The Biden campaign released the names of those who will serve on transition teams. Our reader, retired arts educator Laura Chapman, reviewed the members of the education transition team. According to the campaign (cited in Valerie Strauss’s article), the transition team will identify DeVos regulations that should be reversed, but the team will not set policy or staff. Chapman, like many readers of this blog, believes that President Obama’s Race to the Top was profoundly wrong because of its overemphasis on standardized testing (a fact acknowledged even by President Obama) and its advocacy for charter schools and evaluation of teachers by the test scores of their students. Biden promised a new vision and fresh policies for K-12 education, not more of the same failed policies.
Chapman writes:
Biden-Harris Transition teams are selected to review specific agencies. Volunteers are listed only by their “most recent employment.” Those serving in education are “volunteers” and not required to indicate “sources of funding.”
I have looked into the biographies of Biden’s 20 experts in education – entries from LinkedIn, their current organizations, and less often Wikipedia.
Of these
15 have no documented Pre-k to12 teaching experience.
14 held positions in Obama’s administration with nine of these in the US Department of Education (USDE). Two worked at USDE before Obama.
10 are lawyers.
7 have supported charter schools, here indicated by*
Also lurking here are Billionaire supporters of failed educational reforms.
LEADER: Linda Darling-Hammond.* CEO Learning Policy Institute. See Wikipedia. Of interest: She developed the EdTPA (Teacher Performance Assessment) used in 40 states and 750 teacher education programs and the Smarter Balanced Assessment aligned with the Common Core, still used in some states, including California. Early in her career, she co-founded a preschool/day care center and Early College High charter school serving low-income students of color in East Palo Alto, California. The school had multiple connections with Stanford University where Linda Darling-Hammond taught. A version of this concept still exists in East Palo Alto Academy where some academic programs are connected with Stanford University. Linda Darling-Hammond is the subject of video interviews conducted in her home by Amrein-Beardsley. I recommend them. Be sure to scan down for the first video /inside-the-academy/linda-darling-hammond This archive also has video interviews with Diane Ravitch, Howard Gardner, Elliot Eisner and others.
UNION CONNECTIONS: American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association.
–Donna Harris-Aikens. Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Senior Director of Education Policy and Practice NEA (14 years). Prior work at NEA on ESEA. Former Policy Manager for Service Employees International Union.
–Beth Antunez, No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Deputy Director, Government Relations for AFT. Previously ATF Assistant Director for educational issues especially community school initiatives.
–Shital Shah, No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Manager of Philanthropic Engagement at AFT. Other AFT positions for 18 years, most of these in community engagement. Other youth and public heath work, including Peace Corps in Honduras.
–Marla Ucelli-Kashyap. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Assistant to the AFT President for Educational Issues. Former Director of District Redesign and Leadership at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University and senior program officer at the Rockefeller Foundation. Member, Advisory Council for “Education Reimagined,” devoted to “Personalized learning that is competency-based and has a wide range of learning environments and adult roles.” https://education-reimagined.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Vision_Website.pdf
UNION and OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SERVICE
–Robert Kim. Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. John Jay College of Criminal Justice; writer and consultant on legal, policy, and civil rights issues in education. Senior Title IX EEO investigator. Former Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Operations and Outreach, USDE. Senior Policy Analyst, NEA. Co-author, “Education and the Law, 5th ed.” (West Academic Publishing, 2019) and “Legal Issues in Education: Rights and Responsibilities in U.S. Public Schools Today” (2017). Early legal service for ACLU, and Legal Aid.
–Ruthanne Buck. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. A Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretaries of Education John King and Arne Duncan for educator outreach and engagement. Previously Assistant to AFT President for Special Projects and National Field Director at AFT. Led major field and political operations on progressive issues, agencies and candidates.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION (* indicates some connection to charter schools)
–Ary Amerikaner, Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Vice President for P-12 Policy, Practice, and Research at the Education Trust. Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education. The Education Trust operates four offices coast to coast and makes recommendations for federal and state policy. These recommendations have treated ESSA as a civil rights mandate to be followed, with no testing waivers. The Trust wants to expand Civil Rights Data Collection reports on school crime and discipline, also AP courses (for the College Board?). The Trust wants to see the present ban on a “student unit record system” lifted. That would please Bill Gates and allow federal data-collection on individual students in any post-secondary program–including their SS numbers, income tax records and more. See https://dianeravitch.net/2017/01/07/stop-our-government-wants-to-create-a-national-database-about-everyone-including-your-children/ and https://edtrust.org/press-release/opportunities-to-advance-educational-equity-during-the-next-administration/.
