Season 2, Episode 6: Who will replace Betsy DeVos?

Hey, Michael.

Hey, Diane. It's been quite a week with the election that everyone I'm sure has been, was, was waiting with bated breath to see how it worked out last week and obviously the suspense over the counting in the various states and so on. But I have to be honest, I'm really proud of myself right now because I went to sleep early on election night. I didn't succumb to the temptation of watching cable news. You know, I have political junkie in my back background, but I avoided all of that and I, you know, but I got to watch President Elect Biden's speech Saturday night, felt good about that and really identified with the central message and hoping that we can indeed lower the temperature across our country over the next four years. Easier said than done. But I'm hopeful and I'm curious. How did you survive the past week?

Well, Michael, it sounds like we had a very similar approach to the week. I sort of threw myself into work, swore off news and figured someone would tell me when something actually was decided. And two was really happy about and inspired by a message of unity and collaboration. And you know, that that's what I'm really looking forward to is, is not waking up every morning wondering, oh no, what has the president done today? I'm perfectly fine with boring drama free approach to governing.

You no longer have to check Twitter.

Exactly. I'll only be following you now, Michael.

Oh, good. Of course. But you know, obviously this is timely, right? Because it's. All of these changes dovetail exactly why we're having these conversations because the considerable uncertainty continues to manifest itself across our country in a time of COVID and the racial reckoning that we've had and all of these stresses that families, parents and educators are feeling.

Indeed, Michael. And I think what we're trying to do here on class disrupted is offer a balanced and nuanced versus sort of headline grabbing, sound bitey way of thinking about what, what's going on. And so let's, let's get to it.

Yeah, let's do it. And in that vein, Diane, I read an article about a change in the end of year tests in California. So that's your neighborhood, no longer mine. And I would love to get your take on what's actually happening there and what the impact is likely to be. What do you have on the plate?

Great. Well, I have to go here, Michael. It feels a bit early, but I've got to tell you, everybody is already speculating on who the next secret of education will be. And as it turns out, that person might have some say over those California tests. So. So let's actually get started with those tests and then jump into the talk of the town.

Perfect as usual. Two topics that are kind of connected to each other, it turns out. So the California State Board of Education last Thursday they voted unanimously to adopt a modified and shortened version of the Smarter Balanced exams that students in grades three through eight and then grade 11 are required to take in math and English language art. And it's interesting, it's important because everyone was speculating and they're still speculating, you know, will students still take tests if they're not perhaps in schools? Right. And so it's a one year change. It's going to reduce these two tests by about half the time. As I understand it, there's no impact on the science tests because that's already shorter than English and math tests. And of course, the context is that last year the federal government granted a waiver from all the end of year tests given the pandemic. But it's unclear what will happen this year. I'll tell you that I've spoken to some former Obama administration officials who are not keen to see a waiver again. They want those tests there because of the perception that it will hide the inadequate education that many low income and minority students have been receiving during these times. But you know, you have a lot more context on this than I do. Given you're still in California, this will impact the students you serve. So I'd love your take and help me understand the underlying dynamics.

Well, I don't think this is going to shock you, Michael, but I do not believe this is the best for kids. Just full stop. This is not good for kids. And you know, I think people are probably getting used to me saying that. And I've got this reputation of not being a test person or an accountability person, which is not true. So let's just. I care very deeply about all of those things. But in all seriousness, I really don't think this is best for kids for a few key reasons. One, these D tests aren't about helping and supporting individual students. The results are, are basically impossible to read for families. They come way too late and aren't nearly precise enough for teachers to use. And they take precious resources of our time and our focus and money to administer. And those are not things we can spare this year, Michael.

So I'm actually really curious, like these are digital tests, right? Like they've still, even if they're half the time, it's going to take till the next year to figure out results.

