FROM "WRESTLE MANIA" TO SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: sadly, it fits

The role of U.S. Secretary of Education is often occupied by secular clones of scamming televangelists. They lack training, experience, common sense and moral virtue. But they do possess a couple crucial skills. They are tub thumping bullshit artists and absolute masters of deception.   

The Reagan administration provides a  example. Like Trump currently, Reagan promised to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Once in office, however, he went dropped that when public schooling unexpectedly gained national attention. He still cut federal spending on education by half. But politically he now needed to look like he was "fixing" public education. 

That's a key reason why he appointed William F. Bennett as his Secretary of Education. A huckster blowhard of preposterous proportions, Bennett was a carnival barker in both style and intent. His unrestrained "the sky is falling" statements and gross over-simplifications quickly and repetitively made major news. Many took them seriously. After all, he was Secretary of Education and must know the facts. Any way, Americans came to believe that much was wrong with our schools. So wrong, in fact, that they were making our nation internationally uncompetitive. Although the Reagan administration was hard at work fixing things

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 ludicrous method of allegedly 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 actually managing disorder. 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 also repeatedly beat up on the National Education Association  — back then an innocuous, empty pleading organization that was still trying to emulate the American Medical Association. Charging that that this then ineffective 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 single out the NEA when school problems were, and still are, clearly linked to far more complex social and economic issues? He trashed it because the union favored the Democrats and opposed the Reagan administration's education policies — especially the draconian 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. Like Bennett, Arnie was utterly unqualified. He lacked knowledge of education policy, curriculum design, research on learning, on human growth and development, ad naseum. Plus he had never taught. Despite his utter lack of qualifications, he had previously served as CEO of the Chicago public school system from 2001 - 2008. How did he get such a job with zero qualifications? Can you spell P O L I T I C S? 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. 

Unlike Reagan, Obama increased Federal education funding by an extra $100 billion. But Duncan was similar to Reagan's choice of Bennett, in that his chief skill was bullshitting.  Here's is an example of Arnie at work. During the preceding Bush administration a federal education law, "No Child Left Behind," had been enacted. This preposterously optimistic law 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 minute castration! It allowed states to dodge all of the supposed rigor. They could substitute whatever feeble humbug that suited them. And that's exactly what they did. 

Were federal legislators surprised states did that?? Hardly! They wanted to look tough, but simultaneously allow the same laxity that has characterized teacher education since its inception. Why have teacher licensing standards historically been feeble. Money! Higher standards means having to pay more to attract and retain teachers. You pay more, you get more. But that means raising taxes. That can be unwise politically.

Curiously, California initially failed to take advantage of this No Child Left Behind escape clause. And that meant the state faced an immediate shortage of highly qualified teachers. But President Obama quickly came to the rescue. He waived his executive order wand and declared that wanna-be teachers still in training were, in fact, "highly qualified?" At that time lots and lots of apprentices were filling in as full-time teachers in California. But 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, even though he earlier professed great concern about weak-kneed teacher education. Now it was OK if teachers were 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 these federal law makers 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 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 it sets smoke screens of simple-minded panaceas and misplaced blame for a problematic situation that defies easy remedy. 

And if some complete ignoramus, rather than a bullshitter,  is chosen for the job, so much the better. So long as he or she naively, but sincerely, endorse panaceas and misplace blame, the charade will  persist. In fact, naive, misguided sincerity might make a simple-minded "leader" all the more convincing.

Any chance of a truly competent expert being appointed as Secretary of Education? I don't think so. They might acknowledge and discuss realities that few of us want to confront. For instance, that a lot of parents are incompetent and incapable. And that the effects of this reality often overwhelm whatever educators try to do. Speaking this truth is not the way to get a President reelected. Better to appoint a convincing bullshitter.

 

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: solemn but hardly serious

No Child Left Behind seems to be quietly fading away. Since Congress cannot, or will not, reform this reform, President Obama is killing it off with waivers. Do this and that and we'll let you sidetrack NCLB.

I, for one, am not surprised. I never took NCLB seriously. The very name of the act indicates a preposterous goal. Given the resources available to schools and all the non-school factors that impact educational success, achieving this goal would require altering the whole of American society.

No Child Left Behind indeed. Such a goal is plainly preposterous. How, then, was it arrived at? The late Paul Goodman noted that Americans are solemn about schooling but seldom serious. And there isn't a better example of that than this preposterously ambitious "reform."

Imagine applying a similarly ridiculous goal to something we take seriously — let's say professional baseball. No Team Left Behind. We all know that to be successful in baseball requires a delicate balance of defensive and offensive capabilities. We also know that putting such a balance together requires resources. To get a first-rate pitcher you either need a ton of money or you have to trade a first-rate something else. Trying to get a twenty game winner by trading your utility infielder would get you laughed out of the game. Baseball is serious business.

Politicians dabbling in school reform, on the other hand, settle for merely being solemn. They hatch plans so simplistic it is embarrassing to rebut them. Let's remember some previous solemn "educational reform"goals. For example, that the United States must lead the world in science and mathematics education by the turn of the century? Well here we are twelve years after that due date and nothing of that sort has happened. Instead, the whole imperative was quietly shelved in favor of leaving not one single child behind. Why? Because no one was seriously committed to gaining this preeminence to begin with. It was just political theater.

