Education Opportunity Network

Education Opportunity Network -

Why Arne Duncan Has Been A Monumental Flop As Education Secretary

For some years now, the term “The Village” has circulated throughout the Internet blogosphere as a shorthand description of the insular life of the Washington, D.C., policy makers and media mavens. As Heather “Digby” Parton explained in 2009, the term is a metaphor for how Beltway folks in policy circles and the press speak with great assurance about what is understood by “average Americans” without ever actually consulting anyone outside a tight circle of anointed “experts” or dipping their toes into the experiential waters of communities very different from their own.

Although thoughts attributed to The Village are most apt to be shared in discussions about economic policy, there is a form of Village narrowcasting in education policy discussions too.

That’s why, for instance, you almost always see news articles about education policy liberally salted with quotes by operatives from a very select few right-wing and politically centrist Beltway policy shops, such as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Education Trust, or Democrats for Education Reform.

When reporters want to “balance” that wonkery with another point of view, they might get a statement from a teachers’ union representative such as American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten. But what’s extremely rare is to encounter arguments being made by people of color in communities such as New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia, or New York City – you know, the people actually most affected by the kinds of policies being talked about.

Maybe journalists believe ordinary citizens with firsthand experiences can’t be regarded as “experts.” But even when they look for validated expertise, their gaze rarely goes beyond the banks of the Potomac.

This is not to say that those inhabiting the education wing of The Village are dishonest people, lack credibility, or have any bad intentions – or that it may be arguable that people who report about education generally have more journalistic integrity than reporters on other beats. It’s just that when conversations about something as important as public education seem extraordinarily closed off to but an elite few, there are bound to be some completely unsubstantiated claims and atrocious misperceptions being reported by what normally would be considered reliable sources.

That’s likely the dynamic that caused Lyndsey Layton, a normally super-competent education journalist for The Washington Post, to lay this brontosaurus egg in that outlet.

The subject of Layton’s reporting, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, was the bipartisan stud when the Obama administration debuted but has now devolved into the bipartisan flop as new bills in Congress seek to do all they can to neuter the secretary and make sure future secretaries never do what he did ever again.

Nevertheless, Layton does all she can to prop up assumptions of Duncan’s accomplishments and laud him as a bastion of qualities most people agree he has never had.

The result of her off-target report is that not only does she mischaracterize the painful flaws of the Obama administration’s education policies – and the consequences of those flaws for public school children and teachers – but she also misses the most important story about what this failed policy leader leaves in his wake.

What Good Did Duncan Do?

First, let’s look at some grand assumptions Layton makes about what Duncan has accomplished. Because of Duncan, she seems to imply, “Most Americans now accept public charter schools as an alternative to neighborhood schools, most teachers expect to be judged in some measure on how well their students perform on standardized tests, and most states are using more demanding K-12 math and reading standards.”

Each of these conclusions would be true only if you ignored a whole lot of context around them.

First, regarding Americans’ supposed acceptance of charter schools, let’s be clear that because surveys show people generally have a favorable opinion of charter schools, that does not mean most people consider them “an alternative.” The main conclusion of most polling data about charter schools is that most people don’t know what the hell they are. After all, only 6 percent of the nation’s school children attend charter schools, and vast swaths of the country are still relatively charter-free.

So while it’s true Duncan’s pro-charter policies have certainly led to more Americans being aware of charter schools, that’s a far cry from concluding Americans actually see charters as viable alternatives. In the meantime, as the torrent of bad publicity about charter schools continues to grow and spread, favorability of these institutions is likely to head downward.

Second, it’s true that more teachers than ever before are having student test scores used in their performance evaluations. But Layton’s own contention that teachers “expect” this is refuted in her own reporting that Washington state “rejected Duncan’s requirement that it use student test results to evaluate teachers, which experts increasingly say is not a reliable way to identify good and bad teachers.”

Even in those states where the policy has become the norm, as Education Week’s Alyson Klein reports, it has often not been fully embraced and will be quickly dispensed with once Duncan has lost the power he has had to grant waivers to the No Child Left Behind law. In fact, both versions of a revised NCLB currently being considered in the House and the Senate forbid the federal government from enforcing this requirement.

Last, while Duncan was instrumental in pressuring states to adopt new Common Core State Standards, there’s not really any evidence the standards are “more demanding” than what states already had. While that might be true in Mississippi, others have argued it’s not true for Massachusetts. As an article in The Huffington Post recaps, some authoritative reviews of the new standards agree completely they are an improvement over what existed before, while others find older standards in some states, such as those in California and Florida, were better than the Common Core.

The fact is no one really knows what the imposition of new standards will lead to. The first consequence already observed is that student scores on tests related to the standards decline precipitously and will likely continue to do so. But this doesn’t prove the new standards are more demanding. It just proves they are different.

Who Was the Real Arne Duncan?

Where Layton is most off base is in her reporting about how Duncan conducted his job and the widespread perception of him by those who most closely follow education policy.

