In a letter to the New York Times, LDH takes issue with David Brooks' (and others') depiction of her as a non-reformer:
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.I sought to amend and reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act to incorporate these kinds of assessments, while preserving its commitment to closing the achievement gap and ensuring quality teachers. I have also fought to overhaul teacher education programs and close weak ones.
As director of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, I was an early advocate for cultivating and rewarding excellent teachers while dismissing those who, with mentoring, do not meet standards.
Real reform will require all of these things, plus the kind of unifying vision Barack Obama has demonstrated - moving beyond the polarizing debates that prevent us from working together to improve education.
Her dean at the Stanford ed school, Deborah Stipek,??comes to her defense too:
We do not need polemics or polarization or someone who will silence the voices of any group with a different point of view.Of the names that have been offered, Stanford University Professor Linda Darling-Hammond is the best qualified for such a leadership position. She has three decades of experience working to improve the quality of teaching, has worked with others to launch successful charter schools and innovative school organizations, has worked with leaders of major school districts across the country to implement fundamental district reform, and been the author of major policy pieces that have improved schools where it matters most - improving student learning. And, most important, she is deeply committed to making American education more equitable and successful for all our children.
The recent commentary have not been about education policy. They have been about politics. They are harmful, because they lead the conversation away from learning and onto divisive ideology. If this strategy wins out, we all lose.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board isn't so sure:
Darling-Hammond's early attacks on Teach for America, a nonprofit organization that recruits some of the brightest college graduates into the teaching profession, give us little confidence that she would support innovative approaches to education.
Here's the rub: while it's true that pure "ideology" can lead to bad policymaking, I don't see any mainstream organizations or leaders who are mere ideologues. Consider President Bush, who is??known to be a??strong conservative yet pushed to expand the federal role quite??dramatically. Concern about education "politics," however, is something much different. Dean??Stipek might believe??those politics??to be out of bounds, but if she thinks there isn't a relationship??between politics and policy, well, she needs to spend more time in the Stanford political science department.
The politics come down to this: our education system is a major employer. It offers pretty decent jobs. People who have those jobs understandably want to keep them.??Most should. Most should be rewarded with greater pay and??better working??conditions. But as in any??large organization,??there are some bad apples, and we're in the middle of a painful process in public education in trying to find effective ways to remove those bad apples, while encouraging lots of new talent to come into the system. The teachers unions are going??to naturally be wary of this, and push back??at every turn. And they have political power. So I would define a reformer as one who will "speak truth to power," and fight those entrenched interests in the cause of the greater good. Is??LDH such a reformer? Stay tuned for our next installment of "Questions for Linda Darling-Hammond."
