Arne Duncan, One Year Later

In Dec of 2008, President-Elect Barack Obama nominated Arne Duncan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Public Schools, as Secretary of Education. I wrote a blog post containing a little predictions of what this assignment competence meant for the tutorial policies of the Obama administration. You can find which post here:

http://educationpolicyblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-arne-duncan-means-for-educational.html

Duncan “sailed” by his acknowledgment hearings prior to the U.S. Senate, and was reliable on the day which Obama was inaugurated. That was one year ago, yesterday.

One year later, as the republic participates in an estimation of Obama’s initial year, the preparation media have been you do the same with courtesy to tutorial policies. Education Week, in particular, has a square entitled “Duncan Carves Deep Mark on Policy in First Year,” published in yesterday’s imitation edition. The essay focuses on Duncan’s supervision style, his process priorities, and the critique he has received.

Reading the Education Week square caused me to go at the back of and examination the reflections and predictions which I finished in my post at the back of in Dec of 2008.

Back then, I listed the following preparation which might have led to Obama’s preference of Duncan notwithstanding his miss of precision hold or modernized degrees in education:

• Duncan is a unqualified diplomat.
• Duncan is smart. He listens.
• Duncan is a pragmatist.
• Duncan is not customarily pragmatic, but he is additionally independent.
• He plays basketball….
• His kids go to the same public propagandize as my son does and daughter did.

The final dual “qualifications” were dictated partly as tongue-in-cheek, and, of course, once Duncan altered to Washington DC the final gift ceased to be true. However, I hold which the initial year has borne out the initial 4 of my qualifications, with may be the following qualifications:

1. At the Chicago Public Schools, Arne’s initial shortcoming was generating a open notice (especially between the center class) which CPS was operative tough to urge a little of the most deplorable schools in America. He succeeded in which charge by formulating “spin” of assorted kinds of interpretation which emerged about the schools, by being “hands-on” in the clarity which he was peaceful to go out to communities and schools and privately confront outspoken relatives and pick critics, and by his genius to set upon people as a “nice guy” even whilst pulling a little ideas which have been not zodiacally popular, such as shutting underperforming schools and augmenting the purpose of corporate and in isolation partners in the schools. To a large extent, these qualities have one after an additional in his purpose as U.S. Secretary of Education, with one vital difference: Duncan is no longer focusing on bureau building up the image of a sold propagandize system; rather, his public-relations plea is credible people outside of education which the Department of Education is critical about tutorial reform. The open at large is assured which American schools (in general) have been flattering bad, and they wish Duncan’s Department to do something about that, or at slightest crop up to be you do something. Specifically, the open at large is careful of tutorial professionals (especially professors of clergyman preparation and teachers unions, but additionally together with teachers in ubiquitous and propagandize district officials especially). Duncan has managed to remonstrate most corporate interests which the Department is, in fact, peaceful to criticise those allegedly confirmed tutorial professionals, and has managed to have have use of of the precedence of brand new appropriation to start tutorial policies in a series of states, together with Illinois. Teachers and (especially) professors of preparation I know have been visibly shaken about the bulletin which Duncan is pushing, but this doesn’t crop up to worry Duncan at all or, for which matter, Duncan’s boss. (The stroke of this on open await for Obama’s policies by these traditionally magnanimous constituencies should not be underestimated.)

   Just as an aside, Duncan’s open family efforts have been managed by Peter Cunningham (no propinquity to this author), who additionally managed open family when Duncan was at CPS.

2. Duncan has proven his comprehension in countless open appearances prior to opposite constituencies. Even when he went to Teachers College in New York to verbalise about the hurdles faced by clergyman education, he demonstrated a organisation learn of the story of preparation (while additionally generating substantial doubt about his prescriptions). Also, at slightest according to the Education Week essay referred to above, he listens, at slightest to his staff, and to those interests (corporate, philanthropic) which await his policies. The initial organisation which Arne does NOT crop up to be listening to (much) have been tutorial professionals; indeed, Arne’s clearly self-willed efforts to pull his bulletin crop up to be written (from a open family standpoint. at least) precisely to send the outline which the customarily suspected confirmed interests aren’t going to be listened to at all unless they shift their tunes. What’s more, Duncan’s closest advisors have been additionally not tutorial professionals. Overall, the Department has mostly turn focused on regulating the change to criticise their power. This doesn’t seductiveness to the preparation professionals, who right away ordinarily speak, as my co-blogger Barbara Stengel put it in a recent comment here, of “the implausible disappoint[ment] which the Obama/Duncan system of administration department have brought with them.” But if it’s customarily the preparation professionals who have been unhappy with the administration’s policies, may be that’s a great thing from Duncan’s perspective.
3. When I pronounced which Duncan was a “pragmatist,” what I meant was which he isn’t generally ideological, and embraces ideas (such as corporate-run licence schools and clergyman consequence pay) which aren’t indispensably embraced by liberals. Or, as the New York Times put it with courtesy to his acknowledgment hearing, “Mr. Duncan laid out a entirely useful and non-ideological tutorial agenda, vowing to do “anything which works” to lift feat in open schools.” In which sense, Duncan is useful not in the philosophical clarity (of Pierce, James, and Dewey), but in the some-more usual parlance of “hardheaded,” or “guided by unsentimental hold and courtesy rsther than than theory” (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pragmatic). Again, I think that’s what the open at large wants, given the open mostly distrusts tutorial theory, given speculation is what allegedly leads to such “disruptive” and “despised” tutorial innovations as the Life Adjustment Curriculum and New Math.
4. Duncan’s independence, which I spoke of a year ago, is most concretely demonstrated by his outspokenness, generally when articulate to preparation professionals. As the Education Week essay put it:
   

