The role of U.S. Secretary of Education is typically filled with secular clones of scamming televangelists. They lack training, experience, common sense and moral virtue. But they do possess other crucial skills. They are tub thumping bullshit artists and absolute masters of fakery. The Reagan administration provides an excellent example. Like Trump, Reagan promised to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Once in office, however, he quietly dropped that plan when public schooling unexpectedly gained national attention.
Reagen still cut federal education spending by half. But politically, Reagan needed to look like he was greatly concerned about public education. So he appointed William F. Bennett, as Secretary of Education. A huckster blowhard of Force 5 velocity, Bennett was a carnival barker in both style and effectiveness. His unrestrained exaggerations and gross over-simplificaions repeatedly made the news. As they did so, gullible Americans came to believe that: A. much was wrong with America's schools, and B. the Reagan administration was working hard to fix them.
This is not the place to detail Bennett's demagoguery. Let's just recount an incident that captures the noxious essence of his humbug. Under his Secretary of Education title, Bennett wrote an article appearing in the November 1988 Readers Digest. In it he praised a particular school principal's bizarre method of reforming a "troubled inner-city Washington, D. C. school." "On the very first day," wrote Bennett, "this remarkable educational leader," this "no-nonsense principal, assembled the student body and ... with practiced eye, chose 20 chronic troublemakers to enforce order and put an end to chaos." According to Bennett, putting the school's miscreants in charge worked like magic! Order was restored and education proceeded apace!
Can you imagine? The school is chaotic and the principal's solution is to put the trouble-makers in charge! Even a Secretary of Education should recognize such a policy is just plain nuts. But Bennett was not interested in the multifaceted and highly complex nature of actual reforms. He was shoveling bullshit for political purposes. Offering simple solutions to the simple minded.
This is just one example of Bennett repeatedly politicizing his position with carnival-barker effectiveness. He repeatedly beat up on the National Education Association — back then an innocuous, empty pleading organization. Charging that that this professional organization was a major cause of what he alleged to be national school decline. He repeatedly pointed to it as the chief villain.
Why did Bennett attack the NEA when school problems were, and still are, clearly linked to far more complex social and economic problems? He trashed it because the union heavily favored the Democrats and opposed the Reagan administration's education policies — especially the drastic cuts in spending. Bennett's job was to confirm the anti-union biases of Reagan voters and he did that well. What he failed to do was offer one ounce of genuine leadership.
Enough about Bennett. Let's turn to Arnie Duncan, President Obama's Secretary of Education. Unlike Reagan, Obama increased Federal education funding by an extra $100 billion. But his selection of Mr. Duncan was similar to Reagan's choice of Bennett, in that Arnie's chief skill was bullshitting. He lacked knowledge of education policy, curriculum design, research on learning, human growth and development etc.. He had never even taught. Yet despite his utter lack of qualifications, he had previously been appointed CEO of the Chicago public school system from 2001 - 2008. How did he get such a job job with zero qualifications? Can you spell P O L I T I C S?
Yes, like Bennett, Arnie was utterly unqualified. But he did have that one vital skill that serves any Secretary of Education. He really could dish out the shit. He was skilled at looking like he knew what he was talking about. (He also provided the President with an excellent basketball buddy. An ex-professional hoopster, Arnie played a mean game of one on one.)
Here's is an example of Arnie at work. During the Bush administration "No Child Left Behind" had been signed into law. It stipulated that in the future only "highly qualified" teachers would be permitted to teach." In fact it specifically ordained that "to teach math, science, social studies, the arts, reading or languages, candidates must have obtained a long-term teaching certificate, and demonstrate subject matter knowledge by either obtaining a college major in the subject, by passing a test in the subject taught."
That's got teeth, right? Ah, but wait! Federal lawmakers inserted the following at the very end: "...or by some other means established by the state." A last second castration! It allowed states to dodge all of the supposed rigor. They could substitute whatever feeble humbug that suited them. And, of course, that's exactly what they did.
Were federal legislators surprised state authorities did that?? Hardly! They wanted to look tough, while simultaneously allowing the same laxity that has characterized teacher education since its inception. Tougher standards means paying more to attract and retain teachers. Otherwise few will invest in meeting more stringent standards. You have to pay more to get more. But raising taxes to increase teacher pay is politically untenable
Curiously, California initially failed to take advantage of this No Child Left Behind escape clause. Consequently, the state faced an immediate shortage of highly qualified teachers. But President Obama came to the rescue. He waived his executive order magic wand and declared that wanna-be teachers still in training were, in fact, "highly qualified?" At that time many such were filling in as full-time teachers in California. Now, thanks to Obama, these rank amateurs were instantly transformed into masters of the art. California's shortage of "highly qualified" teachers was over.
