From insurrection to impeachment to inauguration—January has been quite a month for current events! And maybe you thought you could safely tune out of politics—at least a little—after the inauguration, but it’s been almost impossible to miss the controversies bubbling up around Freshman Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is a newly-elected Republican member of the House of Representatives from a deep-red district in Georgia, a supporter of Q’Anon—a fringe conspiracy theory group identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a domestic terrorism threat—and a leader in the emerging Republican Qaucus.
2. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s response to her 2018 Facebook comment where she aligned herself with a disgusting and false conspiracy theory about a school shooting. https://t.co/tsNutyvYgU
And while Time’s Phillip Elliot claims Republicans can’t win with Greene, Republicans answered by appointing her to the House Education and Labor Committee.
Very excited to join Ranking Member @virginiafoxx and others on the House Education and Labor Committee!
(1/2) I am circulating a letter to ask that @RepMTG not be seated on @Edlaborcmte. Her conduct is antithetical to the work of the Committee. @HouseDemocrats & @HouseGOP have a moral responsibility to bring forth healthy debate in our Cmte’s and work towards solutions. pic.twitter.com/mZZxm9Tp6d
Political beliefs aside, it is the responsibility of House leadership to appoint members to the education committee who “reflect their commitment to serving students, parents, and educators.” So we have to ask: Does Marjorie Taylor Greene represent where the Republican Party stands on important education issues?
But, wait—there’s more! Greene will join the education committee with 10 of her novice colleagues, including Madison Cawthorn, the Hitler-curious lad from North Carolina last seen speaking at the rally that launched the January 6 assault on the Capitol. In fact, 11 of the 24 Republican seats on the education committee of the 117th Congress are rookies. Sure, new members have to be placed on committees, too. But, by contrast, only four of the 26 Democratic seats will be held by brand new members.
Folks, this is why we can’t have nice things in education.
The House Committee on Education and Labor is a standing committee, which means they consider, debate, and shape the vast majority of proposed bills concerned with education. This committee will tackle issues including, but not limited to:
School Choice
Special Education
Teacher Preparation and Quality
Science-based reading instruction and literacy programs
Early childhood and preschool programs, like Head Start
School lunch and nutrition programs
Programs for at-risk youth
Anti-poverty programs
School discipline and dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline
Civil rights in education
This committee will also oversee the finances of the Department of Education.
Although seniority doesn’t necessarily equate to competence, it is—or it should be—critical that good, rational, and competent people are sitting at the table where these important decisions about education are made, especially now, as the coronavirus pandemic shines a bright light on persistent and pervasive systemic inequities.
Education activists across the nation have some expectations for this new administration, as they demand better education and a brighter future for every child, and this committee will play an important role in that conversation. But allotting nearly half of a party’s committee’s seats to political newcomers tells us something about how much political know-how and muscle an issue warrants in the party’s overall agenda. What message does this send to educators, parents, students and advocates about where education ranks among the priorities of Republicans in Congress?
For me, this is a clear message on education from the House minority. And, coupled with dangerous character choices like Greene and Cawthorn, I’m more than a little concerned about the future of education policy. Our kids deserve better than Q’Anon on the House Education Committee.
By: Lisa Hollenbach Title: Trust Me, You Do Not Want a Q’Anon Believer on the Education Committee Sourced From: educationpost.org/trust-me-you-do-not-want-a-qanon-believer-on-the-education-committee/ Published Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 01:25:06 +0000
Banners in support of the elementary school teachers hang outside Brentano Elementary School as teachers instruct virtual classes during a protest against returning to in-person teaching outside of Brentano Elementary School in Chicago, Monday, Jan. 4, 2021.
“Has the public turned on teachers?” asked a recent Education Weekheadline. In the article that followed, Madeline Will reported on a growing perception among teachers that they are under attack from parents (and opinion columnists) frustrated with how teachers unions are slowing the pace of school reopening. Yet she also drew on recent data from Education Next on public opinion to put those perceptions in context. Our nationally representative survey of parents found that, as of November, parents’ views of whether teachers unions have negative or positive effects on public schools hadn’t changed much since before the pandemic. If anything, parents seem to be viewing unions in a more favorable light.
