So, Biden’s pick for Secretary is a bit controversial. I don’t know Miguel Cardona, but my feeds over the last week have been filled with opinions from pleasantly surprised, to disappointment, to folks just happy that Betsy Devos will be leaving the post. I’m actually not interested in providing an opinion on whether or not he’s a good pick, I’ve never met him. I would, however, love to do some thinking about the philosophies and qualities we hope a US Secretary of Education would have, and I would also love to see the Biden administration’s guiding principles on selecting this very important role. Public education is not just about helping students learn academic skills. A great deal of it is the socialization of the next generation. It’s not a position to take lightly.
I’ll start our list with someone who understands the very real harm standardized tests cause. These tests not only serve as barriers for students to access high quality learning opportunities, but they also distract us from honest conversations about the quality of our schools. I’m not interested in someone who will create interventions in order to close the mythical achievement gap. High scores on a test is not the goal. Engaged, collaborative, well-adjusted, thoughtful, resilient, resourceful, active citizenry*...that’s the goal. We deserve a Secretary of Education that will stand up to the Education Industrial Complex.
Gary, what are a couple qualities or mindsets you hope our next Secretary of Education has?
Gary: I feel like Jane and Michael Banks, writing their advertisement for a nanny in Mary Poppins. I would love love love a Secretary who is willing and able to lead a conversation about why we are doing school. You write that “engaged, collaborative, well-adjusted, thoughtful, resilient, resourceful, active citizenry” is the goal, and I’m fairly certain not everyone agrees on that — even if they say they do. The fact that so many people are obsessively pressing for the reopening of schools during a pandemic leads me to conclusions, 1) people seem to think “school” is the point (the buildings, schedule, homework) and therefore 2) don’t really understand what “education” is for. You see this in all sorts of places. Just to give one example, there’s a thread on edutwitter about kids being required to ask permission to go to the bathroom in their own homes. We’ve joked about this, used it as a symbol of the diminishing structures of schools, and how absurd the pandemic reveals them to be, and yet it’s actually happening, in December 2020. A similar thing could be said about attendance, grades, dress codes, performative “respect,” resource scarcity, etc. The fact that the question everyone is asking is, “How do we get back to school?” rather than, “How do we facilitate the learning of kids?” says everything to me.
So, to bring it back to your question, I would hope for a Secretary who can ask that question and is willing to point out when we drift from our purpose. This would mean a non-technocratic Secretary, someone who recognizes the meritocracy for the grift that it is (see Michael Sandel’s, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good), and therefore someone who doesn’t fetishize “accountability.” I want a Secretary devoted to public education, students, and teachers … but not only if they come in the form of Public Schools that have regimented progressions and bell systems, batching kids by age (or “date of manufacture,” RIP Sir Ken). Hm, is that contradicting itself? Am I in danger of advocating for vouchers? Fingers crossed. I hope not.
Carisa: I hear you about the vouchers, sometimes when I read arguments advocating for them, I find myself agreeing with a lot of their frustrations with public school, AND I don’t think that running away from the problem with a solution that clearly privileges some is the answer, AND I think when we talk about accountability as a problem, we’re talking about the accountability created as a result of the United States’ culture of white supremacy and our particular brand of racism. Of course schools should be held accountable, just not to the measures our system is currently using, which leads us back to a conversation about standardized tests and other measures like graduation rates and college going rates. I’m more interested in what kind of communities our graduates help to build and maintain. I even think about students who are pushed out of high school (aka drop-outs). How do they contribute, how did their experience in school shape their commitment to community and their role in it?
I’m hoping that our education leaders can think longitudinally about our education systems. How do I know that a school is a good school? There are some things that you can see immediately, like learners experiencing joy, learners that are building and creating, that are giving back to their community and are practicing democracy in schools, and are active participants in their learning. And, there’s much to learn about post-secondary experiences that tell us if a school was a good school. I think of my own district where in the last decade, we’ve had more deaths due to suicide and drug overdoses of our young graduates than we really care to address. What is going on here, and how did school prepare or not prepare these young people for the difficulties of our man-made systems? How did our school systems contribute? Our electorate participation in local elections in most parts of our country is dismal. I also think of how many white adults, well into their middle ages are just now learning about how the systems in our country were built and how they function. We should have learned that in high school and yes, I know why we didn’t. I would be wildly excited and surprised if we had a Secretary of Education who was interested in some deep truth telling, reconciliation and reparations.
I really like this quote from Neil Postman’s book The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. Wouldn’t it be great for a Secretary of Education to subscribe to this philosophy?
“Public education does not serve a public. It creates a public. And in creating the right kind of public, the schools contribute toward strengthening the spiritual basis of the American Creed. That is how Jefferson understood it, how Horace Mann understood it, how John Dewey understood it, and in fact, there is no other way to understand it. The question is not, Does or doesn't public schooling create a public? The question is, What kind of public does it create? A conglomerate of self-indulgent consumers? Angry, soulless, directionless masses? Indifferent, confused citizens? Or a public imbued with confidence, a sense of purpose, a respect for learning, and tolerance? The answer to this question has nothing whatever to do with computers, with testing, with teacher accountability, with class size, and with the other details of managing schools. The right answer depends on two things, and two things alone: the existence of shared narratives and the capacity of such narratives to provide an inspired reason for schooling.”
*using citizenry in the very broadest sense of the term, if you’re a human on this planet, you’re a citizen