I was as surprised as anyone when Arne Duncan announced he was resigning as Secretary of Education. In retrospect, two obvious clues were staring us in the face: His family had moved back to Chicago, and he had hired John King, the former Commissioner of Education in New York and his education soulmate, to be his close advisor and assistant.  (King will succeed him, as Acting Secretary.)

Arne Duncan departs with quite a track record, clearly the most powerful Secretary of Education since the Department was created in the Carter Administration.  He took on for-profit colleges, he pushed hard for early childhood education and access to technology, and he spoke forcefully on issues that were only peripherally related–if at all–to education, such as gay marriage and gun violence.  He had the President’s ear and his trust. That, and Duncan’s remarkable basketball skills, displayed often, put education front and center.  That’s all good, a legacy to be proud of.

As CEO of the public schools in Chicago, Duncan had chafed under the directives of “No Child Left Behind” and its hundreds of pages of regulations.  I thought the lesson of NCLB was inescapably clear: Washington cannot run public education. However, Democrats, including Secretary Duncan, apparently reached a different conclusion: “Perhaps REPUBLICANS cannot run public education, but we can.”

So that’s another aspect of Arne Duncan’s legacy: Republicans and Democrats fight about everything else, but they agree that Washington is exerting too much influence over public education. The next federal legislation–if it should ever pass–will shift power back to the states, and the next Secretary of Education will arrive with wings clipped, unless Congress continues to fail to replace No Child Left Behind.

Because of Duncan, the next Secretary won’t have much money to play with either, because Congress will never again issue a blank check.  The ‘great recession’ bailout gave Duncan about $4.5 BILLION in discretionary money, dollars he used to create his “Race to the Top” program.

When that was announced, I called his Assistant Secretary for Communication, the smart and likable Peter Cunningham, to suggest that the Department allow us behind-the-scenes access, to document the process.  Cunningham grasped that this could insulate the Administration from criticism; after all, if the NewsHour reported it, how could anyone argue that it was a rigged game.  Peter said I should come to Washington to meet with the Secretary, which I did.  He signed on, and we began taping immediately.  Within hours, the project was aborted because, we were told, the Department’s top lawyer feared that opening this one unique process would set a precedent and therefore make all deliberations subject to review by the press (using the Freedom of Information laws).

I was disappointed, of course, because it would have been revealing to learn the ins and outs of Race to the Top, particularly how its criteria were decided upon.

You recall that Race to the Top established four criteria that states had to meet to qualify for the (much needed) money: better data, more charter schools, higher standards (i.e., the Common Core), and test-based accountability. That last innocuous sounding phrase means relying heavily student test scores to judge (and perhaps) fire teachers.  Dr. Terry Holland, who recently stepped down as Kentucky’s State Superintendent, calls that Duncan’s worst decision, and many agree.

The Secretary was fond of pointing out that, while most states did not get Race to the Top money, nearly all of them fell in line and changed their behavior, adopting his four criteria.  He had real power, probably more than all the previous Secretaries combined.

What if he had used that power differently?  What if the Secretary had told states that they would be evaluated on their commitment to art, music, science, and recess? Or to project-based learning?  Or social and emotional learning? Instead of today’s widespread teacher-bashing, excessive testing, test-prep, and a rash of cheating scandals, many more schools might be places of joy.

As he prepares to leave, I am struck by how much he seemed to change over the years.  When we produced a NewsHour profile of the new Secretary not long after his swearing in, he was comfortable and accessible.  Asked a question, he would answer it. No obvious list of ‘talking points’ and no obviously taboo topics.  Within a short time, however, (after some professional training, I assume), he had become accomplished at staying ‘on message.’ He knew how to dodge questions. He was skilled at taking one question and answering another, usually at great length.  In short, he became a frustrating interview, still likable, but dull.  Because he seems to be a genuinely interesting and nice person, I wonder about the price he paid for this transformation.

So rarely did he go off message that it became headline news when he slipped with a comment about white suburban moms and what he said was their unrealistic view of their children’s intelligence.