–James Kvaal,* Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. President, The Institute for College Access & Success, a non-profit treating issues of student debt. Obama’s White House Deputy Director of Domestic Policy and Deputy Under Secretary USDE. Prior work as consultant for Achieving the Dream (a network of community colleges), America Achieves (Common Core), Annie E. Casey Foundation (Read by Grade Three), College Board (David Coleman), the Harvard Government Performance Lab, Results for America and others. The Institute for College Access & Success has six senior fellows from the Obama administration and lists 220 “partners” devoted to evidence-based policies and “what works.” Partners include Teach for America, Teach Plus, The New Teacher Center, charter school franchises (KIPP, IDEA, Green Dot, and YesPrep). Billionaires fund the Institute: Arnold Ventures (John D. and Laura Arnold hedge funds), the Ballmer Group (a nonprofit co-founded by former CEO of Microsoft Steve Ballmer), the S.D. Bechtel, Jr Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (funded expansion of Green Dot charter schools), William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Schmidt Futures (former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s philanthropy)
–Emma Vadehra.Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Senior fellow, The Century Foundation, also a non-resident Senior Fellow at the charter-friendly Center For American Progress. Executive Director of Next100, a Century Foundation incubator for next generation policy leaders. Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary in USDE’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, Policy Development. Also Chief of Staff for Obama’s USDE serving John B. King Jr. and Arne Duncan. Former Chief of Staff at Uncommon Schools, a charter school management organization.
–Keia Cole. Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Head of Digital Experience at MassMutual, an insurance company. Obama’s Associate General Counsel and Chief of Staff to Deputy Secretary of USDE. Responsible for providing strategic direction for USDE’s financial, technology, human capital, and risk management operations. First work at Morgan Stanley’s Investment Banking Division, specialist in financial analysis of media and communications companies. For less than a year she was an Education Pioneers Fellow at KIPP San Jose Collegiate charter school, not as a teacher.
–Roberto Rodriguez.* No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. President and CEO of Teach Plus, operates in 11 states to supply charter school teachers. Obama’s Deputy Assistant to the President for Education. Claims credit for contributions to ESSA, STEM, higher education standards. Rodriguez claims credit for bipartisan work on No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, among other major bills. Advisor on education for Unidos US, the nation’s largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization. Serves on the Board of Directors for the Alliance for Excellent Education, The Achievement Network (promoter of charter schools), the Bainum Family Foundation and Strive Together’s data-mongering Cradle to Career Network.
–Kristina Ishmael. In Nebraska, she taught ELL students for two years and Kindergarten and 2nd Grade for four years. Director of Primary and Secondary Education at Open Education Global (less than a year), in charge of adoptions of Open Educational Resources world-wide. Open Education fellow in Obama’s USDE Office of Educational Technology (2016-2017). Former manager of the Teaching, Learning, & Tech team at New America. Digital learning specialist for the Nebraska Department of Education for four years.
–Lindsay Dworkin. Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Director, Policy Development and State Government Relations at Alliance for Excellent Education. Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Outreach USDE (2016-2017). Legal work in Delaware for the former Governor and State Treasurer of Delaware Jack Markell. The Alliance (All4Ed) advocates for evidence-based instructional practices, and college and career pathways in 40 states and specific federal educational policies. A major Alliance project, Future Ready Schools, is active in 30 states pushing for digital access to “anytime, anywhere, personalized learning.” Superintendents in over 3400 districts have signed the Bill Gates inspired “pledge” at https://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org/pledge/
–Paul Monteiro, Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Assistant Vice President of External Affairs, Howard University. Previously Chief of Staff for Howard University’s President. Former Acting Director of the Community Relations Service, Obama’s Department of Justice (one year, 4 months), National Director of AmeriCorps VISTA. Public Engagement Advisor to White House on Arab Americans, faith communities, anti-poverty groups, and gun safety organizations. Deputy Director of Religious Affairs for Presidential Inauguration Committee including the National Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral. Two year appointee, Board of Education Prince George County Public Schools. Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland for three years.
USDE WORK prior to OBAMA
-Norma Cantu. University of Texas at Austin, Chair Department of Educational Administration, former US Assistant Secretary of Education 1993-2001. (Position misidentified on Biden’s list)
OTHER
–Jessica Cardichon. Lawyer. An upper elementary teacher in NYC for nearly seven years. Director of Learning Policy Institute’s DC office. Leads the Institute’s federal legislative and regulatory strategy. Co-leads LPI’s teams on state policy, member of LPI’s teams on Educator Quality, Deeper Learning, Equitable Resources and Access and Early Childhood Education. Authored reports on the Federal role in school discipline, and taking advantage of ESSA’s policies. Education Counsel to Senator Bernie Sanders, and Senior Director for Federal Policy and Advocacy, Alliance for Excellent Education.