   “He told representatives to the National Education Association’s annual gathering in San Diego final summer which teachers should be evaluated and paid formed in partial on tyro opening and which clergyman reign indispensable to be changed.

   “In October, he went to the University of Virginia’s preparation propagandize and delivered a little oppressive remarks on clergyman colleges, describing them as the “Bermuda Triangle” of aloft education.

   “His outspokenness shows no pointer of slackening.”

   Less transparent is how eccentric Duncan is of the corporate and munificent interests which he seems to be catering to in his policies and tone. Some (also here and here and here and here) contend Duncan is unequivocally a corporatist at heart, looking to serve pull schools toward apropos the precision drift of workers (including the military) and consumers. Duncan himself denies the label, preferring instead to publicly welcome (as he put it in his speech to Teachers College) “America’s need and a open school’s requisite to learn all students, all students to their full potential” as the initial component of the “dream of subsequent to tutorial opportunity.”

All-in-all, i think I did flattering great on the preparation (or, some-more neutrally, the “qualities”) which Arne brought to the Secretary’s job. However, I’m broke to contend which I flubbed up the most critical of my expected implications:

“1. NCLB will be drastically restructured to concentration on supports for alleviation rsther than than disastrous consequences for failure.”

Um, …. …..what?!? I was prosaic out wrong on this. Duncan seems unequivocally most UN-interested in becoming different the simple have up of NCLB, and in actuality has embraced the idea of standards (and, by implication, standardised tests….even inhabitant standardised tests) to a grade which has astounded me and unhappy many. Indeed, it seems right to contend (with Henry Giroux) that

“While President Obama and his cabinet member of education, Arne Duncan, have focused on open education, they have finished so by mostly embracing the Bush administration’s viewpoint of tutorial reform, which includes some-more testing, some-more empirically formed burden measures, some-more licence schools, some-more troops academies, defining the purpose of preparation in mostly mercantile terms, and punishing open schools which do not magnitude up to high-stakes contrast measures.”

This, whilst appearing to be understanding of creation and approved education, at slightest for the great of those who unequivocally do not know what the burden system of administration department does to low-income schools.

My subsequent 3 predictions fared most better:

“2. Opponents of licence schools have mislaid a outrageous battle. Their enlargement will go on dramatically.

“3. Urban propagandize districts will embrace special courtesy from Washington.

“4. Washington will right away proceed to pull a longer propagandize day and longer propagandize year, and the open will be kindly pressured to force the unions to accept this but removing aloft pay.”

I think the jury is still out on my fifth prediction:

“5. Funding for tutorial investigate will no longer be scored equally to ideological criteria such as “evidence-based” practices. Rather, investigate will be judged in conditions of the expected great to universal issues of tutorial practice.”

I was utterly gratified which John Easton, before carry out of the Chicago Consortium on School research, was allocated to lead the Institute of Education Sciences, given John knows utterly great the dangers dark in the presumably “scientific” notions at the back of “evidence-based practice,” generally the expectancy which all efficacy investigate will have have use of of randomized carry out trials. Indeed, John has indicated that he will concede a accumulation of investigate methods, but has emphasized which “methodological rigor” will go on to be a initial seductiveness pushed by IES. (What which unequivocally equates to is reduction clear.) John’s initial bulletin seems to be to enlarge the genius of internal schools and districts to carry out their own research, and the importance of newly voiced accede to programs seems to be on ensuring which schools or propagandize districts have been the initial customer of IES-funded projects, rsther than than simply adding to the bottom of knowledge.

My sixth rsther than flippant prophecy was simply boneheaded (although Obama himself had claimed during the debate which he would do this):

“6. The bowling alley in the White House will be transposed with a Basketball Court.”

