences in business or finance, should be taking charge of what they need to do. If so, the point has been made and hopefully, sincerely taken before further policy making."

This leads into Bernstein's argument about the problem with modern American education reform: it is dominated by businessmen and politicians, as opposed to educators. He tells and interesting story about a conversation between him and Iowa's then Governor Tom Vilsack about this problem:

"In that context, let me repeat part of the first face to face conversation I had with then Governor Tom Vilsack. I noted that the Governors had just had a conference on education and each governor had brought a business leader. Tom acknowledged that was true. I asked why each governor had not instead brought a teacher, a principal or even a student? He was genuinely surprised at the idea."

This leads right into a passage from Jamie Vollmer's famous "Blueberry Story":

"I have learned that a school is not a business. Schools are unable to control the quality of their raw material, they are dependent upon the vagaries of politics for a reliable revenue stream, and they are constantly mauled by a howling horde of disparate, competing customer groups that would send the best CEO screaming into the night.

"None of this negates the need for change. We must change what, when, and how we teach to give all children maximum opportunity to thrive in a post-industrial society. But educators cannot do this alone; these changes can occur only with the understanding, trust, permission and active support of the surrounding community. For the most important thing I have learned is that schools reflect the attitudes, beliefs and health of the communities they serve, and therefore, to improve public education means more than changing our schools, it means changing America."

This is in many ways what the modern education reform debate comes down to. It is not just about students who can pass tests, go to college, and become leaders in the field of (insert your profession of choice here). It is about the overall well being of our society, and thus, the students as well. Do we need to do better in math and science? Yes. Do we need to get rid of "bad teachers"? Yes. And no, we shouldn't rule out charter schools or alternative teacher training programs as part of the solution. But they aren't the only solution. And putting the opinions of businessmen and politicians ahead of educators (as opposed to "in cooperation with") isn't a solution of any real use.

I am reminded of a blog post from Jill, a wedding photographer and a parent of a child with special needs, who raised some important points during the campaign in response to Sarah Palin's proposal on behalf of the McCain campaign regarding special education reform:

"As [Palin] rightly said 'For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information.' What she totally glossed over, though, is that the information comes through sources her ticket is NOT endorsing: guaranteed medical coverage for all children. Where does most of our early information about our children and their ‘condition’ come from? Our doctors. Doctors our children won’t see without insurance. Therapists that our children won’t see without coverage. Visiting nurses that will no longer ‘visit’ us because our child isn’t able to get insurance (’pre-existing’ and ‘congenital’ often are treated the same by insurance companies). "

I raised similar points in response to her post.

Bernstein's post does critique the Nation At Risk report, and I must admit that I cannot agree of disagree with said critique. I have not read the report, let alone studied it's results to the extent that others have. I do agree that our society is "being eroded eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people". But this is America. We can do something about this if we really want to.

What is so wrong about Traiditional Teacher Training Programs?

A few days back, I posted on a story from Eduwonk having to deal with "traditional teaching programs" vs. newer, alternative teaching programs. The program I am currently in probably falls under that first category. I am not against the alternative programs, but the more blogs and education websites I read, it seems the more hostility I find towards programs like mine. The attitude seems to be, "alternative programs like Teach for America are the wave of the future, and more traditional programs need to get out of the way".

Then Monday, Alexander Russo (my favorite education blogger), posted about Linda Darling-Hammond as a potential appointment to Education Secretary by Obama. Russo's post is as much about Obama as it is about Darling-Hammond. But he warns that if Darling-Hammond is Obama's nominee, there could be a backlash against her by those in the education community who believe in major reforms in education. The reason for such a backlash? She was one of the earliest critics of Teach For America:

"The possibility of Darling-Hammond being named Secretary has emerged as an especially worrisome possibility among a small but vocal group of younger, reform-minded advocates who supported Obama because he seemed reform-minded on education issues like charter schools, performance pay, and accountability. These reformistas seem to perceive Darling-Hammond as a touchy-feely anti-accountability figure who will destroy any chances that Obama will follow through on any of these initiatives."