–Jim Brown.* Lawyer. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. Former Chief of Staff for Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey and Pennsylvania Secretary of General Services. At U.S. House of Representatives, served as Staff Director and General Counsel for the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (now the Committee on Financial Services). Jim is co-founder of a company that manages over $800 million in venture capital. He is a trustee of Immaculata University, the Gesu Catholic School (K-12) and Young Scholars Charter School in Philadelphia. He is Chair of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Foundation.
–Margaret R (Peggy) McLeod. In her native Puerto Rico, she taught in two Montessori schools and owned a center that provided afterschool services to students with disabilities. Served as ESL teacher in DC. Currently Deputy Vice President of Education and Workforce Development, National Council of La Raza. Previously Executive Director, Student services, Alexandria (VA) City Public Schools. Assistant Superintendent for Special Education, District of Columbia (DC), also in DC, the Title III director, Office of Bilingual Education, Title VII coordinator, and bilingual program developer. A member of the National Board of Education Sciences since 2010.
—Pedro A. Rivera. Extent of classroom experience not found. President of Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology in Lancaster, PA since August 2020. Former five-year Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania aiding the adoption of a funding formula for basic education; a performance measure for schools (Future Ready PA Index), and a school improvement strategy. Former Executive Director for the School District of Philadelphia, former Superintendent of the School District of Lancaster, PA, classroom teacher, assistant principal, principal. https://buildbackbetter.com/the-transition/agency-review-teams/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This list is extremely disappointing. Are teachers and other educators ever going to be the majority of the voices at the table?
My opinion is that ‘just being a K-12 teacher’ isn’t fancy enough to be considered a specialist in education. You must have lots of ‘stuff’ on your resume showing how important you are.
It looks like ‘more of the same’ with nothing good happening to education. Whatever happened to Jill Biden’s advice. She used to be a high school teacher.
Can a bunch of special people who know nothing about what happens in the classroom ever come up with decent ideas?
In answer to your question: “Can a bunch of special people who know nothing about what happens in the classroom ever come up with decent ideas?”
NO! These “special people” have no clue, plus they don’t listen to teachers.
When Obama had his “Listen to Teachers Tour” NO ONE from the DoE listened. This tour cost money and was just a PR ploy.
I met with Arne for an hour early in his tenure and tried to explain why the ideas embedded in Race to the Top were bound to fail: high-stakes testing, VAM, merit pay, privatization. He took notes as he listened attentively then ignored everything I said.
What makes you think Duncan can actually take notes?
Did you actually read them afterward?
My guess is was probably just doodling basketball plays and not paying any attention to you at all.
I think you are right. He must have had earphones on, listening to a basketball game.
I worked in Washington and at various think tanks (Brookings, Hoover, Thomas B. Fordham, Manhattan Institute). They exchange ideas in a vacuum. Most of their educational experts (me included) were never career teachers. They thrive on theories and bold ideas that have never been tested. They hold conferences and fora where they talk about their theories and ideas; teachers are seldom if ever present.
Citigroup picked Obama’s cabinet. I can only imagine how much influence the donor class is having on Biden’s cabinet choices.
“Ruthanne Buck. No evident Pre-k to12 teaching. A Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretaries of Education John King and Arne Duncan for educator outreach and engagement”
The Obama Administration “outreach” was terrible. They dismissed every criticism and concern as invalid and characterized anyone who even questioned what they did as being part of “the status quo” or “self-interested”. Over 8 years they made zero adjustments to the rigid opinions and ed reform dogma they came in with, so they were either infallible or they’re incapable of learning anything through experience.
I’ve given up on the US Department of Education. If it were up to me I’d give it a very narrow role in civil rights and information collection and leave it at that. I think they’ve so lost touch with the people they serve they’re too far gone to salvage.
I AGREE with you, Chiara.
Obama never attended a public school and so he has no clue about the value and power of a public education.
I mean, look at this covid response. Every public school in the country shuts down and what help do we get? We get purely politically driven demands to “open up!” with no practical assistance whatsoever. Why are we paying for this? For some reason we’re all paying 3000 professional public school critics in the federal government who don’t lift a finger to assist any actual public school.
If there was ever a time we needed a federal agency to assist public schools it was the pandemic crisis, and they simply didn’t show up.
We already have a huge cohort of professional public school critics in the ed reform echo chamber- the think tanks, the lobbying groups, the op ed writers. Not sure we need 3000 federal employees to serve the same role.
Great information, Laura. Thank you!
Also BEWARE “ONLINE PROGRAMS.” I received this from CU-Boulder’s NEPC this morning.