Some months ago The NewsHour approved my suggestion for a sit-down interview with the Secretary, a conversation about what he’d learned, what he saw coming down the pike with the Common Core, and so on.  Knowing his penchant for long answers, I told his PR people we’d need 45 minutes with him, and they initially agreed.  A week or so later we got the word that we’d have 30 minutes, and a few days later the time got whittled down further.   Instead we produced a feature piece about the Secretary and his influence over public education. We interviewed his critics on the left and right and an independent analyst with no skin in the game, to go along with our 15 or so minutes with Secretary Duncan.  I’m proud of the resulting piece, but we were basically frozen out by the Department from that point on.

The hottest issue for school boards, teachers, administrators and parents these days is standardized testing:

           “Is there too much of it?”

           “How much time is devoted to test prep?”

           “Why don’t we get the results for months?”

           “How are the results used?”  

For a growing number of parents, the biggest question of all: “Should we opt out?”

Unfortunately, an issue that is at least as important as testing is being set aside or, worse yet, being decided in the shadows.  I refer to technology: how it’s being used, how much it’s costing, and whether teachers are being prepared for its adoption.

My colleagues and I have spent more than a year digging into these issues, and what we learned is alarming: most schools and most teachers are not ready; school districts are spending billions and billions of dollars every year, often without a plan; and many school leaders seem inclined to treat technology as an extension of, or replacement for, textbooks and worksheets.  In other words, they’re going to make a bad approach to education more efficient!

Some so-called ‘virtual schools’ are ripping off the public; some publicly-funded charter schools are swapping out teachers for computers because, after all, education is merely ‘knowing the facts.’  And who needs art, music, sports and other frills anyway?

Here’s an invitation: give us 56 minutes, and we will give you the world (of technology in education).  We’ll show you the ugly, the bad, and–of course–the good.  When it’s in the hands of confident teachers, today’s technologies transform learning from ‘regurgitation’ into knowledge creation.  While there’s no one correct ‘blend’ for what’s often called blended learning, step one seems to be the willingness to give students more control over their own learning.

Here’s your invitation to a sneak preview:   The link is https://vimeo.com/122667211  The password is schoolsleuth123

Because the words ‘education’ and ‘educational technology’ can turn some people away, we decided to tell our story as a film noir parody, bringing back The School Sleuth.  Fifteen years ago he solved “The Case of an Excellent School.”

With the assistance of Dr. Ruth, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, this time around the aging and not-overly-bright detective cracks “The Case of the Wired Classroom.”

The film opens in a bar in New York City, where (added bonus) the sultry jazz singer is my daughter, who (with her musical partner, the piano player) wrote the song and all the music for the film.

“School Sleuth: The Case of the Wired Classroom” is being distributed by PBS, starting October 1. If you feel that the general public needs to know more about this multi-billion dollar business, please reach out to your local PBS station and ask those folks to schedule it…in prime time, preferably.  (The pbs.org website is a good place to look for information about your own station.)

Thanks very much

John (AKA The School Sleuth)

“Two of her public school teachers, to whom she remains close, saw her potential and helped put her on a path that eventually led her to Harvard.”   It’s very nearly a throwaway line that occurs early in Dale Russakoff’s remarkable new book, “The Prize.” The book is the story of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million donation to Newark’s public schools, but that particular line refers to Patricia Chan, who, after becoming the first in her family to attend college, became a pediatrician and later married Mr. Zuckerberg.  Read the book, but, first, let’s dig into that one sentence.

Two facts jump out at me. The first is a familiar story: good teachers change their students’ lives.  The second is less common, I suspect: Dr. Chan has remained close to those teachers. I infer that she reached out to express her gratitude and has continued the connection.  Bless her for that.  Just imagine how gratifying that has to be for her former teachers.

Have you done that?  The fact that you are reading this suggests that you care about education and that it worked for you, well enough for you to stay connected to the field.

Please close your eyes and picture the teacher(s) who changed your life for the better.  When I do that, I see Mrs. Peterson, my first grade teacher at Hindley School, and two high school English teachers, Mr. William Sullivan and Mr. Roland McKinley. Mrs. Peterson taught me to read and made me feel safe, and the two men pushed and prodded and encouraged me to aim higher and write more clearly.

I was able to say ‘thank you’ in person to just one of them, Mrs. Peterson, and will go to my grave regretting never having expressed my gratitude to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. McKinley.

Have you reached out?  I promise that, if you do, your gesture will mean the world to the men and women who taught you so effectively.

I know this from a personal experience. As you may know, I retired from the PBS NewsHour and Learning Matters at the end of July. I announced the move in this blog.

