Last week's spate of articles and editorials clarified Linda Darling-Hammond's role as a lightning rod on the Obama transition team. Not surprisingly, her friends and backers are pushing back against the current "narrative" that she's anti-reform. Consider this letter to the editor, from Sam Chaltain of the lefty (George Soros-funded) Forum for Education and Democracy, printed in today's Washington Post:
The claim that Ms. Darling-Hammond represents the "status quo" is ludicrous. Indeed, she has been an articulate advocate for young people throughout her professional life.She was the founding executive director of the National Commission for Teaching and America's Future, a panel whose work catalyzed major policy changes to improve the quality of teacher education. She has been a powerful voice for the fundamental principle that all children deserve a well-prepared and properly supported teacher. She has advocated for strong accountability and has offered thoughtful alternatives -- a balanced system of measures to evaluate higher-order thinking skills. And she has urged federal policies that would stop the micromanagement of schools and start ensuring educational equity -- an issue only the federal government can tackle.
OK, let's take these claims that she's "pro-reform" seriously. In coming days we'll pose a series of questions for LDH, perfect for a confirmation hearing if she were to get nominated to a senior position. We'll rely especially on what she's written over the years. (I understand that sets a dangerous precedent. If I'm ever crazy enough to go back to government--and some Administration is ever crazy enough to accept me--surely I'll be asked why I hate fat teachers.)
Today's edition will examine a couple of her statements from her 2004 chapter in Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. (Actually just the first few pages of this chapter, which are available on Amazon for free. Times are tough, even in think-tank land.)
1.???????????? Dr. Darling-Hammond: You wrote that No Child Left Behind "layers onto a grossly unequal--and, in many communities, inadequately funded-school system a set of unmeetable test score targets that disproportionately penalize schools serving the neediest students" (p. 4). In which states do you think test score targets are "unmeetable" by the neediest students? Are you aware that several studies have found most state standards and test "cut scores" to be set at laughably low levels? Do you think needy students are incapable of reaching even these minimal standards?
2.???????????? Dr. Darling-Hammond: About the NCLB law, you wrote that "Some believe this is a prelude to voucher proposals aimed at privatizing the education system" (p. 4). Do you include yourself among the "some"? If so, how do you explain the law's strong support from the chairman of this committee, Senator Edward Kennedy, as well as most of the Democrats on this panel? Do you believe that we are committed to "privatizing the education system"?
3.???????????? Dr. Darling-Hammond: You consistently point out the inequities in our school system, and complain that federal funding (less than 10 percent of what's spent on k-12 education) is too little to correct the awful conditions in many schools (p. 8). How much federal money would be enough? Another $25 billion? (That would push the federal share close to 15 percent.) Another $50 billion? (20 percent) And in the meantime, are you proposing to scrap the accountability provisions associated with the law?
If you have additional questions for a future iteration of this feature, send them in!