I mean, yes, it is insane. And that's just how it goes. We're into the next school year before we actually have results. And what's really important is, again, these are not helpful results when you're actually a teacher in a classroom. I think the other thing is, and this is a big one for me, they are going to tell us that kids are really struggling to learn this year. This notion that somehow that's to going going to be a hidden message seems crazy to me. No one's confused about this. There's nothing new that we're going to learn here. So we're going to spend an incredible amount of money to find out something we already know and get information that's not going to help us do anything about it. And you know how we spend that money on making sure every single student in the state has something like, let's spend that money differently. What about broadband access for every student in the state and a computer? Michael, I can just think of so many better ways for us to spend the time. Focus, energy, resources.

So I hear you, and I think the important point that you're raising is that we already sort of know what the outcomes are going to be. We don't need to take the test to show us that. And that, to me, I think, is the big point, because when I, when I think about all of this, it's worth stepping back and saying, okay, what was the original purpose, right, for this testing regime in general? And a big part of it was that we didn't even have this data or this information, right. Like years and years ago and like no Child Left behind and even before that, frankly, started to change that because we didn't have this insight into who was being left behind, as the language went. And the important part of the law, I think, was to break it out by subgroup so that we could really see these in sharp relief. Your point, I think, makes a lot of sense, which is, you know, we sort of already know how this game is being played out. So given we have limited resources, where do we spend them? And I think that's the big point. And obviously in the article that I read on Ed Source, Linda Darling Hammond, who oversees the California Board, she emphasized that from a perspective of teaching and learning, schools and teachers should be completing a variety of assessments to give students and parents feedback beyond the smarter balance tests, because those scores, just as you said, they're not available to months later. Her quote was, everyone should have more data about their child from other assessments. I Completely agree with that. I think my read is sort of twofold as I, as I think about it. One, it's ironic that this is the way we're having a conversation about reducing the time taking tests because that's been such an emphasis right now and it continues to miss the bigger opportunity for me, which is that I think tests are incredibly important, but they should be both for learning so driving what a student does next and of learning giving us a window transparency. But by individual, forget about subgroup, by individual of where are you in your learning journey so that we can be improving. And that seems to me the bigger opportunity for innovation in this void is just to try some things, right? Where we use assessments, we use performances that have external validation of them, right? To say, hey, where are you struggling or not and make adjustments at the teacher student level that we can always aggregate up. I mean there's plenty of data systems that can aggregate up now. We don't need to sort of have this top down view of things, I guess is my perspective. And it sounds like we're not taking advantage of that bigger opportunity completely.

Michael, both you and Linda are, couldn't be more right. We should have data from other assessments, which is one more reason to not give these state tests. You know, one in the, the things that struck me the most about the announcement when I actually read it was the state director of assessment called these shortened tests. Now remember, we're going from like eight hours to four. That's the big revolutionary change. Actually called it an innovation. And I honestly almost fell out of my chair, Michael. I mean people love to call things innovation. Innovative. It's a buzzword that makes people feel good. But let's be clear. There's not one single thing about shortening the length of the test that is innovative. This is not innovation. And what you're describing as the need is a real need right now and for a long period of time now the fact that we have this pretty oppressive all consuming testing regimen in this country means that no one is being innovative around how they can actually get other meaningful assessment data that's actually useful for the improvement of students learning and helpful for teachers and helpful for families. And so this system's actually robbing us of the space to be innovative. And you know, you're one of the experts on when innovation actually happens. And it doesn't happen when there's a big giant oppressive system that everyone is beholden to and their jobs and careers depend on it and that's how they're judged. And so you know. Yeah. I don't even know what more to say about that.