In response, I received a few hundred emails. While one or two said, ‘About damn time,’ most comments were gracious.  No response surprised me more than a letter–out of the blue–from a former student of mine at Paul D. Schreiber High School in Port Washington, New York, where I taught English in 1964-65 and 1965-66, right after graduating from college.

Dear John (Mr. Merrow),

You were my high school English teacher at Schreiber, and I was your least successful (at at the time) student (much later diagnosed with learning disorders), but of all the teachers I’ve ever had, you made the most indelible impression. You made every book, poem and story come alive, approaching each one from open angles and creating lots of room for opinion and broad discussion. You taught me how to think, approach challenge, voice opinion and appreciate others’ points of view, not to mention instilling pretty good grammar and spelling skills!

I mean this honestly: her words mean more to me than any of the stuff that has come my way during my 41 years of reporting, which includes a couple of Peabody Awards, the George Polk Award, the McGraw Prize and some honorary degrees. One student cared enough to reach out and recall what happened in my classroom 42 years ago, and my heart swells with pride every time I read her words.

Teachers put up with a lot of bashing from politicians and test score fetishists.  Perhaps those of us who appreciate teachers (a majority, according to the latest PDK/Gallup poll) should make an effort to reconnect with the teachers who helped shape our lives.  Do that, and you will make their day/week/year, I promise.  And if enough of us do this, perhaps we can begin to turn the tide.

If you cannot find contact information for the teachers you want to connect with, please consider posting your words of praise and appreciation on this blog for others to read.  In these days of social media, your words may eventually make their way back to your teachers.

Thanks,

John

BAD NEWS FOR TESTING ADVOCATES

It only gets worse for testing advocates, who cannot seem to get out of their own way.  First we learned that 20% of 3rd-8th grade students in New York State opted out of the state testing this Spring, and now two national polls show that even more than 20% of adults approve of opting out.   Bear in mind that current federal law requires that 95% of students be tested. Districts where more than 5% of students opt out can be punished.

The annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup poll reports that 41% approve, while a poll conducted by EdNext puts the figure at 25%. Some who oppose opting out are spinning this as a defeat for the protestors because more oppose opting out than support it, but that’s just plain silly because of the fed’s 95% rule.  Both 25% and 41% are a long long long long way from 5%.

What’s even more revealing is how tone deaf the testing advocates seem to be.  Saying stuff like “Yes, perhaps there are too many tests, but these tests are important so please don’t skip them,”  That’s not leadership. Strong leaders would be taking steps to reduce the number of tests and suggesting alternatives ways of assessing.  Other so-called leaders are issuing vague threats against parents and educators who support opting out, which is never a good idea.

NPR’s reliable Anya Kamenetz has written a interesting analysis of the two polls, cleverly called “Two Polls Span Two Poles,” which I am quoting extensively from, below:

“When it comes to opting out, it’s a little harder to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two polls.

PDK/Gallup asked

“Do you think that all parents with children in the public schools should be allowed to excuse their child from taking one or more standardized tests?”

When asked this way, 41 percent said YES and 44 percent said NO.

EdNext asked,

“Some people say that ALL students should take state tests in math and reading. Others say that parents should decide whether or not their children take these tests. Do you support or oppose letting parents decide whether to have their children take state math and reading tests?

When asked this way, 25 percent said YES and 59 percent said NO.

Paul Peterson, the editor-in-chief of EdNext and a professor at Harvard, points to “excuse” as a key word in the other guy’s poll that he says is designed to sway people. “We do it all the time — we give students excuses from class for seeing the doctor, or excuses for being tardy. So ‘excuses’ is a very sweet word.” (Starr resists drawing comparisons, saying, “we’re considered a really unbiased view of Americans’ perspectives.”)

At the same time, the EdNext poll mentions that the test is a state requirement, so maybe that makes opting out sound like a bigger deal.

No matter how you slice it, both polls show most people don’t support allowing parents to choose whether to opt their children out of tests. And the Gallup poll says most Americans wouldn’t choose to opt out their own kids.”

Unfortunately Ms. Kamenetz doesn’t connect the dots regarding the magnitude of the dissent, but she ends with the all important insight that parents are looking for something better to replace testing.