The first howler is the contention that “unfiltered, direct contact has been key in shaping” the way Duncan views the world. Layton finds this quality in evidence in his routine of keeping up with a network of “strivers” he has come to known over the years. But it’s hard to see how regular phone calls to a handpicked cadre of acquaintances who are already predisposed to agree with him is the same thing as “unfiltered, direct contact.”

In fact, one of the chief ongoing criticisms of Duncan has been his tendency to proceed through every encounter with the public by reciting prepared remarks – an “impenetrable wall of talking points,” as education media critic Alexander Russo described it on his blog.

When education journalist Valerie Strauss watched Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart try to have a conversation with Arne Duncan, she observed on her blog at The Washington Post, “The effort was an exercise in the futility of conversing with someone who won’t deviate from his talking points.”

It’s really hard to reconcile this image of a caring and considerate Arne Duncan with the same man who called his critics “armchair pundits” and said education historian Diane Ravitch, a critic of his, “is in denial and she is insulting all of the hardworking teachers, principals and students all across the country.”

This is the man, after all, who derided parents who dared criticize his imposed testing regime as “white suburban moms.”

An even more unreal image of Duncan Layton conveys in her article is that “In a town where many like to talk, Duncan is regarded as a good listener.”

When classroom teacher and frequent Duncan critic Anthony Cody had what was supposed to be a sit-down with the secretary, what he described was a carefully scripted phone call where Duncan himself consumed half the allotted time, and Cody and his colleagues were unable to squeeze in what they planned to talk about.

“The funny thing about the conversation,” Cody recalls, “was that the whole time, they seemed to think we had questions, and their job was to answer them. We had actually approached the conversation from a different place. We thought perhaps they might want to ask us questions, or hear our ideas about how to improve schools.”

More recently, Duncan showed off his tin ear again during a Twitter chat. As one participant in that dialogue observed on her blog, the chat was entitled “Parental engagement,” but “he didn’t ‘engage’ much with the parents who were asking him the tough questions regarding his education policy that affect their kids. In fact, Duncan didn’t say much.”

But more serious than these personal interactions, Duncan’s tendency to ignore critics, regardless of their stature, was a significant reason why his policies ultimately failed.

When the Obama administration introduced its “Education Blueprint” in 2010, research experts at the National Education Policy Center immediately warned the policies guiding the Department of Education were poorly grounded in research or not based on any objective studies at all. Later in his tenure, Duncan was warned numerous times that using student test scores to evaluate teachers was inaccurate and unfair, yet he persisted in ignoring these warnings. Every time experienced educators challenged Duncan to question his agenda and reconsider policy directions, he responded by … continuing down the same course.


This deafness to expertise, more than any of his deficiencies, is likely why, as Ravitch concludes in here response to Layton’s piece, “It will take years to recover from the damage that Arne Duncan’s policies have inflicted on public education. He exceeded the authority of his office to promote a failed agenda, one that had no evidence behind it. The next president and the next Secretary of Education will have an enormous job to do to restore our nation’s public education system from the damage done.”

The Biggest Failure of All

Among the “damage” Ravitch refers to is what Duncan has done to affect meaningful, positive legislation in the future.

If Layton happened upon the New York Times report on what is currently happening to education policy in Congress, she would have seen the ultimate legacy Duncan leaves behind in the headline “Lawmakers move to limit government’s role in education.”

As the article explains, Congress, in its efforts to rewrite NCLB, has “moved to substantially scale back the federal government’s role in education.” The impetus for this scaling back is bipartisan and shared in both the House and the Senate. And should a new version of NCLB pass, it will limit the federal government’s role in our nation’s schools.

What’s particularly unfortunate about that policy direction is that the federal government historically has had a mostly positive influence in public schools. As the article reminds us, what we now call NCLB was “initially passed in 1965 as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” a law that “was originally designed to protect the nation’s neediest students, and that the federal government must play a significant enforcement role to ensure that poor students, racial minorities and students with disabilities all receive an equal education.”

Because of that act, millions upon millions of impoverished children have had resources funneled to their schools through programs like Title I. Students who do not speak English as their first language have had funds sent to their schools to pay for specialists. Students who have physical disabilities, social-emotional problems and trouble with their learning and intellectual development have had more access to education opportunities and better supports in their schools. More girls and young women have been provided opportunities to play sports and experience a full curriculum.

Sure, this federal mission has not always been fully funded or adequately implemented. But that was the goal, and it was the goal NCLB took our attention away from and the goal this blundering oaf of a secretary refused to take up as his primary job, even though everyone outside his inner circle clamored he do so.

So the biggest tragedy of Arne Duncan is not only the millions of students and families ill-served under his tenure but the millions that will likely be ill-served in the future because it looks like his self-righteous, narrow-minded zeal will leave the federal government’s role in education marginalized for the immediate and foreseeable future.

You would think people who work in Washington, D.C., would get that.

[This article originally appeared at Salon.]

  • marilyn brenneman says:

    yes he has been terrible. my kids are both teachers and they feel that he helped ruin public education , along with all the republican governors who are wrecking it too.

