Linda Darling-Hammond is a national figure in the field of education policy. She is the President and CEO of the Learning Policy Institute at Stanford University, where she is an emeritus professor of education, and she headed up President Obama’s transition team for education. She is the author of several books including The Flat World and Education, in which she declares: “One wonders what we might accomplish as a nation if we could finally set aside what appears to be our de facto commitment to inequality so profoundly at odds with our rhetoric of equity, and put the millions of dollars spent continually arguing and litigating into building a high quality education system for all children.” (p. 164)
Last Friday, Darling-Hammond delivered the weekly address at the Cleveland City Club. I was disappointed.
Darling-Hammond declared that “we have left No Child Left Behind (NCLB) behind” and implied that its 2015 replacement, the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, has erased the punitive philosophy of its NCLB predecessor. Darling-Hammond then devoted most of her prepared remarks to Ohio’s adoption of one of her own research priorities—social-emotional learning—into the state’s new five-year strategic plan for education. Darling-Hammond chaired the Aspen Institute’s National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, which on January 15, 2019 published its final report, From a Nation at Risk to a Nation at Hope.
Of course one cannot blame an academic for focusing a major policy address on her own particular research interest. But I was disappointed nonetheless, because Darling-Hammond’s remarks so completely neglected what I and many others believe are alarming realities today in Ohio public school policy. More broadly she also failed to acknowledge catastrophic school funding shortages brought to national attention by striking school teachers for almost a year now from West Virginia to Oklahoma to Arizona and in the past two weeks in Los Angeles, funding shortages caused by tax cuts and tax freezes and exacerbated when scarce tax dollars are redirected to privatized charter schools and voucher programs. Only after she had finished her prepared remarks and in answer to a question about Ohio’s punitive state school district takeovers, did she briefly comment on the enormous and controversial policies many in the audience hoped she would address.
Despite that Darling-Hammond told us she believes the kind of punitive high-stakes school accountability prescribed by No Child Left Behind is fading, state-imposed sanctions based on aggregate standardized test scores remain the drivers of Ohio public school policy. Here are some of our greatest challenges:
- Under a Jeb Bush-style Third Grade Guarantee, Ohio still retains third graders for another year of third grade when their reading test scores are too low. This is despite years of academic research demonstrating that retaining children in a grade for an additional year smashes their self esteem and exacerbates the chance they will later drop out of school without graduating. This policy runs counter to anything resembling social-emotional learning.
- Even though the federal government has ended the Arne Duncan requirement that states use students’ standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, in Ohio, students’ standardized test scores continue to be used for the formal evaluations of their teachers. The state has reduced the percentage of weight students’ test scores play in teachers’ formal evaluations, but students’ test scores continue to play a role.
- Aggregate student test scores remain the basis of the state’s branding and ranking of our public schools and school districts with letter grades—A-F, with attendant punishments for the schools and school districts that get Fs.
- When a public school is branded with an F, the students in that so-called “failing” school qualify for an Ed Choice Voucher to be used for private school tuition. And the way Ohio schools are funded ensures that in most cases, local levy money in addition to state basic aid follows that child.
- Ohio permits charter school sponsors to site privately managed charter schools in so-called “failing” school districts. The number of these privatized schools is expected to rise next year when a safe-harbor period (that followed the introduction of a new Common Core test) ends. Earlier this month, the Plain Dealer reported: “Next school year, that list of ineffective schools (where students will qualify for Ed Choice Vouchers) balloons to more than 475… The growth of charter-eligible districts grew even more, from 38 statewide to 217 for next school year. Once restricted to only urban and the most-struggling districts in Ohio, charter schools can now open in more than a third of the districts in the state.”
- If a school district is rated “F” for three consecutive years, a law pushed through in the middle of the night by former Governor John Kasich and his allies subjects the district to state takeover. The school board is replaced with an appointed Academic Distress Commission which replaces the superintendent with an appointed CEO. East Cleveland this year will join Youngstown and Lorain, now three years into their state takeovers—without academic improvement in either case.
- All this punitive policy sits on top of what many Ohioans and their representatives in both political parties agree has become an increasingly inequitable school funding distribution formula. Last August, after he completed a new study of the state’s funding formula, Columbus school finance expert, Howard Fleeter described Ohio’s current method of funding schools to the Columbus Dispatch: “The formula itself is kind of just spraying money in a not-very-targeted way.”
