Tired of being a pinata, Linda Darling Hammond takes to the New York Times this morning to defend herself from David Brooks’ charge that she is “anti-reform.” Says Obama’s point person on education:
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.
Isn’t ”if you’re explaining you’re losing” a cardinal rule of politics? The subtext of her letter is really more about who gets to claim the mantle of “reformer.” The Los Angeles Times (HT: Flypaper) notes LDH’s well-publicized criticism of Teach For America ”give us little confidence that she would support innovative approaches to education.” The paper isn’t giving blanket support to the self-described reform camp, however, noting that while it would be a shame for the reform movement to lose momentum, ”reformers must be open to how badly No Child Left Behind itself needs reform.”
“After years of public battering, schools need a leader who is less an ideologue than a pragmatist,” the Times concludes, “who puts children ahead of both union and political priorities.”
Darling-Hammond’s recent most recent responses to TFA have been more nuanced and less “harsh” than many bloggers and journalists acknowledge.
Comment by Claus — December 12, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
There’s also an op-ed in today’s San Francisco Chronicle by Dr. Deborah Stipek of Stanford’s Grad. School of Ed. touting Dr. Darling-Hammond as an education reformer.
Comment by Crimson Wife — December 12, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
I found Darling-Hammond’s letter welcome push-back against the tendency of right-of-center, anti-union, pro-NCLB policy types to try to monopolize the term “reform.”
One of the real problems with that view of reform is that it defines almost everyone who works in actual schools (except for a few favored charter schools) as part of the status quo and therefore not worth listing to — which tosses out a lot of insight and expertise.
Comment by Rachel — December 12, 2008 @ 9:02 pm