    July 17, 2015 at 1:09 pm
  • Mark Collins says:

    Sweet takedown of Lyndsey and Arne. I lost all respect for her in 2012 when she wrote this article and had Mike in front of a DC building. Humorous since the fellow lives in Montgomery County, MD. I wrote her about it, and unlike other Post scribes who respond to emails…she never did.

    July 17, 2015 at 1:40 pm
  • Barbara Sullivan says:

    I don’t understand how he got the job in the first place. He did a terrible job in IL. Why would anyone think he would change his stripes on the national level? He merely doubled down on all his anti-education policies and beliefs and we will be picking up the pieces for decades.

    July 17, 2015 at 3:36 pm
  • P. Broome says:

    In the process of destroying public education, beginning with Virginia’s Standards of Learning and President Bush’s NCLB, an enduring tragedy is how these choices have negatively impacted America’s children’s opportunities to learn, experience a rich education, and gain confidence in themselves through an appropriate education. Just as tragic, numerous capable students, through an abundance of unrelenting stress and failure, are now taking prescribed or unprescibed drugs for anxiety and/or depression; or, they have dropped out of school; or, worse. Some have committed suicide because they lost hope of ever having a happy, productive future.

    July 17, 2015 at 3:40 pm
  • Dr. Dave F. Brown says:

    Thank you all for identifying the absurdities of federal education policy over the past 15 years. The major and ONLY players in determining how, what, and IF students are learning are TEACHERS! Unfortunately, since NCLB and Race to the Top, the academic lives of our children and adolescents have been stolen by testing corporations–something Duncan exacerbated with his un-researched policies. Not one education secretary has ever been an educator! Imagine that other cabinet positions were filled with unqualified non-professionals–especially one as ignorant as Duncan about teaching and learning. Want the research-based truth about the continual successes of America’s public schools–read the book, Why America’s Public Schools Are the Best Place for Kids: Reality vs. Negative Perceptions. We can only hope at this point that the reauthorization of ESEA returns teaching and learning back to the professionals–teachers!

    July 17, 2015 at 5:26 pm
  • Barbara Chestney says:

    I also before reading this article have thought that with such an opportunity with Obama as President behind him he would do great things. I guess it was just not meant to be.

    July 17, 2015 at 6:19 pm
  • Carolyn Jackson says:

    I honestly think that if Arne Duncan had not been from Chicago with a propensity for pick-up basketball, Obama would not have appointed him. It always felt like a guy thing. Along with a lot of people, I was pulling for Linda Darling Hammond or someone like her who understands that teachers themselves need education not more attempts to evaluate them and find them wanting and unworthy of a living wage. A great opportunity lost.

    July 17, 2015 at 7:12 pm
  • Elwood says:

    Duncan is not a “blundering oaf”. His policies have been calculated and intentional. They are bent on destroying public education in the US and replacing it with for-profit, crony-driven ED-biz corporatization. They are intentionally harming students and destroying the desire and interest in learning, as well as the desire and interest of teachers in teaching, because contrary to the torrent of lies, issued by the Obama regime and its corporate parasite owners, they have no interest in creating and maintaining an educated, knowledgable population. Instead, the corporatocracy wants narrowly capable insecure drones, able only to fill the niches it wants filled, for as long as it needs those niches filled, and no longer. It needs cannon fodder for its wars, and virtual slave fodder for whatever remains of industry, and a frightened, insecure, subservient ill- educated population is far easier to control and exploit than a capable assertive educated one, and allows for maximum profit extraction far more willingly and effectively. This is what Duncan is about, and what his outrageous ramming of appalling Common Corpse standards, coupled with his relentless attacks on teachers, and unions, and his pushing of for-profit, public-school- parasitizing charter schools, is about. He doesn’t know anything about education and does not care. He knows and cares about profit.

    July 17, 2015 at 7:16 pm
  • camb888 says:

    Arne has destroyed public education, with O’Bama’s approval. We hear a lot now about O’Bama’s “legacy” bills. One of his undeniable legacies will absolutely be the destruction and selling out of America’s system of public schooling to his corporate and Wall Street buddies FOR PROFIT no less. Despicable. That’s what happens when you let Bill Gates dictate education policy at the top.

    July 17, 2015 at 8:47 pm
  • Julie Stroeve says:

    Getting promoted for failure rarely happens in the private sector; getting promoted for failure (as in Chicago Public Schools) happens all too often, sadly, in the Beltway.

    July 20, 2015 at 6:12 pm
  • Linda Strauss says:

    Actually, it was not President Obama or Arne Duncan who began the ruination of public education- that started with Jeb Bush. But Obama and Duncan have done nothing to improve the situation, and have only further hurt public education. It was just recently reported that Duncan’s own children, who had been attending Virginia public schools, will be moving back to Chicago to attend private school. Maybe he realizes the mess he has assisted to perpetuating in public education, and wants to assure them a good education removed from his failures.

    July 24, 2015 at 4:47 am

Leave a Reply