Did Secretary Duncan complain when Obama transformed apprentices to master craftsmen with the stroke of a pen! Nope, not a whimper came from Arnie. Apparently he had a change of heart about inadequate teacher preparation. Now they could be as unqualified as he was.
Eventually a federal judge ruled that Obama's evasion violated the No Child Left Behind "highly qualified" requirement. Congress quickly corrected that. With a straight face they piously legislated that the classification "highly qualified" included those who weren't. Arnie went along with that too. By then his expressed concern about inadequate teacher preparation had totally evaporated.
Enough of Arnie. Let's turn to Betsy DeVoss, Secretary of Education during Trump's first term. How much training in education did she have? Zero. How much teaching experience? Zero. How much education did she experience in public school where 90% of Americans send their children? Zero. How much had she and the rest of her family donated to Republican causes? Forbes reports about $200 million dollars in 2017. That's 200 million reasons why, having always attended private conservative Christian schools, having long demanded deep cuts in federal education spending, having enthusiastically championed privatizing public schools through vouchers, and after boldly boosting the for-profit college industry despite their student loan default rate being 6 times higher, she still ended up U.S. Secretary of Education.
Was Ms. DeVoss a bullshitter similar to the two cited above? Perhaps not. She may just have been manifesting true belief in the religious fundamentalism that requires acolytes to give up critical thinking. Perhaps that is how she came to be a billionaire free market advocate of unrestrained materialism, while simultaneously worshipping the emphatically anti-materialistic, Christ Jesus. "Where your treasures are, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21.
Despite her ability to embrace contradictions, Ms. DeVoss was clearly out of her league as Secretary of Education. To even get the job, Vice President Pence had to cast the deciding vote, given the 50-50 tie in the Senate. (Perhaps I should add that she did somewhat redeem herself by summarily quitting the Trump circus after the canard inspired Capital riot.)
That gets us to Linda McMahon, President Trump's present Secretary of Education. Yes, this is non-other than the pro-wrestling promotor who, with her husband Vince, made multiple millions transforming a vulgar farce into something even more so. What are her educational qualifications? Pretty much the same as Betsy De Voss's. That is, donating a big gob of money, in this case more than $10 million, to elect Mr. Trump. To be fair, though, selling primitive crudity floating on a sea of bullshit is well within the range of skills commonly expected of a Secretary of Education.
Predictably, she doesn't know much of anything about education. But Trump may have actually been attracted by Ms. McMahon's pedagogical ignorance. He profits from such ignorance. After all, he founded and presided over his very own phony institution of higher education. He modestly called this film-flam: "Trump University."
This so-called university had a short life. And its governmentally forced closure was punctuated by a court-ordered $25 million settlement reimbursing over 6,000 former students who paid up to $35,000 for instruction Trump's "university" failed to deliver. Trump also paid a $1 million settlement to New York State for operating an unlicensed educational institution. Clearly, Trump knows a talented pedagogical bullshitter when he sees one. And if he needs a reminder, he can just look in the mirror.
Why this series of pedagogical incompetents being appointed to what might be viewed the top educational job in the nation? Well, for one thing the U.S. Department of Education is largely unnecessary. Most of what really matters can be better handled by other federal agencies, the states or local school districts. The feds chief talent is impeding instruction by generating burdensome rules and requiring reams of paperwork. In short, their chief accomplishment is getting in the way. So an incompetent bullshitter filling the top executive position compliments the character of the organization.
Here's a key factor underlying all of this. Most alleged "education" problems have their origin outside of schools. Take, for instance, the frighteningly large number of parents who are unqualified for the job. That fact is plain to even casual observers. Of course, no politician in their right mind will acknowledge this reality. The common pretense is that parents always know what's best. Some, of course, do. But others are too stupid, imbalanced, busy, selfish, addicted, sick or distracted to do the job. Still others are unloving, neglectful, or abusive for elusive reasons. But acknowledging any of this reality takes politicians where they do not want to go.
Even the very best teachers cannot cancel out the deep personal and social problems spawned by parental incompetence and/or neglect. But from a typical politician's point of view, it's far better to pretend this political third rail doesn't exist. That's why approving a series of no-nothing bullshitters and political hacks as Secretary of Education isn't that big a problem. In fact most are hoping he or she will set smoke screens of simple-minded panaceas and misplaced blame for a problematic situation that defies remedy.
Of course, if some pedagogical ignoramus is chosen for the job, so much the better. So long as he or she naively but sincerely embraces panaceas and misplaces blame the charade can persist. In fact, misguided sincerity might make a simple-minded "leader" all the more convincing.