Time for the President To Pay More Attention To Picking A Secretary of Education

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2020/10/31/time-for-the-president-to-pay-more-attention-to-picking-a-secretary-of-education/

Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins in the presidential election of 2020, we need a new kind of Secretary of Education — someone who has classroom teaching experience beyond grade 5 and has administered an elementary, middle, or high school for at least a couple of years or so. This experience gives teaching faculty a chance to understand and tell us a little bit about a candidate’s supervisory style. No need for a particular ethnicity or race or gender. We’ve tried using all these sociocultural criteria, especially in our major cities.  But no criterion has worked for most kids.

Who could be recommended for Secretary of Education? Perhaps all parents would agree that such a person needs classroom teaching experience, knows well at least one of the subjects typically taught in K-12, and has read a lot and writes well. All parents might also agree that it would be useful to have a Secretary of Education who knows research on beginner-readers as well as research on beginning arithmetic education.

Here are some of the names I would recommend for consideration, whether or not each name is well-known or addresses all the criteria set forth above:


Emily Hanford, an education writer who has thoroughly researched beginning reading issues

Robert Siegler, a well-known mathematics educator and researcher

David Geary, an expert on early childhood education

Liping Ma, a China-born teacher and researcher on early mathematics education

Vicki Jacobs, an expert in teacher training in English and language arts

Michael Fitzpatrick, principal at the Blackstone Valley Regional Vocational Technical High School in Upton, Massachusetts

Susan Sclafani, a first-rate administrator who worked under former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige in Texas

Robert Scott, a lawyer who served as a state education commissioner in Texas

Alan Safran, developer of the well-known Match Charter School in Boston


There are many other relatively unknown names that could be considered. But each of the names above is a different kind of candidate compared to the secretaries we have had – who haven’t been doing the job we need.

Part of the problem is that U.S. Secretary of Education hasn’t gotten the kind of treatment the job deserves. Few presidents would nominate a non-finance expert for Secretary of Treasury just because the person was a major party donor. But they would do something similar for Secretary of Education.

The results may be tragic.

Are recent nationwide riots, looting, and arson all in large part expressions of our frustration with and rage at seemingly failed or ineffective educational institutions? We haven’t tried yet to make other institutions or agencies for public health or safety responsible for educating the nation’s children.  We need to try, because it is clear that public educational facilities are no longer capable of educating our young or producing productive citizens.

There are several questions we should ask ourselves to try to understand the basis for the many waves of rioting in our major cities in recent years:


1.  Why haven’t our educational institutions found effective remedial strategies for low-achieving students by now — more than 50 years after the first federal grants to low-income schools and communities in ESEA in 1965?

2.  Do schools in undeveloped or under-developed countries produce similar or lower levels of performance on the standardized tests given to comparable children of low-income parents in this country on these tests? These tests (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, Programme for International Student Assessment) have been the chief international tests available for our states to participate in.     

3.  What are the average scores in performance categories for each demographic group in countries with many non-dominant population groups as in the USA, Australia, Canada, and Singapore?


Maybe education researchers have looked at the wrong things or not asked the right questions. Such as:


1.  How much reading or other homework have teachers assigned their students in K-12?

2.  How many parents check the time their children go to bed every night and how much they read or practice every day?

3.  Why have pre-schools on average, or after-school programs extending school teaching hours, failed to create equity among demographic groups in the K-12 school population?

4.  Why has the use of literary texts and curriculum-aligned textbooks whose subject matter and vocabulary have been reduced in difficulty failed to boost minority scores?


It is partially Congress’s fault that a regularly increasing amount of federal and state money in over fifty years hasn’t helped low-income minorities in education. Congress hasn’t targeted the areas of influence on school achievement noted in the 1966 Coleman Report and the 1965 Moynihan Report. These two most comprehensive reports on differences in academic achievement in this country found family background more influential than schools and teachers. In other words, social factors were more important than educational interventions.

The Coleman Report also noted, based on a test its authors devised, that the teachers of non-black students had greater knowledge and verbal skills than did the teachers of black children.  It made no specific recommendations, but it is not difficult to infer that low-achieving students would benefit from academically stronger teachers. More recent information on that point is available, as well.

It is clear that whatever our public schools have done since World War II hasn’t increased achievement in low-achieving students.

In recent years, many educators have promoted school choice, especially via charter schools, as ways to strengthen low-achieving students. But school choice may be useful to promote only if curriculum choices and the portability of funds for individual students are allowed. Letting public money be used for children in schools their parents want them to attend (whether independent, religious, or secular schools) — without a mandate to use Common Core-aligned standards, tests, textbooks, and teachers trained in Common Core-aligned material — may finally enable school choice to be the motivational mechanism its supporters envisioned. The benefits of school choice are unlikely to emerge within the context of a Common Cored curriculum.

To ensure civic equity, it is likely we need to nationalize one subject — civic education. It’s the major subject where common historical and contemporary knowledge across schools would make sense — such as the basic principles in the U.S. Constitution.  Some educators have strongly supported the use of some of the questions on our naturalization quiz as the basis for a high school graduation test. But to ensure diverse voices in history and geography at the classroom level, teachers should invite each parent of students in their grades 3-8 classes to recommend one good ethnic story/poem to read and discuss in class, with close relatives invited to attend and participate.

Public education should not be ignored by the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but we do need to re-think what we do in K-12 and not repeat the mistakes of the last 50 years.


Sandra Stotsky, former senior associate commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, is professor of education emerita at the University of Arkansas. This article is a revised and expanded version of an article that previously appeared in Education News. Read other articles by Ms. Stotsky published by New Boston Post here.