No Child Left Behind is like that. The enormously complex tasks required to even approach this ridiculously ambitious goal were never even laid out. Worse, the prodigious resources required were not even been brought up for serious discussion.

Is this an exaggeration? Consider that NCLB requires that all teachers be "highly qualified." But actually achieving that goal required major, and expensive, changes that none of these solemn politicians were prepared to back. So, by time of the Obama administration, this solemn goal had turned into a laughable farce as thousands of teacher interns, rank beginners mind you, were placed in that category. Beginners as "highly qualified." What could be less serious?

In the fulness of time NCLB will be gathering dust with all the many other solemn, but not serious, reforms of yesteryear. But because of the disruption it has spawned, this particular bit of political theater will have so disassembled public schooling that, like Humpty Dumpty, we will never be able to put it together again.

For a more detailed consideration see www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Serious.html

THE SORROWS OF A LONG-TIME TEACHER EDUCATOR

I have been preparing future teachers for forty two years and have belatedly concluded that I'm in the wrong line of work. Absolutely no one of influence gives a crap if this job is done well or not.

When I began my career I chose to teach at a Catholic college run by a religious order allegedly devoted to teaching. I reasoned that this bode well for teacher education at the school. Unfortunately, I failed to adequately consider that it was a liberal arts school. In that environment the education department was Thursday's child. And filling our classrooms with too many marginally committed halfwits generated more tuition than allowing us to restrict entry in the same way as any professional school does as a matter of course.

Nearly half a century later the Education Department has won some credibility. But the resources we have to work with are embarrassing. Most of the revenue we generate disappeared into the general fund. Proportionately little is reinvested in properly equipping our programs. Consequently, I teach in a classroom equipped in exactly the same way my first grade class was in 1946 except the desks are bigger.) It lacks even a bulletin board. Imagine teaching in a medical school lacking every feature of modern medical practice. Well I teach in the equivalent.

I really shouldn't fault the college though. They would be foolish to invest more heavily in teacher education than their competitors. Besides, few give a damn about teacher preparation to begin with.

This indifference is aggravated by meddlesome state education officials who, without any meaningful consultation, seek to idiot proof the process. For instance, they mandate literally hundreds of provisions that must be met before a college can secure middle school teacher program approval.  What is the result?
It's as if some crazed bureaucrat with delusions of grandeur was given several reams of paper, locked in an office and given the following instructions, "We are dealing with nuckle heads who haven't a clue about preparing teachers. Idiot proof the process by creating hundreds of requirements that leave them no latitude whatsoever."

You might think, "Well, at least they are getting tough." Oh yeah? Then why, at the same time are these half-wits  also creating pathetically easy "alternative routes" into teaching at the same time?

Oh, and lets nor forget President Obama and his totally unqualified Secretary of Education. When it comes to teacher preparation the two of them just jumped down the rabbit hole with Alice. How so? They recently decided to classify teacher interns as "highly qualified teachers." Why would they do a crazy thing like that? So that states like California, who use hundreds of interns to fill classrooms in their educational Calcuttas meet the No Child Left Behind requirement that all teachers be "highly qualified." Surely this is the first time in human history that interns have officially been declared "highly qualified." It's 1984 all over again!. War is peace! Love is Hate! and Interns are Highly Qualified." What a joke!

If I could start my career over I would choose something the American people really care about. Perhaps I should have learned how to make napalm stick more tenaciously to babies, or something of the sort. The nation has long been eager to invest in that sort of thing. But like I said at the beginning, absolutely no one of influence gives a crap if teacher preparation is done well or not.

For more on this subject see www.newfoundations.com/EGR/Cannonfodder.html

THE "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" TEACHER FARCE: Obama couldn't care less

The No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”) became law in 2002 “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.” To that end the law  mandates that all teachers must hold "full state certification" and be "highly qualified."

That sounds great, but what does it mean in practice? That depends on which side of Alice's looking glass you are on. In 2008 the Bush administration followed Alice through the mirror when they decided that tens of thousands of teachers in training, interns for example, were "highly qualified teachers." Then, ruling that black is in fact white, a federal court upheld that definition.

In other words, we are talking about rank beginners, students or recent graduates who are gaining, practical experience being highly qualified. In other words. Only in the Wonderland of public education could such jabberwocky be taken seriously.

It is some consolation that, in an uncommon turn of events, the three-judge panel reversed itself and invalidated the Bush adminitration's regulation. In effect, they ruled that whatever "full certification" may mean in a particular state, a teacher is  NOT highly qualified before they have obtained it. But the Obama administration figured out a way to sidestep the court and has continued using the logically indefensible Bush definition of "highly qualified" as rank beginner.

in other words, the Obama administration is so dismissive of teacher quality as an issue in school reform that they are unwilling even to insist that public school teachers meet state certification standards that are undemanding to begin with. So Americans, particularly poor Americans, will continue to make do with teachers who often are so far removed from "highly qualified" that it is a joke.



For more such considerations please visit Highly Qualified Teachers: misgivings