The Washington-area media is abuzz about the news that the University of Louisville is investigating the PhD awarded to Prince George’s County superintendent John Deasy. The Washington Post reports:

Deasy, leader of the 130,000-student system since 2006, was awarded a doctorate of philosophy in education in May 2004 after completing nine credit hours of work at the university — equivalent to one semester — in addition to 77 credit hours he earned from other schools. Deasy also wrote a 184-page dissertation.  

This is an outgrowth of a federal investigation of Deasy’s doctoral advisor Robert Felner, who is being questioned about “alleged misappropriation” of a large federal grant.

Deasy’s response was pitch perfect:

If the university made errors in the awarding of the degree, I do hope they rescind it. My responsibility is to do everything I was advised and told to do. If I was advised wrong and given wrong information, the university needs to take responsibility for that. I certainly would not want anything unearned.

I’ve only met Superintendent Deasy once, but have been impressed with his tenacious work reforming Prince George’s County schools. By all appearances he seems to be a dedicated public servant-a true boy scout. But I’ve seen close-up how the news media can treat public officials once they whiff a scent of scandal. Let’s all try to remember a few things. First: in this country, everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. And second, PhDs in education aren’t worth the paper they’re written on anyway. Who cares about the Superintendent’s credentials? I care about his results.

Over here, over there, those “right-wing thinktank[s]” are always so spot on. How do they do it? From The Guardian:

High-flying graduates should be encouraged to dip into teaching rather than commit to the profession for life, a right-wing thinktank has argued.

The Policy Exchange says would-be teachers should be given more opportunities to train on-the-job only, rather than on lengthy teacher training courses.

It also recommends schools opt out of national pay rules in England and lure the best teachers by offering them more money.

The report (pdf) is here.

Don’t miss this important new study by the National Council on Teacher Quality regarding the preparation of competent elementary-school math teachers. Titled No Common Denominator, it finds, after reviewing a national sample of ed-school-based undergraduate teacher prep programs, that fewer than 15 percent of them require enough of the right kinds of courses. It names names, too! It also makes a boatload of recommendations, nearly all of them contrary to current practice and some of them also contrary to conventional teacher-quality-reform wisdom. All this was unveiled earlier today (at a well-attended event on the roof of the Hotel Hay-Adams, looking down upon the White House itself). If you’d been there you’d have enjoyed a fine presentation by top NCTQ policy analyst Julie Greenberg. Second best is to read what she wrote—there are PDFs for the press release, executive summary, and full report (and a version with full appendices).

Nothing is more emblematic of the rampant intellectual incoherence and moral equivalence of our age than the current debate about whether Bill Ayers is a “terrorist.” Dean Millot at Edbizbuzz calls Mike a “McCarthyite”—one of the most vicious slanders in the political lexicon—for stating the obvious: Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who shouldn’t be part of the American Educational Research Association’s leadership team. Leaving aside the AERA issue (and I don’t think any respectable group should have a person who committed and championed violence to pursue political goals as a member, never mind as one of its leaders), how can Ayers’s actions as part of the radical Weather Underground not be categorized as terrorism?

”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Ayers told the New York Times in an interview published (of all days) on September 11, 2001. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.” Well, he and the Weathermen did plenty: They launched a series of bombings against New York City Police Headquarters, the Capitol building, and the Pentagon during the early 1970s. Their goal was to bring violent Marxist revolution and the Vietnam War to the streets of America—or as they frequently called it, “Amerika,” to connote its supposedly fascist underpinnings.

In 1970, Ayers summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ”Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.” Ayers now says his comments were a “joke” meant to stimulate discussion on the merits of wealth redistribution. Ha, ha. There is nothing funny about the comments—or about the Weathermen’s acts. Their embrace of political violence and revolutionary utopianism directly led to the 1970 deaths of Ayers’s then-girlfriend, Diana Oughton and two other people when bombs they were constructing mistakenly blew up in a Greenwich Village town house. After the incident, Ayers and his sidekick (later wife) Bernardine Dohrn went underground. The Weathermen subsequently committed 12 more bombings.

Read the rest of this post >>>

Dean Millot at Edbizbuzz seems to think so.

I’m tempted to leave it at that, because, as Millot himself implies, this debate is pulling us further and further away from education policy and more and more into the realm of the bizarre. But it’s not every day that I’m likened to one of the most despicable characters of the 20th century so, alas, let me respond.