Well, it's a good point. And I guess the other thing that I'm thinking about, as you said it, you know, I get it, why we want less time taken up by tests and so forth. I think that's exactly right. Moving though, from the eight hours to the four hours as you just described, it's going to be an even blunter assessment when you think about it. Right. Like right now, these assessments largely only capture grade level tasks, so we don't learn at the level of the individual. Like where are your gaps? What's the one thing we could do for you that would like allow you to soar and unlock opportunity? That's not what these are used for. And we're still not going. And it's going to be worse in that direction. Right. As we even cut them down more. So in some ways I think we're exacerbating certain problems and not addressing the root causes. We've just talked about about putting a better foundation in that could create a system a would be better for teaching and learning, full stop. But it also would be a lot more transparent, which seems like the opportunity we keep missing. And maybe that's the perfect segue into the secretary of Education conversation, Diane, if you're okay with it. Because, you know, a major role obviously of the federal government is transparency and data. So what's on your mind in the Secretary of Education?

Well, it's on my mind and a lot of people's minds. And it's interesting that these two are connected in one more ways than one. You referenced Linda Darling Hammond, who's the head of the California State Board of Education and one of the rumored possible next Secretaries of Education. She has ruled that out, but she

is, of course leading the transition team for Biden as she did for President Obama.

Indeed. Indeed. And personally was one of my favorite professors. And so I have great respect for her. And it leads us into this conversation that it's hard to deny, Michael, that Betsy DeVos is perhaps, I think, the most well known secretary of education in the history of the US and at the same time the least popular. It's not surprising that the press is already speculating on her replacement. I read a Politico article this weekend that seemed to really miss the mark in terms of understanding what the federal Department of Ed does and thus what the role entails and therefore the list of people that they were sort of trying to advance as possible top candidates. And so in keeping with our commitment to focus on what is best for kids versus adult drama. I thought we could just start with a simple question like, what does the federal Department of Education actually do?

MICHAEL yeah, I mean, it's a great opening question. I love how you just took it back to, like, first principles there. Right. And so if I think it's important to remember that given the way our country was set up and that education, as people are fond of saying, was not mentioned in the Constitution, you know, education is really the purview of the states. And in fact, there was not a federal department of Education. It wasn't a cabinet level position. In other words, until 1979. Prior to that, it was just an office. And even that office did not have a very long history behind it.

DIANE it's so shocking to me every time I'm reminded. 1979, this is a very, very recent yes, and it really just started out collecting statistics. MICHAEL that was kind of what it was doing for the US Is figuring, all right, what's happening. But by the late 1950s, early 60s, the federal government started allocating more money to education and specifically to the education of poor children. But they people don't realize that they start in early childhood and go through post secondary or college. And as with most things like this, with money comes involvement.

Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, you know, initially it was it's interesting, in higher education, it was all an access agenda, and in K12 education, it was really a leveling of the field agenda, right? Knowing that states spent different things on different students, different districts certainly have dramatically different levels of spending based on property tax loads and so forth. And so it was really starting as ensuring equal access to education and doing all these things to supplement and complement the states and local communities. But as you mentioned, you know, at some point people start saying, well, what are we getting for those dollars? And so the emphasis started to move toward accountability, transparency, return on investment questions, really saying, you know, in some some administrations have been very prescriptive, right? This is how you were allowed to spend these dollars in very detailed ways that then disproportionately impact other programs in the field. And then others have just said, you know, other administrations have been much more focused on, let's understand from a testing perspective, what outcomes we're actually getting, and then let local actors sort of decide what they want to do with that information. DIANE Right.

MICHAEL While all those things are true that you just said, and part of the mission of the Department of Education, in reality, the way that it actually works out and where the money is allocated. It turns out that the federal Department of Education is probably more involved in post secondary and early childhood than K12, even though the public tends to really focus on the, the, the K12 portion of their engagement.

Yeah, it's an important point because I think it's, you know, at its high watermark in K12 spending in the Obama administration got up to just about 10% of total K12 funds spent in this country on public schools. You contrast that.

That's worth repeating. 10%. The federal is only contributing 10% of what we're spending on our schools.

