Tout le blogs, following Politics K-12’s lead, note that Linda Darling-Hammond will not be joining the Obama administration as many expected, but has instead opted to remain at Stanford. Another interesting LDH note appeared in the form of a letter to the editor of this morning’s Boston Globe. Titled “Knowledge, skills are not mutually exclusive goals” Darling-Hammond responds to a recent op-ed by Kathleen Madigan of the Pioneer Institute:
We note that many of the Core Knowledge schools of E.D. Hirsch, whom Madigan cites in her attempt to polarize, develop solid knowledge and rigorous thinking skills through a project-based curriculum, defying the silly idea that we can’t develop both knowledge and skills in our schools.
I’m not sure where Professor Darling-Hammond (and DFER’s Joe Williams, who helped author it) got the idea that the Core Knowledge curriculum is “project-based” (it’s up to teachers to use their professional judgement to decide how to teach the material), but her observation that solid knowledge and rigorous thinking skills are not mutually exclusive is certainly welcome–as is her citing the accomplishments of Core Knowledge schools.
Alas, several reports cite a seriously ill family member as a prime reason for Darling-Hammond staying in California. We pray it proves to be not serious, and wish her well.
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.”
For months, Democrats have been squabbling back and forth as to what Barack Obama really believes on education. Is he a reformer? Is he for school choice, charters, accountability? Or is he a traditional democrat, who will echo the teacher’s unions positions on NCLB, merit pay and other issues?
The whole ”reformers vs. status quo” meme is a bit tired and something of a false dichotomy. You can favor accountability and still think NCLB is doing harm. There are legitimate reasons to oppose merit pay without being labeled a defender of the status quo. That said, those who thought Barack Obama was something new in the Democratic firmament are having an “uh-oh” moment with word that Linda Darling Hammond is Obama’s choice as his lead education advisor.
Fordham’s Mike Petrilli wonders if Obama will kill education refrom. Liam Julian, writing in National Review Online, looks at the appointment of the “self-described advocate of progressive education” and concludes that “so far, it seems, tradition trumps change.” American Prospect blogger Dana Goldstein calls the selection of LDH a conservative choice.
Not ideologically conservative, but rather, conservative in terms of what it says about Obama’s plans for education. Groups like Democrats for Education Reform – which favor charter schools and merit pay — have been hoping for Obama to embrace their agenda. And indeed, early in the primaries, Obama was booed at a teachers’ union event for saying he supported merit pay. But since he clinched the nomination, Obama’s statements on education have been more circumspect. The appointment of Darling-Hammond, a teacher quality expert who opposes merit pay and is more critical than supportive of NCLB, signals that Obama wishes to avoid a fight with the unions. He’ll spend his political capital on energy and health care instead.
My internet time waster of choice is the anagram server. Type in a name and in seconds it will summon up every conceivable acronym. It’s great for cheating at Scrabble. On a lark, I typed in Linda Darling Hammond. At the top of the list, it came up with: “Handmaid Ladling Norm.”
Time will tell.
Fordham’s Mike Petrilli, who seems to have turned all his thoughts of late to the machinations of a future Obama administration’s education policy, raises an interesting question about the place of Teach for America and other reform efforts in Obama’s pantheon.
On the one hand, Barack Obama has praised Michelle Rhee, the poster-child for Teach For America’s impact on American education. Several of his advisors are drawn from the group’s alumni and friends….So why on earth is the campaign allowing Linda Darling-Hammond to play surrogate for the Senator and say nasty things about TFA in high-profile events?
Darling-Hammond is TFA’s most notable critic, and has long argued that alternative certification programs ill-serve poor and minority children.
Someone—probably Barack Obama himself—is going to have to make a decision about whether to embrace reform (and in this case, TFA) or embrace the union-and-ed-school establishment (and in this case, LDH). If he wins the election and appoints Darling-Hammond to a senior position, we’ll know which way he’s decided to go.
Back in 2005, Darling-Hammond said of TFA, “While a band-aid on a bleeding sore is helpful in a crisis, healing wounds of inequality and poverty is also a policy problem worth solving.” Thus it’s likely that the scenario described by Petrilli will be portrayed as a false dichotomy. Still it’s safe to say there will be people with very different views of the world vying for a place at the table.
Recent Comments