So what exactly do our data show? And what could explain that unexpected result? The question we posed about teachers unions did not ask specifically about their role in reopening fights. Rather, it is a generic question that we have used for almost a decade to track Americans’ attitudes toward unions. The full wording is, “Some people say that teacher unions are a stumbling block to school reform. Others say that unions fight for better schools and better teachers. What do you think? Do you think teacher unions have a generally positive effect on schools, or do you think they have a generally negative effect?”
It is certainly the case that responses to this question could fail to capture real frustration among parents about the unions’ stance on reopening. It is the use of this question, though, that makes it possible for us to compare parents’ responses now with those of parents before the pandemic. If the position unions have taken in reopening fights is in fact a significant development, we would expect that to carry through to parents’ general attitudes toward unions.
The nearby figure shows the share of parents reporting that unions have a positive and negative effect in four nationally representative surveys we’ve conducted between May 2018 and November 2020. It reveals that for parents, as is the case for the broader public, the balance of opinion has shifted in favor of teachers unions over that stretch. The share of parents reporting they have a positive effect has increased by 10 percentage points, with the bulk of that increase coming prior to the pandemic. The share reporting a negative effect fell by four percentage points between May 2018 and May 2019 and has been essentially flat since that time. There’s certainly no evidence that parents’ views of unions have soured.
We see further evidence that reopening fights have not yet altered attitudes toward teachers unions when we break out the November 2020 data by whether the parents’ children are attending school in person. In fact, parents whose children are all fully remote are less likely to report that unions have negative effects than are parents whose children are all in person full time. (Here I’ve excluded parents of students in hybrid models and parents with children experiencing more than one instructional model.) Why is that the case? The most likely explanation is that attitudes toward unions are strongly influenced by partisan identity. Forty-nine percent of Republican parents, but just 19 percent of Democratic parents, say that teachers unions have negative effects. The shift in opinion in favor of teachers unions in the past two years mirrors an increase in the share of parents in our sample who identify as Democrats. And our recent report documented how the children of Republican parents are more likely than the children of Democrats to be attending school in person. Even when we look separately at Republican and Democratic parents, however, we see no evidence that those whose children are remote are more critical of unions.
In short, the nationally representative survey of parents we conducted in November provides no evidence that the school-reopening fights have altered parents’ views of teachers unions. It may be that the unions’ role in these fights has not received much attention in local news coverage, or that parents haven’t paid such coverage much attention. Particularly in these polarized times, Americans’ attitudes toward unions may depend more on their partisan identity than on their perceptions of unions’ role in local disputes. At any rate, that appears to have been the case as of November. Whether that will continue is an open question, particularly if school buildings stay closed to students even after teachers are vaccinated.
Martin West is an associate professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, deputy director of Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, and editor-in-chief of Education Next.
By: Martin R. West Title: Have Parents Turned Against Teachers Unions? Not Yet, Our Survey Shows Sourced From: www.educationnext.org/have-parents-turned-against-teachers-unions-not-yet-our-survey-shows/ Published Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:12:00 +0000
For nearly two decades, I have enjoyed teaching micro and macroeconomics and coaching the economics team at a public high school. I feel immensely gratified by my work and by my students’ successes, such as their recent impressive feat of winning the National Economics Challenge in both competitive divisions for the second year in a row. But as an economist, I can’t help but notice that the education profession often doesn’t abide by the principles that have proven to work in virtually all other sectors of life.
There is much potential yet to be tapped in both students and teachers—if we can find the courage to embrace change and increase choice for families.
Economics teaches that individuals benefit from choices because choices bring competition, innovation and diversity to a community. Just think about what would happen if the government manufactured and sold all the cars on the road. Yet families often face a similar dilemma when it comes to selecting a school. In my home state of Maryland, state schools function as a de facto monopoly, with few if any options for parents seeking alternatives.