It's, it's suspect, and I don't have it in front of me, but I Suspect it's probably 8% right now or something like that. So it's not a lot, right, is the point. No Child Left behind took it up a step into the 7 to 10 range. Before that, it was even less. DIANE and so, you know, whereas higher education, right through Title $4, Pell grants, federal student loans, things of that nature there, we're talking about billions and billions and billions of dollars. Like I want to say, it's like 40% or so of the higher education spend touches the federal government. And so it's a significantly different landscape in terms of, frankly, direct influence into those two sectors, just to name those two.

MICHAEL I'm so glad we're starting by grounding in what the department actually does, the mission of the department and their activities. But before we start thinking about who should be doing the job of the next secretary. And so I want to lead us in that direction, and I'd like to point out three areas where I would suggest the department has an outsized impact on what happens in K12 schools. But these might be a little bit different than what people think about. Normally, the first one we'll just come back to it is testing. Everything always sort of comes back to testing. But, you know, states have grown higher, highly dependent on these federal dollars, and so they need them, which means they've had to accept the federal accountability system, which is rooted in this annual testing system we were just talking about. And like it or not, these tests are driving a majority of what's happening or not happening in our K12 schools. And as we've previously talked about, really, in many ways, narrowing the focus of the schools and blocking some real innovation and change. So the department definitely has an influence there and that matters. The second thing is a little bit more of a leap, but money for college. So, as you've just said, the DOE plays a huge role in granting and lending money for college. And regardless of where you sit on this sort of hot debate topic, the reality is that these programs have driven the economics and the price tags for college, which in turn is having a pretty dramatic impact on what high schools are doing in the country. And I can just tell you, as a high school educator, the impact of college on what we do. It's like that effect of what college does drives what high school does. What high school does drives what middle school does. What middle school does drives elementary. We've talked about, talked about that in detail before, but it might be worth returning to at some point because it's so significant. Then finally, and this is the one that I'm not sure that people really have a real grasp on is the federal government drives special education in our K12 education system. In short, the federal law that governs the rights and access to education for students with disabilities has a really profound impact on the behaviors and, and the budgets of every K12 school in America. These mandates have never been fully funded by the federal government, which is one of the big controversies around them. And as I can tell you, as a K12 educator, really significantly impact the decisions we make, the shape of our program, how we serve our kids. I will just say those three big areas of focus suggest to me that the notion that picking a teacher to be the Secretary of ed, which is what a lot of people are talking about, would not actually set the teacher up or the country up for success. Like this job isn't about teaching, sadly. It's about implementing policy in a way that enables teachers to be successful. I would argue, if done well. But I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.

Yeah, I think it's a good point to start and I think the irony is that the politics of this has gotten so much on. We need to have a teacher, teacher as the head of the Secretary of Education. But, but your point is. Is right, I think in my mind, which is what we really need is someone that is able to see the overall system right. And the impact of policy or any one action and the ripple effects of how that helps or, or hurts in many cases, what happens on the ground. And, and it's not clear that someone who's been in the system will necessarily be able to see that ball rolling down. And, and frankly, the irony of a lot of past picks, I would argue, of secretaries of education, is that they with a particular area of Expertise, they're a K12 person, they're a higher ed person, almost always K12 by the way. But, but then they deal when, when you look at the time that they spend, they actually spend most of their time on something else that's outside their area of expertise. So let's take Betsy DeVos for example, right. She knew more about K12, I would, I would argue, than higher ed. Disproportionately though there's no question her department has done way more in higher ed than K12. It's not even close. Right. And so ideally, from my perspective, you would have someone that's able to see that globally in some way and stretch across. And it's why, you know, both of the heads of the major teachers unions have been floated as potential candidates. A if Republicans control the Senate, I think it's a non starter unless Biden wants to go down the Trump road of appointing acting SEC secretaries that never get confused. Confirmed. But I just, I don't see that given his message of unity, I do think that he's more sympathetic to teachers unions than perhaps President Obama was. So, you know, there is more synergy there, I suppose. But I'm really intrigued by like some of the names like a Freeman Hrabowski, the president of University of Maryland, Baltimore county that have been floated because someone like that has been directly impacted from the system, from the higher ed level, but sees the full funnel of K12. And, and he's been really noted in particular for supporting African American students, taking them from the K12 system and supporting them all the way through graduation into amazing careers through a bunch of the moves he's done. So someone like that that I think is able to see the full system is super intriguing to me at least. Diane?