Tuesday, November 17, 2020
Publication Announcement
NEPC Talks Education: Not So Fast: Critically Assessing Ed Tech During COVID-19
KEY TAKEAWAY:
NEPC Talks Education offers insightful programming on a variety of significant education policy and practice topics for educators, community members, policymakers, and anyone interested in education.
NEPC Podcast ->
NEPC Resources on Computing, Technology, and Information Systems ->
CONTACT:
William J. Mathis:
(802) 383-0058
wmathis@sover.net
Christopher Saldaña:
(303) 492-2566
christopher.saldana@colorado.edu
TwitterEmail Address
BOULDER, CO (November 17, 2020) – In this month’s episode of the NEPC Talks Education podcast, NEPC Researcher Christopher Saldaña interviews Dr. Ben Williamson, a Chancellor’s fellow at the Centre for Research in Digital Education and the Edinburgh Futures Institute. Williamson’s research examines how digital technologies, science, and data intersect with education policy and governance. He is the author of Big Data in Education: The Digital Future of Learning, Policy and Practice and the co-author of Commercialisation and Privatisation in/of Education in the Context of Covid-19.
Saldaña and Williamson discuss why it is important for educational researchers and educational policymakers to view critically the implementation of educational technology (ed tech) in schools, especially as schools adopt more ed tech to cope with the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Williamson argues that although other fields, like media studies or digital sociology, have published studies showing the ill effects of technology on, for example, politics and discrimination, the field of education has yet to produce a critical mass of studies examining the potentially significant effect of ed tech on teaching and learning.
Williamson argues that one reason for this lack of research might be because the ed tech industry benefits from influential and well-funded advocates who silence critics. For example, Williamson explains that the ed tech industry is a multi-sector, multibillion dollar industry that includes international technology firms such as Google, Microsoft and Apple, global intergovernmental organizations such as the OECD and UNESCO, major philanthropic foundations like the Gates Foundation, profit-seeking, grant-making entities such as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and educational content producers such as Pearson.
Dr. Williamson recommends that researchers examine the side effects associated with a growing ed tech sector and increased presence of technology in schools, including how this might exacerbate issues related to the digital divide and the privatization and commercialization of K-12 public schools. Williamson also encourages teachers unions to critically evaluate how the technology adopted by schools in which their members teach affects their ability to teach and their students’ ability to learn.
A new NEPC Talks Education podcast episode, hosted by NEPC Researcher Christopher Saldaña, will be released each month from September through May.
Don’t worry if you miss a month. All episodes are archived on the NEPC website and can be found here.
NEPC podcast episodes are also available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher, under the title NEPC Talks Education. Subscribe and follow!
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu
By the way, I’m watching The Hoover Institute spread misinformation about the pandemic and I can’t help but notice ed reformers rely on the same think tank for their educational agenda.
Maybe rethink taking echo chamber advice on the public schools they didn’t attend and don’t send their children to, given that it seems to come out of this discredited think tank.
It’s been amusing watching the trajectory here. “Biden will be the next FDR!” to “Reasons to be cautiously optimistic about Biden” to “Oh, crap, he went and appointed a bunch of Obama era privatization supporting rephormers.” Looking forward to Obama 2.0 while everyone goes back to sleep because “at least he isn’t Trump!”
dienne77, Biden might do a great job. 😁
The point of this post is that everyone is NOT going back to sleep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said it best in a CNN interview:
It would be a privilege and a luxury to talk about what progressives will lobby the Biden Administration for.
And that’s what we are doing.
Apparently, there are those like Chris Hedges and Caitlin Johnstone who keep trying to belittle and attack AOC and Bernie Sanders for not being as smart and wise as they are. Hedges and Johnstone and their most rabid admirers agree that the real privilege for progressives is being able to lobby Betsy Devos. It worked so well for the last 4 years.
(Of course, they also believed that having 3 Amy Coney Barretts instead of 3 Ruth Bader Ginsburgs was the key to the progressive future they want! Or maybe they just hate America – it’s hard to tell.)
I am angry at RBG. She had cancer when she was 80. She should have resigned in 2014, when Obama still had a chance to replace her. It was greedy to take the risk that she did. And now we have Amy C. Barrett because RBG refused to step down when it was time.
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to assume that Obama would have ever had a chance to replace her even in 2014. The Republican Senate stopped confirming Obama’s Court of Appeals nominations in his 6th year (as soon as they had the majority) and even before that they were filibustering almost everything. While Obama could get Kagan approved in 2010, I think there is an excellent chance that the newly emboldened Republican Senate would have filibustered in 2014 and at the time, ending the filibuster still seemed like a huge risk that Democrats would regret.
