Steven Singer was startled to read John King’s statement that teachers have been unfairly blamed for social ills and whatever students do. He notes that John King often blamed teachers himself when he was State Commissioner of Education in New York. Can we believe him now?

Singer writes:

Sometimes the messenger matters.

You wouldn’t expect Native Americans to believe an apology from Christopher Columbus.

You wouldn’t expect African Americans to believe an apology from David Duke.

So why the heck do the Democrats expect teachers to believe an apology from John King!?

The acting U.S. Secretary of Education is – himself – responsible for more attacks on public educators than almost anyone else.

In his former role as New York Chancellor of Education, he refused to fix a school system he was responsible for destroying all the while pointing his finger at teachers.

However, late last month in his new federal position, King gave a speech at a Philadelphia high school acknowledging the mistakes of the Obama administration in tying teachers’ evaluations to student test scores – a practice he was guilty of in New York….

I’m sorry, but this apology rings hollow to most educators. We know you. We know that your biggest qualification for your position in charge of the nation’s public school system is a three year stint teaching in a “no excuses” charter school with a high suspension rate.

As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Actually, John King somehow seems like just the person to assure continuity in Arne Duncan’s policies.

Mercedes Schneider transcribed key portions of the Congressional hearing into the ethics and performance of the US Department of Education.

Reader Chiara asked in a comment why there were no such hearings when Arne Duncan was in DC. A good question, since the events in the hearing occurred in 2013.

Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post reports that Danny Harris, the chief information officer for the U.S. Department of Education, collapsed after a four-hour grilling into his after-hours business activities. He was rushed to the hospital but is okay now apparently. Harris is paid $180,000 for his work as a senior officer of the Department.

She writes:

The lawmakers’ concerns centered on an inspector general’s investigation that found Harris ran an after-hours car-detailing and home-theater-installation business that employed two subordinates from his agency and also allegedly accepted payments from other subordinates for the work.

The hearing also examined Harris’s effort to help a relative find work at the department and his close friendship with an agency vendor whose company has been awarded about $10 million in contracts to perform work that falls under the purview of his office.

Harris also failed to report an estimated $10,000 in income from his outside activities on federal disclosure forms and to the Internal Revenue Service, according to federal officials.

Although Harris told lawmakers that he exercised “poor judgment,” he said that his side jobs were hobbies, even as he earned money for them and paid subordinates to help him. He also had created business cards and a logo for the business.

When I worked in the U.S. Department of Education in the early 1990s, the ethical rules were extremely strict and unbending. If you worked at a high level, you could not pursue any outside business or have any outside earnings. Period. After I left the Department, I served on the National Assessment Governing Board (the board that oversees NAEP), an appointment by the Secretary of Education. There, even as an unpaid appointee, I had to fill out an ethics disclosure every year. At one point, I was investigated because the Department was concerned that I was receiving royalties from books that I had written. No, there was no conflict of interest. It was bizarre, but the point was that the rules were strong and made no exceptions.

Now, granted that a car-washing business and a home-theater installing business are not in conflict with education stuff. But that kind of outside income was strictly forbidden. That’s the way it was in 1991-1992. Maybe the rules have changed. Maybe senior officials can do what they want to earn extra money on the side.

Funny that Arne Duncan put himself in charge of policing every school in the nation, but couldn’t monitor his own immediate staff.