The thing is, there has been a basketball justice on the drift of the White House given 1991, and the bowling alley (which is in the White House groundwork underneath the North Portico) simply doesn’t have the roof tallness required for basketball.

Finally, and sadly, I was utterly wrong on my seventh prediction, that

“Barbara Eason-Watkins, who has been the still but in effect and unaffected Chief Education Officer of the Chicago Public Schools for the past 6 years, will turn Chicago Schools Chief.”

Instead, Mayor Daley picked an additional untested chairman from outward of the preparation profession, Ron Huberman, who’s initial stroke on CPS so far has been his clever await for year-round schooling, along with the proclamation of low cuts in staff at the executive office, a move necessitated by a appearing bill deficit. What this signaled to me is which Daley likes carrying non-educators as CEO of CPS (Vallas, afterwards Duncan, right away Huberman), if customarily given such leaders have larger seductiveness with the middle-class electorate which Daley wishes to appease. (More on Huberman at an additional time.)

So, in summary, I think I was right about because Duncan was picked (and I think he’s you do only what Obama wants him to do), but my success at presaging implications was not generally good, with 3 being flattering mark on, 3 being passed wrong, and one still unclear.

Implications

So sufficient about the correctness of my predictions and on to some-more critical matters. Should we be unhappy in what we’ve seen from the Obama administration department department with courtesy to preparation policy? I’d contend which subject is a difficult one, and it depends (as most process questions do) on the perspective.

Are we happy with the critical purpose which colleges and universities fool around in clergyman preparation in the U.S.? If so, we have been expected frightened and indignant about Duncan’s efforts to await pick acceptance routes, generally those which miss university partners.

Do we think which inhabitant standards will lead fundamentally to inhabitant standardised tests which will serve eat away the genius of teachers and internal propagandize districts to concentration on tutorial outcomes which have been not tested (or even testable)? If so, we ought to be angry about Duncan’s stability await of the burden structures of NCLB.

Are we doubtful (or utterly derisive) of the explain which tutorial outcomes will urge customarily when teachers have been evaluated (and paid?) according to the scores their students embrace on standardised tests? Then we should be unequivocally unhappy in Duncan, and should be you do all probable to criticise Obama and Duncan, to relieve their impact.

Certainly between my unequivocally magnanimous colleagues in aloft preparation and K-12 schools, fear, anger, and beating have been widespread. Among this group, this is not “change we can hold in.” But this organisation is additionally held in a outrageous bind: the customarily viable domestic pick to Obama is the regressive wing of the Republican party, whose antithesis to illness caring reform, stem-cell research, happy and lesbian rights, humanities funding, and certain movement programs have been even scarier than their all-too-familiar call for vouchers so which open supports can go to eremite schools. At slightest Obama is on the magnanimous (if politically pragmatic) side of the line on these issues.

So, what do we do? Until the American open understands the the purpose of open schools is essentially to await democracy (in the Deweyan clarity of which word), inhabitant preparation process will go on to be dominated by corporatist and regressive interests whose initial bulletin is to remove “entrenched interests” (especially those in Washington) from carry out of schools. The agenda can be settled simply, in Ronald Reagan’s terms:

“I hold which parents, not government, have the initial shortcoming for the preparation of their children. … So, we’ll go on to work in the months forward for thoroughfare of fee taxation credits, vouchers, tutorial assets accounts, intentional propagandize prayer, and abolishing the Department of Education. Our bulletin is to revive peculiarity to preparation by augmenting foe and by strengthening parental preference and internal control.”

Reagan’s prophesy is constrained to most people, who love to hold which all relatives have been improved matched to have tutorial decisions than all tutorial professionals, which “local control” of schools is regularly improved than sovereign carry out (a on all sides well-articulated by Diane Ravitch), and who boot the critical purpose which corporations fool around in moulding parental expectations and beliefs. Education professionals have been most less expected to put such conviction in relatives or to boot the pervasive change of corporations. If we have been dauntless sufficient to confess it, we will contend which we’ve seen the implausible stupidity and gullibility of most parents, and we’ve seen the inauspicious goods on the nation’s schools of the bequest of internal control, and we’ve fought again and again to assistance adults to assimilate the attribution goods of corporatism on American education. But to do so would be to confess to the open which we are, in fact, “liberal” elites who hold which the higher preparation and recognition of investigate and time outlayed in schools gives us a larger genius to have tutorial decisions than the normal parent. But to do so would be, fundamentally and may be deservedly, to strengthen the public’s perception, articulated so great by William F. Buckley, which ” “I’d rsther than certitude the supervision of the United States to the initial 400 people listed in the Boston write office than to the expertise of Harvard University.” The public, you see, only doesn’t certitude well-educated people.

And Arne Duncan, allegedly the Secretary of Education, but some-more fairly called the Secretary of Public Perception of Education, understands that.