It’s true in hindsight it would have been better for Ginsburg to step down in 2010 (to guarantee a replacement), or take a bigger chance and step down in 2014. With a “normal” Republican Senate — one that at least allowed a vote! — I think she would have stepped down, but what Obama had was a Republican Senate that was able to politically maneuver to simply not allow any confirmation vote, period. That was unprecedented and the fact that the Republicans were politically rewarded for that — and continue to this day to be politically rewarded for subverting a process that had served both sides equally – made Ginsberg’s decision not to resign in 2010 turn out to be very bad. (But I’m still not sure whoever Obama nominated to replace her would have been confirmed had she resigned in 2014.) The Republicans in the senate would have filibustered until the end of 2014, when McConnell simply refused to allow a vote for the next two years.
Who would have thought that a Republican Party that did nothing but block and stall would reap such political benefits from their obstructionism? If the Democrats had done that, they would have been demonized and handed a huge defeat at the ballot box.
Diane is absolutely right about RBG failing us and her own mission by refusing to resign when Obama had running room to save her seat for a liberal appointee. I’m also angry at the cost of her refusal.
The Republicans could not have kept her seat empty for two years.
Well, I can’t defend RBG — I’ll just her speak for herself as she did in this 2014 interview:
“RBG: Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”
Just think, if the Dems won the presidency in 2016, this would all be a moot point and we would have a 6-3 liberal leaning Supreme Court, and likely the end of Citizens United, which has done so much harm to our political process.
NYCPCP,
RBG was wrong. If she had retired in 2014, Obama could have replaced her with a justice in his or her 40s or 50s, someone who would be on the Court for many years. RBG had major cancer. Pancreatic cancer. That’s as bad a cancer as there is. Obama met with her in 2014, hoping they might talk about a succession. He didn’t bring it up, and she was clearly determined to stay on. She gambled that a Democrat would follow Obama. She lost that gamble, and the whole country will suffer for it for many years. She should have stepped down when she was 80.
I don’t think there is a right or wrong here – just an opinion based on what we believe would have happened if RBG stepped down in 2014. I still believe RBG’s take on the situation which I quoted above was quite valid, even if it turned out in hindsight to (arguably) be wrong. She was a pretty smart woman!
I hope no one is disputing that RBG was absolutely correct that it wasn’t just her retiring in 2014 but that the Democrats in the Senate would also have to play hardball and immediately voted to get rid of the SC filibuster at the same time. Then they would have had to speed up the approval process so it all happened before the November midterms, all while hearing a constant chorus of naysayers criticizing the Democrats for “rushing the process” and criticizing them for getting rid of the Supreme Court filibuster and taking a huge risk.
And then, after the 2016 election, everyone would now be second guessing RBG and the Democrats and saying “look, you got rid of the Supreme Court filibuster just to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg and now you stupid democrats are getting TWO new far right Supreme Court Justices so was it worth it? It’s all RBG’s fault for not waiting and also it’s the democrats’ fault for getting rid of the SC filibuster because now the far right wing has a 5-4 majority that will last a long time, and it’s all the fault of the democrats for getting rid of the filibuster just to get a replacement for RBG, who should have waited to step down.”
Hindsight is 20/20.
However, there is one thing that needed no hindsight, and that is where the blame properly lies.
Obama replacing RBG in 2014 would not have changed the SC. But the democrat being elected in 2016 would have directly changed the Supreme Court and we all absolutely knew that for a fact, in advance, and there was no “maybe” or “possibly” about that.
Anyone who cared one iota about the Supreme Court voted for the democrat in 2016 but those who did not are entirely to blame for a far right Supreme Court, not RBG.
As much as I admire and respect you, I think RBG was right when she understood that in 2014, Obama was not going to get any nominee confirmed except one approved by Mitch McConnell. I think the chances that the Dems got rid of the SC filibuster in 2014 so that Obama’s nominee got a vote were 50/50 at best, and getting rid of the SC filibuster was their only hope. (And if the Dems had ended the SC filibuster, this discussion would probaby be about how the Democrats and RBG are to blame for making the stupid decision to get rid of the SC filibuster which is the reason that Kavanaugh and Barrett got confirmed.)
It was a no-win situation for RBG and the only way for a good outcome had she retired in 2014 and been responsible for the end of the SC filibuster was for the democrat to win in 2016. Since Trump won, RBG would be blamed for the dems getting rid of the SC filibuster! Her name would always be invoked as part of that short sighted dumb decision that got 1 “good justice” for the cost of 2 very bad ones.
The whole country is not suffering because of RBG!! The country would still be suffering with a 5-4 Supreme Court that the far right controlled. There is no “victory” when the far right rules but it was a 5-4 decision instead of a 6-3 decision.
The country is suffering because Trump was elected instead of the democrat in 2016.
