Linda Darling-Hammond

Posted on by Iansã

I am in my house. The cat sitter drank the champagne. California is really beautiful. It is 2009. Watch out for “school reformers” and tell Obama to appoint Linda Darling-Hammond Secretary of Education!

To be a school “reformer” is to support:

§ a heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests to evaluate students and schools, generally in place of more authentic forms of assessment;

§ the imposition of prescriptive, top-down teaching stand-ards and curriculum mandates;

§ a disproportionate emphasis on rote learning–memorizing facts and practicing skills–particularly for poor kids;

§ a behaviorist model of motivation in which rewards (notably money) and punishments are used on teachers and students to compel compliance or raise test scores;

§ a corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling, the point being to prepare children to “compete” as future employees; and

§ charter schools, many run by for-profit companies.

Notice that these features are already pervasive, which means “reform” actually signals more of the same–or, perhaps, intensification of the status quo with variations like one-size-fits-all national curriculum standards or longer school days (or years). Almost never questioned, meanwhile, are the core elements of traditional schooling, such as lectures, worksheets, quizzes, grades, homework, punitive discipline and competition. That would require real reform, which of course is off the table.

Sadly, all but one of the people reportedly being considered for Education secretary are reformers only in this Orwellian sense of the word. The exception is Linda Darling-Hammond, a former teacher, expert on teacher quality and professor of education at Stanford.

Axé.

2 thoughts on “Linda Darling-Hammond”

  1. I’m trying to think how it would be possible to sell progressive ideas about education for the mass of kids to the elites. But I don’t think the elites want that. They want non-elite kids to be schooled in basic skills and be able to do useful work, nothing more. And most of these kids’ parents think the same, as far as I can tell.
    How could those of us who see the benefit of rich educational experiences convince influential people that these are good things not just for their kids but for all kids?

    Reply

  2. OMG good question. My public schools, in the 60s and 70s, were good and they weren’t even the most elite of schools. Maybe this spawned too many revolutionaries … ? … but I think Darling-Hammond could convince them.

    Reply

Leave a comment