Millot argues that the term “terrorist” is “hyperbolic” because the Weather Underground did not practice “the deliberate indiscriminate use of force against innocents to strike fear in the general public.” Instead, they “just” blew up government buildings, taking care not to injure anyone.

This strikes me as semantic jujitsu (the Weathermen did use violence to forward their political aims), but I’m certainly happy to concede that what Al Qaeda perpetrates, for example, is much, much, much worse.

Still, were the Weathermen’s actions defensible? Hardly. Sometimes we at the Fordham Institute are considered “bomb throwers”—but only figuratively. We tend to disagree strongly with the teachers unions, but it would be morally reprehensible for us to call on school reformers to bomb their headquarters, even in the middle of the night when no one could be hurt. That’s not how democracies are supposed to work.

Furthermore, Millot argues that Ayers was a “fugitive from justice,” but since all charges were dropped because of “prosecutorial misconduct,” he is presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.”

Yet in this article, Ayers is quoted as saying, “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. Isn’t America a great country?”

So yes, I think the American Educational Research Association might want to think twice before allowing a man who partook in political violence and refuses to apologize for it to join its leadership team. (As I explained on the Education Gadfly Show last week, I’m not arguing that the AERA should strip his membership because of his wacky educational views; if that were the standard, the group would have no officers.) In fact, if a young Bill Ayers walked into an education school wanting to be a teacher, I don’t think he would even qualify for that, under the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education’s “dispositions” standard, which all ed schools are supposed to apply to teacher candidates:

Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development.

Is using violence to promote your political beliefs a “value” that the education community wants to embrace? Is blowing up government buildings a “positive behavior”?

So yes, I think it’s less than ideal that our education system is willing to embrace Bill Ayers regardless of his past activities, for which he refuses to apologize. (And I’m hardly alone.)

And that, supposedly, makes me a McCarthyite. Millot writes:

Labeling someone who has never been found guilty of a violent crime—let alone terrorism, a “terrorist” is irresponsible. If it becomes socially acceptable for people in positions of responsibility who have the respect of a larger following to make such statements, I fear a return to the chilled atmosphere of policy discourse in the 1950’s called McCarthyism. “If you don’t agree with me, you must be a Communist—or in this case a terrorist (and I, by implication, must be a patriot).” This is truly a serious threat to a free society.

I didn’t call Bill Ayers a terrorist because I disagree with him, but because he blew stuff up to forward his political views. But fine, call him whatever you want. And while you’re at it, have the guts to say that an unrepentant bomber (is that better, Millot?) shouldn’t be welcomed with open arms by the education field.

Next question?

Back when the controversy over unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers exploded (no pun intended) in the middle of the 2008 Democratic primary, Senator Barack Obama used an unfortunate analogy to defend his association with the bomb-thrower:

The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George. The fact is, is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those either.

Umm, as about a million commentators said at the time, this is hardly moral equivalency. Ayers tried to blow stuff up and then refused to apologize for it. Coburn is making a public policy proposal. (One I’m not crazy about, by the way.)

But that hasn’t deterred Eduwonkette, the anonymous blogger and proud member of the American Educational Research Association. I wondered if she might want the governing council of that group to strip Ayers’s membership, before he takes office as one of its vice presidents. (See my post about that here.) Her response:

Mike believes that Ayers’ presence reflects badly on the whole association, but guilt by association is a shaky principle. I don’t judge Mike Petrilli, whose colleagues at the Hoover Institution include upstanding guys like Ed Meese and Donald Rumsfeld, based on his association with them, nor do I believe that AERA is tainted by having Ayers among its leadership. Mike might argue that Meese and Rumsfeld have records of accomplishment that justify their affiliation with Hoover. The same is true regarding Ayers and AERA.

The loony left’s “war criminals” charge against Rumsfeld aside, this is hardly moral equivalency, either. If Hoover puts a former terrorist on its board, I promise you, I won’t stand by idly and cheer.

Anyone who’s been following politics lately knows that Senator Barack Obama’s relationship with unrepentant bomber and former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers has become a matter of debate in the 2008 campaign.