The only way to stop this country from suffering was to defeat Trump. Replacing RBG would have done nothing, so don’t understand how she becomes the scapegoat. This country is suffering because of those who didn’t care enough about the Supreme Court to make sure a democrat appointed the justices. RBG could have resigned in 2014 and we’d still be suffering the same way.
I’d also bet that RBG had a very positive influence on John Roberts for the last 6 years! In the “what might have beens”, it’s possible that without her influence, Roberts just stayed the dutiful far right justice he was supposed to be. Maybe he became a better man because RBG had so much credibility and garnered so much respect, and he needed 6 year more years of her influence to find his own voice.
What are they transitioning to?
Their next job?
Precisely.
Thank you, Laura, for your research on the members of the education transition team. What is the purview of this body? Will they be interviewing perspective candidates for the cabinet position and how much influence will they have on Biden’s choice?
I wonder if Biden will honor the remarks he made in this short two minute NEA video in which he calls for regulation of charter schools and stopping them from harming public schools. He also supports making charter schools more accountable.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd_JTCVsMtk&feature=youtu.be&mc_cid=5f1e4aaba4&mc_eid=a14492f8ea
I have found some information about the “purview” of this body but it is not very satisfying. See a post further down.
The USDOE has thousands of employees, hundreds are appointed by Biden, manages billions of dollars, and carries out the policies of the president.. who nominates the secretary.. the transition team will recommend restructuring the Department .. the bios show a team with decades of experience in the thicket of education policy .. trashing the members is not productive.. the secretary cannot snap his/her fingers, many DeVos initiatives will be reversed, and developing a “relationship” with Congress is key .. let’s support Joe and Jill
It doesn’t matter whether we trash them or not because they don’t listen to us. That’s the problem. They ignore the public. They listen to fake, astroturf parent groups. They listen to sales pitches from businesses. They listen to each other in an echo chamber. They are willing to degrade the quality of millions of lives to let “powerful people” have their way. (The quotes are because I was quoting one of them.) They have decades of experience in the thicket of education policies that align with the DeVos agenda and have closed public schools. They don’t care.
Biden’s team will impose plans originating from the BiPartisan Policy Center, a lobby shop founded by a Republican and, a Democrat, Tom Daschle, who is CAP’s board chair.
The lobby shop is funded by billionaires who oppose common goods, preferring opportunities for Wall Street to suck Main Street dry, similar to the goals of the Hoover Institute.
Let’s wait and see what policies Biden adopts before condemning him.
I’ll repost a comment I made here on Sept. 11, 2020:
“I fully expect Biden/Harris to pick up where Obama/Duncan/King left off. That way I won’t be surprised should the ticket win and pleasantly surprised if my assumption is wrong. But again–broken record here–elections are not ends. Should they win, then our task as public education advocates begins the moment the victory is verified. No time for celebration or taking a breath. It means lobbying hard for the Sec. of Education position, pledging support if it is good, pledging undying opposition until real reforms are made if it is bad. That is why it’s called the political Process, writ large.”
Thank you, GregB.
As AOC said when CNN was trying to get her attack Biden before the election, it would be a “privilege” for progressives to get to lobby Biden instead of Trump.
We lobby, we fight. But now we actually have a fighting chance to make things better. We aren’t going to get everything, but it’s going to be much better than Trump and I would put money on it being significantly better than Obama. So would AOC. Because the world is different. Obama couldn’t even be lobbied to support gay marriage! It is absurd to imagine that Obama today would refuse to do so. (But very possible that Trump would). So it isn’t just that the administration that progressives are lobbying is going to be more receptive, but also that times have changed, and 2020 is not 2008 or even 2012.
Thank you, Laura Chapman, for your diligence.
My takeaway about this transition team is that we’re still drawing from the same gene pool that brings together career non-educators, privatizers/charter enthusiasts, faceless political insiders, and union hangers-on.
The result for education will be the unfortunate result that is typical of inbreeding.
Dr. Jill Biden was either whispering sweet nothings to us about the importance of teachers, or Joe is leaving her on the Hill to come tumbling after.
Lawyers and policy wonks and org.careerists faithful to the status quo, yes. No authentic k-12 teachers were appointed b/c all appointees to such groups have to be vetted by mainstream org’s. Vetting means that they have been watched and confirmed as loyal insiders who will follow the status quo which has so far vetted and rewarded them. A veteran teacher without an NEA or AFT pedigree cannot be trusted to conform to the demands of the policy insiders who represent the status quo. Progressives and public school activists who support democracy and equality are unacceptable; their proposals will be considered only if there is a mass uprising from below, a persistent teachers’ strike or student walkout backed by parents which compels the authorities to a real table.
retired teachers and others.
