In a recent interview, which I read on the online Kalamazoo Gazette, the new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan itemized some of the changes he will be making in American education in the next 4 years. 

Duncan promises “sweeping reforms in American education over the next four years. ”  Some of these, with my comments following appear below. 

Actually, just to talk about the idea of “sweeping reforms..” I don’t know.  I mean, I know that some reforms are necessary (don’t forget, I teach them once they get out of public high school), but not just any old reforms will do.  Not all ideas about public education are good ones.

Anyway, moving on with Duncan’s comments:

• Duncan said repeatedly that there needs to be more transparency in education so that parents can recognized which schools are effective and which are failing. He criticized state-standardized tests, for instance, for in effect dumbing down their tests so that most students pass the exams. “I fundamentally believe we are lying to children and lying to parents” through the state assessment tests, he said. “In far too many places, parents are being told their children are meeting state standards when, in actuality, those children are barely able to graduate high school and are not ready for a competitive state college.”

Amen, brother.  I teach at Podunk Community College; we do our best, but it’s not exactly Ivy League.   The fact that my students have all graduated public high school or gotten GEDs has no bearing on whether they can read or write. 

And different students have different learning styles; some are excellent test-takers, and some aren’t.  I was always a brilliant test-taker, but my sister wasn’t, which only means that I took tests better.  Not exactly a skill that employers have much use for.

• On No Child Left Behind, Duncan said that he’s likely to scrap the name, which he called “toxic,” and revamp many of the provisions. He said that while the law has been effective in highlighting the gap between white and minority children and between middle-class and low-income students, he doesn’t like how it allows every state to set its own standards. He also said he’s likely to define success more on graduation rates than test scores, as well as how many students need remediation when they go to college.

I think that all our flashing red lights should be going off when a government official starts saying that the states have too many rights and too much control over their own lives.  The more the central goverment grasps for control, the more scared we should be. 

I don’t quite get what’s so “toxic” about the name No Child Left Behind, either.  I don’t want any children left behind.  I know the law is problematic in a lot of ways, especially where lack of funding is concerned, but really, the name is the least of its problems.

• On the need for better evaluation of teachers: “We need to be much more candid about teacher evaluations,” he said. “We need to measure classroom success in terms of teacher effectiveness. Outcomes matter.”

Outcomes certainly do matter–even more than test results.  Teachers would love it if we all said that and backed them up in it.  But teachers are already evaluated excessively.  Why don’t we try evaluating parents for a while?  After all, studies have shown that kids with involved parents do better in school.

• On the need to identify and restaff failing schools: “If a school is given a chance and hasn’t made meaningful progress, then the adults need to leave,” he said.  A key is the need to “get the best and brightest teachers in front of the kids who are historically underserved. … I think talent matters tremendously,” he said.

Those kids are historically underserved because their communities have no money to pay the brightest and best teachers.  Where’s the funding going to come from?

• On Michigan’s new high school graduation standards and fears it will raise the dropout rate: “I predict those fears will be proven wrong,” he said. “Every time I know of where the bar has been raised for students, it’s actually reduced the dropout rate.”

Can I get a witness?  The truth is, that when expectations are raised, people raise their efforts to meet them.  High expectations actually convey to people that we think highly of them, we know they can do this, and they have something to offer.  Kids who drop out because standards are raised were already looking for an excuse anyway.

•  On preschool reform: “We’ve got $5 billion on the table to dramatically improve access and dramatically improve quality. If this is just glorified babysitting, then we’re not going to make a difference,” Duncan said.

As long as young families are forced to send two parents into the work force just to survive, preschool will be glorified babysitting.  Sometimes kids get something out of it, but how can we even talk about what preschool is for unless young parents actualy have a choice in whether their kids should participate? 

• On higher education: His budget calls for the federal government to stop subsidizing banks that offer student loans and redirect that money into government loans and grants. He also said he plans to use “carrots and sticks” to urge colleges to cap tuition increases.

As the system stands right now, the lender is private, but the loan is guaranteed by the government.  How would getting money directly from the government improve that?  I’m wary because the government can tie loan money to all sorts of conditions that the banks won’t. 

And though I have at least one kid within sight of college, I’d want to know more about those tuition caps.  As a college teacher, I can tell you, we’re not the ones making the big bucks, but we’re sure the ones whose salaries don’t get raised when money’s tight. 

So, lots to think about where these new education reforms are concerned.  Some of Duncan’s ideas seem pretty intelligent, and some seem a little more troubling.  Let’s all of us keep our eyes on this as Duncan works on this for the next 4 years.

Related posts:

1. Kids and Cheating
2. Parents’ Involvement in Kids’ Education