The amount of centralization in our current system makes it difficult for authentic diversity—both in students and in educators—to be nurtured. Some students will thrive in a large public school, others may prefer a smaller academy with more personalized attention, or a virtual school in which they learn online. But without viable choices or specializations accessible, students are getting wildly shortchanged. School choice can work to change this dynamic, empowering families to select a tailored learning environment that can tap into how their child learns.
Similarly, were teachers entrusted to teach more autonomously rather than in a lock-step way, their storied talents and teaching perspectives would burst forth into more lively, personalized classrooms. “Differentiating instruction” for students is a frequently-heard catchphrase. Yet there’s a great irony in how teachers are being told to teach as if they themselves are not distinct individuals. While I have been grateful to have flexible principals, I know many teachers who long for more innovative schools with greater academic freedom that would challenge them to grow as professionals.
Increasing school choice could also help to spur innovation, as schools test different models and curricula to determine which can help their students succeed. Indeed, we’ve seen glimmers of innovation in how the pandemic’s disruption has forced schools to start developing new tools and options, and families to fill in the gaps with innovations like learning pods and micro-schools.
I truly believe that it can’t be a bad thing to give families more choices. While there may be a perception that choice drains resources from public schools, that is neither the intention nor what the outcome of school choice should be. Of 33 studies comparing the outcomes of students who used choice programs to attend private schools, 31—all but two—found that school choice also improved the educational outcomes of students who remained in public schools. The evidence backs what economic theory and taking a look at all the other industries in society make clear: When there is choice and competition, students—at all types of schools—will win.
I don’t support school choice because I hate my school, or public education—I support it because I love my students, and want only the best for each and every one of them. Both my academic training and the real-world evidence demonstrate that creating more options in education will see schools start to tailor themselves to attracting the type of student they want to serve, and students getting types of schools that they feel more comfortable and confident in. This National School Choice Week, I think that would be a beautiful development for students and educators alike.
By: Vann Prime Title: When There Is Choice, All Students Win Sourced From: educationpost.org/when-there-is-choice-all-students-win/ Published Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 23:27:49 +0000
In his inaugural address last Wednesday, President Biden spoke movingly about the need to heal our bitter divides, to “stop the shouting and lower the temperature.” I found it a heartening start to Biden’s tenure. I hope and expect that his nominee for secretary of education, Connecticut schools chief Miguel Cardona, will approach his role in that spirit.
While Cardona is a safe bet to be rapidly confirmed by the Democratic Senate, the truth is that we don’t yet know much about him. Cardona’s had a long career as a classroom teacher, principal, and administrator in a smallish district and has spent the past 18 months as head of Connecticut’s education agency, but he has said little in public on the issues that divide Democrats. Cardona’s lack of a paper trail allowed Biden to sidestep internal Democratic fights over testing and charter schooling. Indeed, if Cardona were a Supreme Court nominee, he’s what would be termed a “stealth” nominee.
What we do know is that Cardona’s a likable figure who doesn’t obviously rub anybody wrong. He has a heartwarming personal story. He grew up in a housing project, learned English as a second language, attended public colleges, and went on to be Connecticut’s youngest principal. He says it’s vital to get kids back to school, speaks passionately about supporting vulnerable kids, and waxes enthusiastic about public education. There’s something there for pretty much everyone. The teachers’ unions (which were going to have to sign off on any Biden secretary of ed.) havewelcomed his appointment. So have charter school advocates, who were relieved that Biden didn’t name someone openly hostile to school choice.
Cardona seems like a good guy and a committed educator. Quite appropriately, he’s met with a genial, respectful reception (pretty much the opposite of the one accorded Betsy DeVos, who was subjected to blistering attacks before she’d said a word). Now, a churlish observer might ask whether Cardona, with a background as an assistant superintendent in a small system and with a short tenure running a small state bureaucracy, has the management experience to run the U.S. Department of Education, with its thousands of employees, billions in outlays, and sprawling higher education responsibilities.