It is hard to find information on the work of the transition team.
In an interview for the Education Writer’s Association, Biden’s policy advisor Stef Feldman left a few hints and avoided some pointed questions in hour-long interview/webinar with the Education Writers Association, link below.
Asked if Biden’s transition team and USDE appointees will be deciding whether schools will be ”off the hook” for administering federally mandated standardized tests this school year. Stef said: “The honest answer is this is an important question a Biden-Harris transition team would have to look into.”…” “In some ways, the answer to this question depends on how much progress we can make in supporting our schools and getting them up and running.” Time stamp about 26.20. In other words, we should not assume that ESSA esting requirements will be waived for 2021 or beyond.
Stef would not elaborate when asked about Biden’s promise to hire “a public school teacher” as Secretary of Education. Time stamp about 14.36.
Stef made it clear that Biden supports charter schools “if they are delivering “results.” Time stamp about 26.20.
She alluded to some form of evaluation that would identify “low performing schools.” Whatever the method, Biden would offer supports and make sure they had a “robust curriculum” (whatever that means). Time stamp about 54.00. More at https://www.ewa.org/blog-educated-reporter/top-biden-aide-talks-reopening-schools-education-funding-charters-and-more#Turning%20Around%20Low-Performing%20Public%20Schools
Here is the closest thing to an official statement about obligations of the transition team members that I have found. Begin quote:
During a transfer of power to a new administration, the Presidential Transition Act (PTA) requires the federal government to provide a transition team established by the president- and vice president-elect with office space, support, and funding for transition-related activities.
Pursuant to the PTA, the Biden-Harris Transition Team (the “Transition Team”) is organized as a legal entity separate and distinct from both the Biden for President campaign committee (the “Campaign”) and President-elect Biden’s yet-to-be-organized Inaugural Committee (the “Inaugural Committee”).
Specifically, the Transition Team has been incorporated under Delaware law as PT Fund, Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation. The Transition Team is staffed by a combination of full-time transition employees, detainees from federal agencies, and volunteers. A list of Transition Team members assigned to the various agency review teams is available here. All Transition Team members (including volunteers) will be publicly disclosed, including their most recent employment and sources of funding, if any, that support their transition activities.
A. Funding the Transition Team’s Efforts Although the federal government provides certain financial support for the Transition Team’s activities through appropriated funds, the PTA also permits the Transition Team to accept donations of up to $5,000 from any person, organization, or entity for transition-related expenses.
While there is no legal ban on corporate donations to a duly organized transition organization, the Transition Team has announced that it will not accept donations from PACs, corporations, unions, federal government contractors, national banks, those registered as federal lobbyists or under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, SEC-named executives of fossil fuel companies, or foreign nationals. All donations to support transition activities, regardless of amount, must be itemized and publicly disclosed within 30 days after the inauguration.
B. Interacting with Members of the Transition Team While interactions with members of the Transition Team can be a valuable tool for learning more about the incoming administration, individuals and entities doing so should keep in mind the potential applicability of federal and state lobbying laws. Generally, communications with the Transition Team will not be considered “lobbying” for purposes of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). (This constraint only applies if a transition team member is currently a member of Congress or a federal executive branch official assigned to the Transition Team).
Individuals and entities interacting with the Transition Team should also keep in mind several relevant provisions of the Ethics Plan and Code of Ethical Conduct adopted by the Transition Team, which impose additional obligations upon Transition Team members beyond those set by the PTA. Specifically:
Conflicts of Interest. Transition Team members may not participate in transition matters they know may directly conflict with a personal financial interest or a financial interest of an immediate family member, or any individual or organization with whom they have had a business relationship within the past 12 months. Even if there is no direct conflict, transition team members are required to consult the Transition Team’s general counsel concerning any appearance of a conflict. (I have not found out who this person is).
Similarly, any Transition Team members who have engaged in lobbying activities regulated by the LDA within the previous 12 months or who intend to do so in the subsequent 12 months are disqualified from participating in any specific transition matters on which they have lobbied or intend to lobby. (This would require more research to see, for example, if the Education Trust has engaged in lobbying within the last year).
Gifts. As with many White House officials, members of the Transition Team are prohibited from soliciting or accepting any money or thing of value as an inducement, reward, or thank-you to influence in any way the Biden-Harris Transition Team’s operations or decisions (including gifts from anyone nominated for or seeking a federal job or appointment and any person or organization that conducts activities regulated by or pending before an agency or department within the scope of the Transition Team member’s transition responsibilities).
Nonpublic Information. Transition Team members must safeguard nonpublic information they learn during their transition duties and must use such information exclusively for transition purposes. Transition Team members may not use such information, either during or after the transition, for personal or private gain for themselves or any other party.