That’s where leaders need to step up.  I wrote in this space recently about the value of an arts-based curriculum, but there are other equally interesting and valuable ways to approach the education of children.  Today’s technology offers unprecedented opportunities for ‘blending’ good teaching with technology, an issue we explore in depth in “School Sleuth: The Case of the Wired Classroom,” which will be on most PBS stations this fall.  “Deeper Learning” has become associated with the Common Core, unfortunately, but the premise–Dig Deep, Explore and Master–is too valuable to be overlooked.

Never forget the wisdom of Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do.”  What do we want our children doing, repeatedly, in their hours in school?  Regurgitating or being challenged? Prepping for tests so the people in charge can rank teachers, or doing work that interests them and prepares them for a productive adulthood?

As the lawyers say, “Asked and answered.”

DECIPHERING POST-KATRINA SCHOOLING

The flood of stories about education in New Orleans began well before the 10th anniversary of the flooding that destroyed most of the city’s terrible schools.  Is education better or worse now that the city is virtually all-charter?  Is this a model for urban America, or a gigantic hoax?  So far, I haven’t seen much in the way of middle ground.

Here are SIX truths (as I see them), THREE predictions, and ONE piece of advice.

First, the truths: 1)  Before Katrina, the city’s public schools were to be avoided, and anyone who could afford a parochial or independent school or a suburban home, did so, while a handful of admission-only magnet schools held onto the most affluent students.  The system was segregated, and buildings were falling down. I remember one school that had to steal electricity from other buildings and utility poles because its own wiring was inadequate—probably rotted through.  And the schools, many of them, were violent and dangerous places.

2) Today New Orleans has a ‘system of schools,’ not a ‘school system.’  Public charter schools serve nearly all of the city’s students.  The system is smaller and whiter, and the teaching force is younger, whiter and non-unionized.

3) Education is better…but then again, it could hardly be worse.  Scores and graduation rates have improved, but neither is up as much as the supporters would have people believe.

4) Unfortunately, this radical approach has not solved the special education challenge.  In some respects, going all-charter may have made things worse for kids with special needs.

5) Different approaches to discipline remain a problem.  Because charter schools are independent entities, each can set its own rules and enforce the rules as they see fit.

6) Some families feel disconnected and disenfranchised because their neighborhood charter school is run by a Board that doesn’t reflect them or their neighborhood.

We captured a lot of this in”Rebirth: New Orleans“, our 1-hour film that is available on Netflix. It’s based on 6 years of videotaping, and I hope you will take a look.

Prediction #1: No American city will copy New Orleans and go ‘all charter’ all at once, because it’s just too hard.  Instead, politicians will hold up New Orleans as a goal while gradually expanding charter schools. That’s the easy way: start with K-1 and expand one grade at a time, because that allows the grownups in charge to train the kids from age 4 or 5.  Taking over a high school, full of teenagers who’ve spent 9 or more years in a very different kind of school, is a challenge most charter leaders run from (but that is what New Orleans faced).

Prediction #2: Wise leaders will insist on significant oversight of all charter schools, to ensure financial transparency, a common discipline code, a common application, and shared approaches to assessment and to special education.  Sadly, wisdom is in short supply. I fear chaos will ensue in many cities, especially where the profiteers are invited to participate.

Prediction #3: Schools in New Orleans will never rise above the level of C- until they adopt a sophisticated way of measuring their effectiveness.  Right now, it’s all about test scores, which shapes the curriculum and the experience of students.  When we were filming “Rebirth,” we learned of an aspiring charter school principal who was determined to open a performing arts school. He envisioned a vibrant building full of talented aspiring musicians, artists, dancer and actors, all given the opportunity to develop their craft.  However, once he realized that the charter review board cared only about test scores, he never even submitted an application.  As long as that’s the prevailing mindset, mediocrity is guaranteed. That’s a shame.

Finally, some advice: Pay close attention to news coverage that includes contributions from Leslie Jacobs, Scott Cowen,  Aesha Rasheed, and Andre Perry.  Ms. Jacobs was the principal architect of the charter approach; Dr. Cowen, former President of Tulane University, put brains and muscle behind the effort while remaining an honest broker; Ms. Rasheed, a former reporter for the Times-Picayune, has become a powerful advocate for fairness for families and children; and Dr. Perry, an academic who stepped into the trenches to run some charter schools, is an honest and thoughtful analyst.  Of course, they’re not the only people whose analysis is valuable, but if none of them is heard from, I’d be worried.

What have I missed?