Russo goes onto explain:

"Yes, Darling-Hammond is an ed school professor who talks in nuanced, academic terms--not scripted talking points (see her debate here). Yes, she was among the first and most prominent critics of Teach For America--and still favors a more intensive, residency-based approach to training new teachers.

But she also has authored a recent study that acknowledged T.F.A. teachers were in some ways better than traditional teachers. And she has helped start several charter schools in California. Darling-Hammond says there's no real daylight between her positions and Obama's policy proposals, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to contradict that claim.

So what's going on then? Part of it is just a knee-jerk response against someone who dared criticize T.F.A., the reformistas' most cherished accomplishment to date. Another part of it may be the desire for a younger, fresher name picked from their own ranks--D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee, or New Leaders founder Jon Schnur."

I have been trying to figure out the genesis of this movement among different education wonks that alternative programs are better than traditional teaching colleges. I know I am a somewhat of a novice when it comes to education policy, so will someone please explain this to me? Have I waisted the past 2 1/2 years in my college program? Would I have been better off to have gone into Teach For America? Somehow, I don't think so.


Reading about this continuing debate reminded me of an editorial I read a couple of years ago when I first started attending my program, and I wanted to learn more about education policy. It is a column from George Will entitled "Ed Schools vs Education" (my apologies for this being in Word Format. It was the only way I could look it up on the internet as it is no longer easily accessible from the Newsweek archives). He begins the article with the following:


"The surest, quickest way to add quality to primary and secondary education would be addition by subtraction: Close all the schools of education."


Will believed this was because education schools are only focused on espousing progressive political beliefs, not teaching teachers how to teach. He does a good job at pointing out SOME extreme examples of teacher colleges where such activities take place. But he seems to have no problem branding ALL teacher's colleges as following this phenomena. While I can only really talk about my program, I think he is generalizing, to say the least.

By what Mr. Will and these "reformistas" appear to say, you would think that teachers all across the country are being taught to have the students sit in circles, give each other hugs, sing "Kum Bi Ya", and finger paint. True, things such as trying to promote change and fairness are themes that I have learned about in some of my classes (as if those are evil things to promote). But by and large, the overwhelming majority of what is taught in my classes are highly technical skills and techniques that are needed to teach in a variety of areas in the pubic schools (contrary to what some think, these do include the importance of discipline and accountability). We are taught how to be professional teachers, and we take it seriously. If you disagree, please speak up. I am ready to win that debate.

The Issue of Teacher Training (and How it relates to me)

I realize that I am about a week and a half late in responding to this post, but I have to address this. Eduwonk recently posted a piece dealing with the subject of "traditional teacher training" vs. more alternative training methods. I have to say that I am a little confused by what the author of this post is trying to say:

"It’s not that [teacher] training doesn’t matter, but training on the job does seem to make a lot more sense than the traditional education school approach."

I guess I don't know how a lot of states do it, but is the author saying that traditional teaching programs don't bother with actual classroom time? Is it generally an either/or, meaning either go through a training program period, or skip training and go right into the classroom? Why not a combination of both? That is what I am currently doing (it is required in the state of Missouri). The past couple of years, I have been doing nothing but taking education classes, and in a couple of months, I am about to start working directly inside an actual classroom (student teaching/field experience).

Unless he is saying that "traditional teacher programs" do require classroom experience, but that isn't working either. If that is the case, than this really scares me:

"In general the evidence from methodologically solid studies is not encouraging in terms of the value of traditionally prepared teachers being more effective relative to those coming through other routes."

So, if what I am in is a "traditional" teacher training, am I essentially waisting my time? Is my program doing me very little good other than helping me get certification? I have to say that my training so far has given me a lot more confidence in my ability to enter a classroom and teach (certainly more confidence than before I started in my program).

I understand the current trend of looking for new and radical ways of doing things in education, and I am certainly not against that (we do need a major paradigm shift in education). But I also worry that more traditional methods might be labeled as obsolete, and thrown away. Certainly, traditional teaching programs (like, I suppose, the one I am in) still holds some merit and credibility. Perhaps I am just hoping that my current program is actually going to help me be a better teacher.