Stock Trading. To avoid insider trading concerns, Transition Team members (along with their spouses and minor children) are prohibited from selling any stock during their performance of transition duties without advance approval of the general counsel of the Transition Team. In any event, such sales may not be based on nonpublic information derived from a government source. Source https://www.politicallawbriefing.com/2020/11/interacting-with-the-biden-harris-transition-team-and-inaugural-committee/
So those are the general rules of the road but not very satisfying in relation to advisiong on Biden’s education plan and priorities.
Personnel is policy. Let’s see who is Secretary of Ed
Who Joe Biden is picking to fill his White House and Cabinet
The Post is tracking his picks and names floated for
the most important positions in the executive branch
Secretary of Education
Currently: Betsy Devos
Under Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Education Department has rolled back some civil rights protections as well as Obama-era efforts to hold for-profit colleges accountable for poor outcomes. She’s promoted alternatives to public schools and tried to slash federal funding for education. Biden is expected to reverse all of that, with more money for K-12 and higher education, new and revived civil rights protections and a focus on racial equity.
Biden has said he will name a public school educator as secretary of Education, a stab at DeVos, who had no experience with public schools. Many expect that to be someone from the K-12 world. Among those talked about for the job include a handful of big-city school superintendents, such as Sonja Santelises from Baltimore, Janice Jackson from Chicago or Seattle’s Denise Juneau.
POTENTIAL PICKS
Rep. Jahana Hayes (D)
Congresswoman from Connecticut
Hayes, elected in 2018, is the first Black woman to represent Connecticut in Congress. She sits on the Committee on Education and Labor and has sponsored some higher education measures. Before that, she was the 2016 National Teacher of the Year.
Lily García
Former head of the National Education Association
García recently stepped down as president of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest union. Before that, she was an elementary school teacher. She is friendly with incoming first lady Jill Biden, who is a community college teacher and member of the NEA.
Tony Thurmond
California state superintendent
Thurmond is California’s state superintendent, where he has pushed for educational equity, a goal Biden shares. In 2018, the Los Angeles Times endorsed Thurmond, saying he has “an unwavering commitment to at-risk students and a deep understanding of the obstacles they face.”
Randi Weingarten
Head of the American Federation of Teachers
Weingarten is president of the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teacher union. She previously served as president of the union representing teachers in New York City, and was a high school teacher in Brooklyn. Nominating a labor leader could be seen as an affront to those who favor teacher evaluations and other test-based accountability measures.
Reported by Laura Meckler.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/biden-cabinet/
Pres Biden’s education team goes right into the same “follow the self proclaimed experts who are not professional educators” to lead our nation’s educational system. I repeat the question I’ve asked every one of these politically appointed educational reformers; DID YOU ASK A REAL PROFESSIONAL, AN EXPERIENCED TEACHER WITH ADVANCED DEGREES IN HER/HIS FIELD AND IN EDUCATION IF THIS “REFORM” WILL WORK OR NOT? We never get an answer to that question, they just sheepishly look down and crawl away like the snakes they are. For reforms to be effective they must begin in the classroom and when supported by extensive research showing a high success rate and only then spread to our public school system as a whole. Teachers have to see that it is effective and they have to “buy in” before any educational reform will work. And educational reform won’t work unless the politicians are willing to put the necessary money into our classrooms to give the teachers the time, the tools, and the support to make the reform work.
I wonder how many of these education advisors have kids who went to a public school. I mean the real deal—K to 12 “traditional” school. Anyone who put none of their skin in the game should be removed from the team for lack of commitment.
Looks like a lot of lawyers to me and very few with K-12 teaching experience.
Hi Deborah –
What do you make of this list? How closely will it predict how Biden fills top Dept. of Ed spots?
Anything is going to be better than DeVos. To me, who is missing are some of the really brilliant people who are at the intersection of educational statistics and policy (unfortunately, they are most likely to be white, male academics).
Interesting . . .
Sending hugs, Alexis
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:03 AM Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: ” The Biden campaign released the names of those who > will serve on transition teams. Our reader, retired arts educator Laura > Chapman, reviewed the members of the education transition team. According > to the campaign (cited in Valerie Strauss’s article), the” >
Please do not dismiss the fact that Linda Darling-Hammond’s extensive career at Stanford was in constant support for public education and I had hoped
that Obama would have chosen her for Sec’y of Ed. She has fought for public school teachers and was a fierce critic of Arne Duncan’s test and punish policies. I think this is encouraging.
Wow! The Union participation says it all…”No Pre-K-12 experience.” No wonder the unions have earned a reputation for protecting their perch rather than actually knowing or serving their members.