Thanks to the help of my former program director for the Teaching Ambassador Fellowship, I was able to get a reserved ticket yesterday afternoon for Education Secretary Duncan’s visit to the Harvard School of Education’s Askwith Forum. I made it through the doors of the main lecture hall in Longfellow just in time, the outer doors guarded by the Secretary’s advance team staff. (I couldn’t help but notice that it seemed a much younger and friendlier version of what I imagine the Secret Service might look like guarding its own high profile politicians. Those ubiquitous dark suits yes, but instead of wrap around earbuds, a more pleasant visual of them wearing Department of Education label pins, the one with the symbol of that branching tree. Trees do seem less threatening than the symbols of invisible and secret conversation (it could be about you!) moving through those electronic listening devices).
A packed room. Harvard president Drew Faust in attendance, as well as the Mayor, Superintendent and a whole lot of HGSE faculty, students and other community members. A lot of anticipation of the Secretary’s arrival. A different dynamic, I have to say, than when I attended Margaret Spellings’ visit to Harvard last year, the former Secretary of Education under President Bush. Very interesting.
Secretary Duncan’s remarks were relatively brief, talking about his educational background and his family upbringing, particularly mentioning the role his mother played in shaping his views as he grew up in the Hyde Park area of Chicago. His mother teaching Bible study lessons to some neighborhood kids and she noticing, and responding to, the gaps that some of the neighborhood kids showed in their ability to read and otherwise participate. The context of walking into the job at the Department with the unheard of fortune of a doubled operating budget. Discussion of the Race to the Top program and its intentions and scope. The framing of improving public education as the civil rights issue of our generation.
The questions the audience later posed in the forum were really good ones. A few individuals bringing up the recent news of the firing of all the teachers in a high school in Central Falls, Rhode Island and pushing the Secretary to clarify some comments he had made about the situation. Susan Moore Johnson, of the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, skillfully asking for the Secretary to discuss the ‘perfect storm’ elements of that regrettable situation. What were the pressures that precipitated or hastened that drastic move? Race to the Top competition? District or state policies? Labor relation or contract issues? And what responsibilities or vision did the Secretary have to address or understand situations like these?
I was sitting way in the back corner so I had little success getting the moderator to see my raised hand to ask a question. My thoughts were this, however. I do fully support the idea of the federal Department of Education playing an increased role in driving school reform and improvement efforts on scale. Whether through its platform as a bully pulpit to shape the conversation or using these Race to the Top funds to incentivize states and districts, who else can play this role with that type of reach?
My question is this, though, which I’d like to have others help me think through. The Race to the Top approach focuses on competition and rewarding innovation and as Secretary Duncan mentioned, is about wanting to learn from successful models, to have the courage to do something different and to achieve a culture change of a dramatic sort. Is that mostly just an aspirational model, though? Is it possible that while innovation allows for differentiation, innovation inherently tends to NOT reward systems (or at least automatically)? (Consider the complex and contentious dynamic of charter schools in competition for funds and students with a district’s public school system). My worry is what we are left with then, without a clear and operational model for scaling up the successful schools here and there, is an even more fractured public education system with the nation’s most challenged public school systems losing resources and public support as a result. In other words, how to fix a public school system without tearing it apart?
2 Comments
Hi James!
Your question is a very interesting and important one because I think we can all too easily be swept up by the excitement and thrill of concepts such as innovation and reform but fail to consider the “then what?” question that I think you are essentially asking. My thinking is that the shift towards competitive funding is to raise expectations and accountability and push districts and states to take a hard look at what they will do to improve schools and provide evidence that it is making a difference. And the emphasis on innovation makes the point that we need to think “outside the box” and can be supported in doing that.
But at the same time, there needs to be a commitment to examining how change and best practices are brought to scale. That is the piece that I think you are emphasizing in your question. If we do not understand the context in which a given innovation succeeded, the elements that were critical to its success and the obstacles that could be problematic, then innovation will remain only such in isolation and will not have the impact that is needed to make a difference on public education broadly. So perhaps we need to ask questions about what structure or research is underway to ensure that when innovation is succeeding, that there is a process for bringing it to scale . . . is this a piece that needs to be built into the grant monies application or is this a broader piece of work that ED should be undertaking to be able to use its role in policy to create conditions for the sharing and replicating of successful innovation?
I think it is both . . . and from some of my conversations, I think this is a piece that ED staff is working on. I have been communicating with the New Haven Public Schools regarding their new teacher contract and new teacher evaluation system (linked to student improvement measures, including peer evaluation, linked to professional development, etc.). It is a tremendous undertaking both in content and process and has been fascinating to observe. As I have communicated with Gillian about this, she has put me in touch with ED staff members who have asked me to consider how the New Haven work could be replicated – what are the critical elements, what are the obstacles, etc. And Secretary Duncan has been clear that the process of the New Haven work (not just the content) is critical . . . my understand is that he wants them to continue to press hard with that process and document it because that is what will allow it to be brought to other districts and other contexts.
So I guess that is to say that I think some thought has been given to realizing that there needs to be a structure or framework to guide bringing innovation to scale but perhaps it has just not been explicit enough or given enough clarity yet . . . you have definitely given me something to be sure to raise / ask about when the Fellows meet in DC in March.
Let’s be in touch . . .
Thanks,
Kris
hi Kris,
you say it so well– I’m completely with you. How great to hear about the work you’re doing on forward-thinking those structures now in your collaboration with the New Haven public schools. Thanks for the idea of raising the issue (and sharing your work) at the upcoming March summit. Maybe there’s a particular urgency or appeal of that call for really deliberate ‘up-scaling’ from teachers in particular? Let us know how we can be supportive…
Hope to catch up soon, James