What’s beyond debate, however, is Ayers’s connection to Arnetha F. Ball of Stanford University; Nancy Beadie of the University of Washington; Mark Berends of Vanderbilt University; Linda L. Cook of Educational Testing Service; David J. Flinders of Indiana University; Steve A. Henry of Topeka Public Schools; Joan L. Herman of the University of California-Los Angeles; Cynthia A. Hudley of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Carol D. Lee of Northwestern University; Richard E. Mayer of the University of California - Santa Barbara; Patricia S. O’Sullivan of the University of California, San Francisco; Robert J. Stahl of Arizona State University; William G. Tierney of the University of Southern California; Linda C. Tillman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Susan B. Twombly of Kansas University.

That’s because these are the members of the Association Council of the American Educational Research Association—a group that Ayers will join next year after his election in March as AERA’s Vice President-Elect of Curriculum Studies. (Hat tip to Sol Stern.)

The Council might consider whether it’s prudent to allow a former terrorist to join its ranks—particularly a man who said as late as 2001 that “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Here’s the good news: the Council has the authority to keep this development from happening. While AERA’s bylaws don’t mention any provision for removing elected officials from their positions, they do grant the Council the right to strip anyone’s association membership, which would have the same effect. The bylaws read: “If continued membership of any person is believed to be contrary to the interests or purposes of the Association, Council may terminate membership based on procedures established by the Council.”

Is there any doubt that the election of a former terrorist to the organization’s governance body is “contrary to the interests” of the Association?

Out of political necessity, Obama is already distancing himself from Ayers, and most likely will do more of that in coming months. When the AERA’s Association Council meets next month, it should do the same.

No, not Reverend Wright, but our favorite ed school professor, Bill Ayers.

* Friend of Barack Obama

Not so many moons ago, Boston University’s college of education was the brightest spot in the dim universe of U.S. ed schools, full of heterodox thinkers on important issues (e.g., Charles Glenn, David Steiner, Kevin Ryan, Steve Tigner). Some of those thinkers are still there, but the school’s leadership—recently in Glenn’s able hands on an “acting” basis—is about to be turned over to a far more orthodox sort.

Last month B.U. announced the appointment of Dr. Hardin Coleman, a psychologist specializing in counseling, currently at the University of Wisconsin, a well-known warehouse of conventional thinking. Coleman’s main stated interests are topics like “identity formation” among “culturally diverse” adolescents. He is reportedly hostile to charter schools and high-stakes accountability and just about everything else worth being in favor of nowadays—and just about everything that Massachusetts is celebrated for doing well.

As B.U. heads back into the ed school sheep pen, let’s at least note that it wasn’t always there and didn’t have to return.

According to Sol Stern, it’s not his (literal) bomb-throwing past but his (figurative) bomb-throwing present:

Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.... As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K-12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and... be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”

Nor is his thinking outside the “mainstream” of the ed school professoriate; Stern reports that Ayers was recently elected Vice President for Curriculum of the American Educational Research Association. Perfect.

OK, this time I’m talking about Linda Darling-Hammond. In a letter to the editor of the New Republic, she responds to Josh Patashnik’s article on Obama’s education plans. (He responds to the response here.) What LDH doesn’t address is this brilliant insight from an astute education policy analyst,* included in the original article, about why the Senator’s selecting Darling-Hammond as a top education advisor is worrisome:

She has spent almost two decades trying to kill Teach for America. It seems like a strange choice for him.

Instead she and Patashnik get into a boring discussion of the nuances of Obama’s pay-for-performance plan. What a missed opportunity.

* Yes, me.

No, I’m not referring to Linda Darling-Hammond, but to William Ayers, the “distinguished professor” at the University of Illinois-Chicago who first distinguished himself by blowing up a Greenwich Village townhouse while building a bomb. as a terrorist.* The media has been looking into Senator Obama’s connections to this former Weatherman for at least a week, and last night George Stephanopoulos brought it up at the Philadelphia debate. Obama’s response:

George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.

But he’s not a professor of English, he’s a professor of education. What other institution would give a former Weatherman a full professorship?

Nor are we late to this story; see Checker’s take on Ayers from 2001.

ADDENDUM: Sol Stern has covered the Bill Ayers story too.

* Multiple sources have informed me that Ayers wasn’t in the Greenwich Village townhouse that blew up, though he was implicated in several terrorist activities.