Why is No One Serious About Education?

Arne Duncan was announced as the nominee for education secretary today at a press conference in Chicago. Here's the video. Here are Obama's remarks.

I am not going to spend a lot of time criticizing the pick beyond what I already said about my disappointment of an Illinois pick and how this reminds me of the Rod Paige pick - and we all know how fabulously that worked out.  If you want analysis of the pick here is Eduwonk, Carl Cannon, Yglesias, BoardBuzz, ASCD, and Alexander Russo has some more links to background on Duncan (really Russo has been all over this - he did a good job, especially with this post saying we all need to slow down a little). Also, be sure to check out Eduwonkette's look at NAEP scores under Duncan with the Quick and the Ed following up. Anyway, there is plenty of analysis out there, just google it.

Here is my thing: Obama is entitled to put some of his friends in the cabinet and this was clearly one of those circumstances -- he picked his basketball buddy from Chicago. Sure he has some creds, but, being honest, he is not qualified for this position. He clearly has some political skills, but the guy has never even been a teacher.

I am not totally annoyed by this because we have come to expect it. But, let's compare this to the energy pick announced yesterday, Steven Chu ... literally a Nobel Prize winner, professor at one of America's best colleges, and director of one of our national research labs. He's written, he's researched, he's served, he's practiced - he is superbly qualified. That's a serious pick showing serious committment to energy reform. Duncan in comparison to Chu looks like ... well, a basketball player.

That leaves me with 2 questions:

1. Where are the qualified people like Chu in education?

2. Why are we not serious about producing people like Chu?

And, sorry if this post is long, but I want to address both of those.

1. It is hard to blame Obama because I am not sure there are qualified people like Chu in education. First, we separate research from practice. I struggle with this in my own department. We produce school leaders that may research. The policy department down the hall produces researchers that may practice, but there is little expectation that either live in each other's world. This Duncan guy has probably read fewer that 10 scholarly articles in his life. So, literally, there was no one like Chu out there to choose from. Duncan and Klein and Rhee and Bennett and others have some practical experience and some interdisciplinary skills (mostly lawyers and politicians), but they have never researched, are probably not well read, have little or no teaching experience, etc., etc. On the other hand, folks like Linda Darling-Hammond, who is extremely well qualified on the research and scholarship side, has little administrative experience outside higher ed. Why don't we have educational administrators that also research and publish as a matter of course?   

2. This of course leads to the second question of why we are not serious about producing people like that? Is it money? That might be part of the problem. It probably took several hundred thousand dollars to educate Chu and probably several million to equip him with labs and tools. Is it the subject? That might be part of the problem. It is a lot easier to do experimental science on a molecule than a kid. Is it infrastructure? That might be part of the problem. There were plenty of labs and colleges for Chu to work at. In education there are only a few and they rarely hire. I could go on, but its not necessary. The fact is that when it comes to energy America has made a serious committment to people. When it comes to education ... well, we're good at talking about being serious ... here's Obama:

For years, we have talked our education problems to death in Washington, but failed to act, stuck in the same tired debates that have stymied our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves: Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more reform – all along failing to acknowledge that both sides have good ideas and good intentions.

We cannot continue on like this. It is morally unacceptable for our children – and economically untenable for America. We need a new vision for a 21st century education system – one where we aren’t just supporting existing schools, but spurring innovation; where we’re not just investing more money, but demanding more reform; where parents take responsibility for their children’s success; where we’re recruiting, retaining, and rewarding an army of new teachers; where we hold our schools, teachers and government accountable for results; and where we expect all our children not only to graduate high school, but to graduate college and get a good paying job.

Sounds good, right? So why don't we just get serious about this for once instead of picking our buddies as our leaders?

Update: Sorry, I do hate to keep harping on this, but I do feel this was a very instructive moment. First, check out Alfie Kohn in The Nation who actually makes a lot of the same points I do. Second, I am attaching a video at the end here to illustrate the difference between Arne Duncan and Steven Chu. First, you are probably not even going to find Arne Duncan in videos like this, but even if you do, compare what he is likely to say against what Chu says in this clip. Chu proposes a RADICAL idea: photosynthetic machines. He is interested in disruptive innovation. Duncan, at best, is interested in incremental innovation.