Linda Darling-Hammond strikes back
In a letter to the New York Times, LDH takes issue with David Brooks’ (and others’) depiction of her as a non-reformer:
Since I entered teaching, I have fought to change the status quo that routinely delivers dysfunctional schools and low-quality teaching to students of color in low-income communities. I have challenged inequalities in financing. I have helped develop new school models through both district-led innovations and charters. And I have worked to create higher standards for both students and teachers, along with assessments that measure critical thinking and performance.
I sought to amend and reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act to incorporate these kinds of assessments, while preserving its commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring quality teachers. I have also fought to overhaul teacher education programs and close weak ones.
As director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, I was an early advocate for cultivating and rewarding excellent teachers while dismissing those who, with mentoring, do not meet standards.
Real reform will require all of these things, plus the kind of unifying vision Barack Obama has demonstrated – moving beyond the polarizing debates that prevent us from working together to improve education.
Her dean at the Stanford ed school, Deborah Stipek, comes to her defense too:
We do not need polemics or polarization or someone who will silence the voices of any group with a different point of view.
Of the names that have been offered, Stanford University Professor Linda Darling-Hammond is the best qualified for such a leadership position. She has three decades of experience working to improve the quality of teaching, has worked with others to launch successful charter schools and innovative school organizations, has worked with leaders of major school districts across the country to implement fundamental district reform, and been the author of major policy pieces that have improved schools where it matters most – improving student learning. And, most important, she is deeply committed to making American education more equitable and successful for all our children.
The recent commentary have not been about education policy. They have been about politics. They are harmful, because they lead the conversation away from learning and onto divisive ideology. If this strategy wins out, we all lose.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board isn’t so sure:
Darling-Hammond’s early attacks on Teach for America, a nonprofit organization that recruits some of the brightest college graduates into the teaching profession, give us little confidence that she would support innovative approaches to education.
Here’s the rub: while it’s true that pure “ideology” can lead to bad policymaking, I don’t see any mainstream organizations or leaders who are mere ideologues. Consider President Bush, who is known to be a strong conservative yet pushed to expand the federal role quite dramatically. Concern about education “politics,” however, is something much different. Dean Stipek might believe those politics to be out of bounds, but if she thinks there isn’t a relationship between politics and policy, well, she needs to spend more time in the Stanford political science department.
The politics come down to this: our education system is a major employer. It offers pretty decent jobs. People who have those jobs understandably want to keep them. Most should. Most should be rewarded with greater pay and better working conditions. But as in any large organization, there are some bad apples, and we’re in the middle of a painful process in public education in trying to find effective ways to remove those bad apples, while encouraging lots of new talent to come into the system. The teachers unions are going to naturally be wary of this, and push back at every turn. And they have political power. So I would define a reformer as one who will “speak truth to power,” and fight those entrenched interests in the cause of the greater good. Is LDH such a reformer? Stay tuned for our next installment of “Questions for Linda Darling-Hammond.”
No related posts.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Subscribe
to Flypaper via RSS
December 12th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I would agree with your definition of a reformer. Trouble is, the “power” that needs some “truth” spoken to it is the already-entrenched system of standardized testing, etc., that has been solidified under NCLB. Who else being considered for this position has any truth to speak to this powerful system?
December 12th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Anyone who characterizes Linda Darling-Hammond as protector of the status quo clearly has not read her work, listened to her speak, nor spent any time with her. As near as I can see, she understands the failures for high-poverty children that status quo schooling has produced probably better than anyone, and she lays bare the flaws in proposed solutions that focus not on improving teaching and learning, but on manipulating teachers like pawns through rewards and punishments. What is more important is this: She has the capacity to envision pragmatic and powerful solutions and then lead groups of people to take actions that hold promise of professionalizing the teaching force. LDH has consistently argued against simple-minded solutions of all kinds not because she is a political ideologue, but because she relies on empiricism to draw her conclusions. Her bottom line is this: What can we do to support teachers in ways that lead to better teaching and learning? Standardized testing, merit pay, value-added oversight schemes, charter schools–where is the evidence that any one of these things has ever brought about large-scale improvements for disadvantaged children? We won’t reform American public education with carrots and sticks. We need informed intelligence and deep conceptual understanding at the helm. In many ways LDH brings to schooling the sort of nuanced, sensitive understanding that Barack Obama brings to federal government. LDH would be a great choice for secretary of education.
December 13th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Hey Terry, do you get paid by the word or are you a relative of Linda?
LDH is part of what’s wrong with the public education system in the U.S. and expecting her to fix its problems is merely evidence of either self-interest or ideology.
The public education system as it’s currently constituted is broken and that’s a fact that’s become inescapably clear to a significant percentage of the population, evidence the continued popularity of policies which cause you, and Linda Darling-Hammond, to recoil in horror.
Get used to the fact that you’re talking more and more to a smaller and smaller percentage of the public. The status quo public education system has offered self-serving solutions to the problems of its own creation for a very long time but that particular gravy-train is sagging to a stop.
The public, many of which graduated from high school with degrees they were incapable of reading, aren’t willing to bankroll ever higher funding levels without some evidence of efficacy so get used to that.
The public’s losing faith with a professional class that doesn’t, and won’t, be measured for efficacy. Get used to that as well.
The grand independence of public school districts, with their bland disinterest in proving their value, is slipping away in favor of schools that exist precisely because they can demonstrate they know what they’re doing. Another ugly fact for you to learn to live with.
You can take some comfort from the possibility that Obama will select an orthodox member of the public education status quo like Linda Darling-Hammond but don’t go to sleep comforted by the prospect of LDH’s obstruction of education reform because the people who want an education for their kids are still unhappy and getting unhappier.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I am a high school principal in California (and my own children are enrolled in a charter school). Terry has it exactly right about Linda Darling-Hammond: She agrees with Allen’s assessment that in many ways our current system is broken, but she has smart, constructive proposals for reform — just look at her writing and her long track record. I don’t understand where the ideological opposition to Linda’s candidacy is coming from. She is a real agent of change and would be an excellent pick for Secretary of Education.
December 14th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Her ideas about reform consist of more funding and less accountability. They may be tarted up enough to escape accusations of being too forthright but stripped of their camouflage they reveal that Linda Darling-Hamilton is a stalwart proponent of a public education system that is plenty “public”, not so much “education” and largely unchanged from the public education system of pre-charter days.