I completely agree with you, Michael. And I think what I would add to this is one, one of the reasons Betsy DeVos is so well known and so disliked is the, the other part of this secretary job is that they have a podium in the U.S. you know, this person is the voice of education. Even though the money is minimal, even though the power is really not there, this person has the megaphone when it comes to education. And so I think what I just want to add is I'm looking for someone who is going to carry that initial message we heard from the president elect and the vice president elect of unity and collaboration and a collective effort and that we're all in this together because sadly, in education, while I think everyone in it really does want what's best for kids and cares about kids, there's terrible fighting and terrible, you know, war making among different factions. And it's Just really unhealthy. And I'm hopeful that this next secretary can be someone who really does unite people and bring them together and uses their megaphone in order to advance that approach.

Here's to that. Right. I mean, I think if everybody cabinet pick and sort of choice right now can go toward lowering the temperature, we would all be better off given all the stresses right now, right? Diane?

I completely agree with you, Michael. And I'm sure we're going to be watching. I know you and I will be watching this closely over the coming weeks and we'll be so curious to see who our next secretary is. But until then, I'm so curious. Us, what have you been managing to read or look at or think about what's striking you in these last couple of crazy weeks?

Yeah, I'm pouring through a bunch of books as usual. I finally picked up the how to be an Anti Racist book and so I'm about 30 or 40 pages into that so far. I think my take might be different from other people's, but that's a different conversation. But the one that I've actually enjoyed the most is just a podcast. It's the Graffito podcast. I'm sure I'm saying that incorrectly. G R A F F I T O But it's about restaurants and sort of how they've been impacted by the pandemic and all the supply chains and all the frontline workers and distribution. Right. And how they get impacted during this. And a friend of mine who was on the podcast sort of put me onto it because we were hanging out and I was like, I want to hear your voice more. No, but either way it was fascinating because it's a whole side of this that has been been hugely disrupted in our lives thanks to this. And it's been eye opening for me. What about you?

Fascinating. Well, I just finished reading Cleopatra, which is the award winning work of nonfiction that honestly reads like fiction by Stacy Schiff. And it's been on my shelf for years, Michael. And for some reason it finally felt like the right time to read it. And on Saturday I realized why it was the right time to read it. I'll tell you the As I watched Vice President Elect Kamala Harris speak of her journey and how it's a continuation of the journey of so many women who came before her. And as she stood in front of our nation in her highly symbolic white suit, I was. I was. It's happening to me again right now, Michael. I was overcome with unexpected emotions, I think for two reasons. First it means something to me that a woman has been elected to the second highest office, and it's not just little girls that it matters to. It matters to some of us as well.

It's important to say that. Right?

Yeah. And then second, that Kamala had to, and likely will continue having to endure the same tired criticisms and attacks that Cleopatra endured over 2,000 years ago. I've been reflecting all weekend on, rather than just feeling angry about that, what will I do as a woman to stand against the narrative that Kamala is going to be our vice president for any reason other than her hard work, her intelligence, her values, and her commitment to our, our nation? And I'm really just holding myself accountable to not let any of that seep in and do what I can to make sure that we honor and respect her.

Well, I'll say as so. I mean, you're right. It obviously has had an impact on, on women, not just daughters, but as the father of daughters, that's where I'm seeing it right now. So I, I. That resonates what you just said, Dan.

And with that, Michael, it was good to chat with you as always. I will look forward to seeing you again. On our next episode of Class Disrupted.