Forty-two minutes into the video of last Friday’s City Club address by Darling-Hammond, when a member of the Ohio State Board of Education, Meryl Johnson asked the speaker to comment on Ohio’s state takeovers of so called “failing” school districts, Darling-Hammond briefly addressed the tragedy of the kind of punitive systems that now dominate Ohio’s public school policy: “We have been criminalizing poverty in a lot of different ways, and that is one of them… There’s about a .9 correlation between the level of poverty and test scores. So, if the only thing you measure is the absolute test score, then you’re always going to have the high poverty communities at the bottom and then they can be taken over.” But rather than address Ohio’s situation directly, Darling-Hammond continued by describing value-added ratings of schools which she implied could instead be used to measure what the particular school contributes to learning, and then she described the educational practices in other countries she has studied.
In the context of the new report of the National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, which she chaired, Darling-Hammond’s focus last Friday was social-emotional learning. The Commission’s new report emphasizes the need to broaden “the definition of student success to prioritize he whole child.” The report recommends that our society: “Develop and use measures to track progress across school and out-of-schools settings, with a focus on continuous improvement rather than on rewards and sanctions.”
I wish Darling-Hammond had more pointedly applied the Commission’s findings to Ohio, where, while people applaud the goal, there have been serious questions about whether Ohio’s addition of social-emotional learning in the state’s new five-year strategic plan is workable in our underfunded and terribly punitive, high stakes testing environment. Some of the factors that affect a school’s capacity to support the social and emotional needs of students are small classes that ensure students are known and respected, enough counselors and school psychologists, the presence of the arts and enrichments, and the presence of play in the school lives of very young children. Ohio’s meager school funding and emphasis on high-stakes testing threaten all of these.
In these times we need to be especially attentive to the social and emotional needs of America’s students as the federal Department of Education steps away from policies designed to protect students’ safety and emotional well being. Remember that at the end of December, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded urgently important Obama-era civil rights guidance designed to reduce out of school suspension and expulsion, reduce racial disparities in suspension and expulsion, and increase in-school programs promoting restorative discipline. Ohio’s new strategic plan to prioritize social-emotional learning in public schools is an important first nudge—pushing our state away from No Child Left Behind’s test-and-punish. But there remains a long, long list of urgently needed policy changes. I wish Linda Darling-Hammond had been more supportive of our struggle in her address last Friday.
13 thoughts on “Linda Darling-Hammond Disappoints in Cleveland City Club Address”
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
For the life of me I don’t know why she ever became the “darling” of the educators’ realm.
Yesterday, Diane Ravitch reported a bit of research about the efficacy of early academic work. The original piece cheered the fact that early academic rigor didn’t inhibit social emotional learning (SEL). The researchers were nearly giddy at that supposed finding. I am not a fan of the SEL fad.
SEL is touted as a brilliant new component to learning and schools, as though discovered through profound insight in the last few decades. “We have found a new dimension to human existence and now we can teach it in schools!!!”
I think this codification of the obvious, regimentation of the fluid, formalization of the wondrous nature of kids is arguably MORE (I HATE PEOPLE WHO USE ALL CAPS) damaging than early academic rigor.
SEL suggests that there is a temperament that all children should have and we should construct practices to mold them to it. It suggests that impulsivity is bad (it is my main joy in retirement), that “controlling yourself” is more important than raw, outrageous fun, and that there is enormous value to being grown-up in a way defined by a group of older people who probably have too little fun themselves.
It is the dance partner of grit, which I also despise. Educators and researchers like the pop phenomenon Paul Tough have made schools into places where children who were once demeaned for not being smart enough are now demeaned for not being “gritty” enough. SEL demeans children for being children.
Academic “rigor” in this seeks cognitive conformity.
SEL seeks conformity of the spirit.
Leave the damn kids alone!
It was Linda Darling Hammond’s advocacy for the edTPA that made me a skeptic. I think we may have dodged a bullet when we got Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education. His buffonery was obvious. Darling Hammond might have been far more influential and we’d be in much worse shape now.
Pingback: Jan Resseger: Disappointed That Darling-Hammond Spoke in Ohio about Social-Emotional Learning While Ignoring State Takeovers, Inequitable Policy | Diane Ravitch's blog
Steve Nelson, I agree. And let’s not forget that this “new” concept of the importance of SEL is also a moneymaker! I refuse to use a boxed curriculum. As an early childhood teacher, I have been teaching SEL for 30 years without a box!
Thanks, Jan. I forwarded to my friend, Sally, who joined me that day. Still glad we went. Ellen
Reblogged this on Mister Journalism: "Reading, Sharing, Discussing, Learning".
Pingback: Virulent Destroy Public Education Movement Rampaging in Texas | tultican
Pingback: Selling Education Growth Models | tultican
Pingback: Testing Industry Scores Big in California | tultican
Pingback: Stockton Schools after Deasy | tultican
Pingback: Tom Ultican: Destroying Public Schools in Stockton, California | Diane Ravitch's blog
Pingback: The Phony NAEP Crisis | tultican