He was the odds-on favorite in this blog last week, and sure enough, the ninth United States Secretary of Education will be Arne Duncan.

The selection drew strong praise from both sides of the education reform debate, as evidenced by this press release issued by the "disrupter" group, Democrats for Education Reform, and this release from the traditional, "incrementalist" approach champion, the National Education Association. Both sides haled Mr. Duncan as a savvy choice who would put their proposals first--merit pay and charter schools for the "disrupters" and increased funding and teacher pay for the "incrementalists".

If I haven't made it clear before, let me say it again: both sides are not likely to be right regarding Mr. Duncan. With only a limited amount of political capital, not to mention money, available to spend on K-12 reform issues in his earliest days in the White House, President-Elect Obama will be hard pressed to devote the kind of attention that would be needed to appease both sides in this debate.

Arne Duncan has a history of working collaboratively with the unions to achieve some significant results for Chicago's school children during his seven years as CEO of the district, so the potential for success at the federal level certainly exists. But how will he fare when the first set of major challenges comes down the pipeline? For instance, will he consider it a greater priority to push broadly for full-funding of No Child Left Behind (the NEA argues that it is under-funded, when compared to authorization levels, by $71 billion), or will he use increased school funding as a carrot to get unions and other traditional stakeholders to accept change on teacher pay, charger schools, accountability, and other fronts?

To help shed some light on how Mr. Duncan may perform, I dug up this video on YouTube of testimony he gave before the House Education and Labor Committee this past summer on how to close the achievement gap:

Posted by Aaron Tang at 12:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As President-Elect Obama continues the roll-out of his high-profile cabinet, the education reform world--and then some--is waiting with bated breath to see who he will tab as the ninth Secretary of Education in United States history.

Just how closely are people paying attention to the choice? Quite a bit more than you might think: editorials and articles on the question of who the President-elect will choose have appeared, all within the past week, in the Associated Press, Newsweek (twice!) Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Denver Post, and the Huffington Post--and that's just a partial list!

Why is it so important? We are talking about the Secretary of Education here, not the Secretary of State or Defense, where headliners like Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates have been chosen by the Obama transition team, the former notable for her 18 million primary votes and the latter because he's a Republican who has served at the pleasure of outgoing President George W. Bush. In fact, I'd put a good wager that most readers would have a hard time naming more than two or three of the eight Education Secretaries our nation has had since the cabinet post was first created in 1979. (Give up? Check the answer list at the bottom of this entry)

So why are so many people paying such close attention to Obama's choice? Partly, one can only hope, it is because observers recognize just how important education reform is to the long-term health of our economy; indeed one could plausibly argue that if the $700 billion TARP bailout plan is Congress's attempt at a band-aid for our nation's economic outlook, the underlying cure can only come in the form of drastic improvement of our K-12 schools and institutions of higher education.

But more significantly, people are setting odds on Obama's Sec Ed choice because who he chooses will tell us far more about what kinds of policy changes and priorities to expect from the Obama administration than anything he has actually said in his life as a politician thus far. The reality is, candidate Obama had his cake and ate it too on the tough issues of education reform, supporting controversial plans like merit pay for teachers and school choice to the delight of reformers (or "disrupters", as chairman of the House education committee George Miller approvingly refers to them); while at the same time appointing pro-Union, establishment Stanford University professor Linda Darling-Hammond to chair his education transition team--a choice that caused near-panic among some die-hard members of the disrupter camp. (N.B. Rep. Miller refers to the latter group as "incrementalists" who support a slower, more measured pace of change in schools.)

The consensus is Washington is that if President-elect Obama chooses a reformer, it will be a powerful signal that the power of teachers unions over the Democratic party is over, and that the accountability systems ushered in under No Child Left Behind will be here to stay, at least in principle. But if he chooses a secretary from the education establishment, we're likely to see the same proposals that haven't done much good for children over the past few decades: protecting teacher tenure; opposing school choice for children in our lowest-performing schools; relying on schools of education to certify teachers; and increasing teacher pay at the discretion of union negotiators, regardless of student achievement.

So who are the leading candidates, at least in the eyes of the pundits? Here's a list along with odds that I'm setting (for recreational purposes only):

Arne Duncan (3:1) - One of the best compromise candidates available who would please both parties, Duncan has a successful record of reform as CEO of Chicago Public Schools but who has not made enemies with the unions in the process. Duncan also has the benefit of being a friend of Mr. Obama's from Harvard, and he has joined Mr. Obama on the basketball court from time-to-time.
Paul Vallas (15:1) - former Chicago and Philadelphia superintendent of schools and currently superintendent in New Orleans. Reform-minded and with a great deal of experience.
Michael Bennett (15:1) - a more controversial pick, Bennett is best known for his stewardship of the Denver Public Schools, which recently approved a teacher pay-for-performance plan that many of the teachers love even if the union dislikes it.
Joel Klein (10:1) - lightning rod reformer of New York City schools who is widely disliked by union types. His selection would be a major affront to the NEA and AFT, and a major victory for reformers.
John Schnur (50:1) - one of President Obama's chief education advisors during the campaign, Schnur is the head of New Leaders for New Schools and a widely respected thinker on education issues.
Linds Darling-Hammond (20:1) - the controversial Stanford professor who is the chair of the transition team on education. Her selection would please the powerful teachers unions but could incite a revolt among progressive education thinkers in the Obama camp.
Inez Tenenbaum (10:1) - former State Superintendent of Schools in South Carolina, Tenenbaum would be a favored choice among the incrementalist camp.
Some unnamed Governor (10:1)
Bill Gates (1000:1) - a long-shot, but a man who has shown tremendous interest in education policy issues through his foundation with a strong reform-minded angle.
Other (10:1) - possible short-list candidates include reformers Andy Rotherham, Kati Haycock, Michelle Rhee, Michael Johnston.

List of US Secretaries of Education in reverse chronological order: Margaret Spellings (2005 - present), Rod Paige (2001 - 2005), Richard Riley (1993 - 2001), Lamar Alexander (1991 - 1993), Lauro Cavazos (1988 - 1990), Bill Bennett (1985 - 1988), Terrel Bell (1981 - 1985), Shirley Hufstedler (1979 - 1981).

Posted by Aaron Tang at 05:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With a new administration preparing to enter the White House, I got to thinking about what we have seen change over the past eight years in federal education policy. There are some who argue that one of President Bush's most lasting legacies from his time in office will be his impact on K-12 and Higher Education. The President himself agreed with this assessment, referring to the No Child Left Behind Act as one of the "most significant achievements of my administration."

So what exactly will this legacy entail? It's hard to know for certain right now, since so much may change when the Obama administration tackles No Child Left Behind reauthorization, but there are at least a few lasting impacts that aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

One lasting impact is a heightened federal role in K-12 education policy. It's easy to forget just how tenuous was the authority and political support for the federal government to actively shape local and state level school policy. Take a guess as to when the following statement appeared in the Republican Party's National Platform:

“Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula... That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.”

1944? 1960? 1980?

Nope. How about 1996... just five years before President Bush took office and ramped up the federal government's "meddling" in schools to an unprecedented degree.

So historians will not be exaggerating in the future when they say that President Bush (43) was fundamentally responsible for ushering in a new, major role for the feds in school improvement efforts. But there's more to his legacy in education than simply ratcheting up the federal role in schools, there's the vital matter of how the feds are now involved in school policy that is equally paradigmatic.

The easiest way to characterize this fundamental shift in how the federal government approaches its role in improving education is to recall one of the best instances of rhetoric President Bush used during his time in office. Credit his speech writers for using the phrase, the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that plagued our schools. Put simply, perhaps the greatest legacy that President Bush will leave behind in K-12 education policy is the now-firmly entrenched role of the federal government in holding schools accountable for student success, no frills, no excuses. Prior to 2001, only a handful of states expected schools to show returns on public tax investments by way of student learning gains - now, school level accountability is the rule, even if an oft-derided one.

Courtesy of the Education Trust, I want to leave two images in closing to show exactly what President Bush was referring to by the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that absolutely must be eviscerated if all children in America are to receive the quality of educational opportunity they both need and deserve. You can compare and draw the conclusions for yourself by picturing, in your mind's eye, what kind of school handed out each of the two assignments:

Posted by Aaron Tang at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)