Indeed, relying on the DeVos standard, a churlish observer might ask whether Cardona ought to be held responsible for the abysmal performance of Connecticut’s urban school systems (true, he’s only been state chief for a year and change, which makes it ridiculous to blame him for New Haven’s longtime struggles; but DeVos never held a position of authority in Michigan and yet was routinely faulted for the troubled plight of Detroit’s schools).
I’m not inclined to be churlish. I don’t think being so would serve any purpose. I do think DeVos, whatever her shortcomings or missteps, was met with unhinged and venomous attacks from the moment she was nominated. But that doesn’t mean that it’s healthy or constructive for those on the right to engage in payback. While I do worry that turning a blind eye to double standards may only encourage them, I also think the culture of tit-for-tat has led us to a destructive place.
Instead, I’d like to see Cardona judged by a more measured and fair-minded standard—and then see that standard applied uniformly to other education officials, left and right. Is Cardona up to the rigors of leading the U.S. Department of Education? We’ll see. Did a brief stint heading up Connecticut’s K-12 bureaucracy prepare him for the role? We’ll see. Are his views “extreme” or “out of the mainstream”? We’ll see.
Most of us don’t yet know enough about Cardona to make an informed judgment. That’s fine. Cardona’s “stealth” status has an expiration date. His hearings will shed some light. Eventually, stances will be taken, and decisions will be made. Blanks will be filled in. Over time, we will all begin to make up our minds based on what he says and does. But there’s no need to rush to judgment based on scattered quotes or anecdotal accounts. There’s nothing wrong with waiting, watching, and then deciding.
Social media and the 24/7 news cycle tempt us to spew certainties as fast as we can type them. That’s caused us no end of trouble, robbing us of room to find our way, forge trust, or convince our skeptics that we’re operating in good faith. It turns everything into an amped-up grudge match, whether or not it needs to be.
In his inaugural address, President Biden said, “Let’s begin to listen to one another again, hear one another, see one another, show respect to one another. Politics doesn’t have to be a raging fire, destroying everything in its path.” That’s a powerful reminder, especially for those who’ve chosen to make education their life’s work. I don’t yet know what I think of Cardona. But I intend to heed Biden’s call. I’m going to listen to Cardona, watch him, and respect him, and see where things go from there.
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next.
Since AOC is asking for recommendations on how to help her new first-grade buddy read better, we’ve gathered some tips on how she can use the science of reading to do exactly that.
Hey AOC, These Pieces Can Help With Tutoring
Reading science expert Debbie Meyer has covered these topics for years here on Education Post and across the brightbeam network.
These three pieces by Meyer are great places to start, but don’t forget to read all of her excellent work.
Before taking a much needed vacation at the end of last year, I wrote a piece talking about how education for Black kids cannot look the same as it did in 2020.
A month later I’m keeping that same energy and putting it to action, which is why my activist fam from around the country and I drafted a list of demands for President Biden and Education Secretary Cardona to prioritize educational justice for Black and brown families. And we want y’all to catch this energy too!
Now before y’all get to saying, “Joe and Kamala have only been in office a week and you’re expecting them to have the world changed already,” let me give y’all three reasons why we’re on their tails already.
During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden released the “Lift Every Voice” plan, acknowledging the plight Black people have endured for generations and his solutions to finally promote equality and equity.
One of the overarching goals in this plan is to “Expand access to high quality education and tackle racial inequity within our education system” with emphasis on teacher diversity, eliminating educational redlining and segregation, closing the funding gap and a few other high-touch points that have been challenges in delivering a high quality education to Black students. Joe also said he’d reinstate Obama-era guidance on discipline reform.
Madam Vice President. The President has signed 28 executive orders and not one related to LIFT EVERY VOICE PLAN directed to help us. We are watching @KamalaHarris
Granted, most kids aren’t physically in class right now due to the pandemic but that hasn’t stopped discipline disparities from showing up in virtual classrooms, and that doesn’t mean they won’t exist when full in-person classes resume. So while school discipline may not be high on the priority list, it’s an easy one to reverse real quick and will give Black and brown America a little reassurance that Joe is for real working for us.
And finally—hell, we just haven’t heard much about this plan since it’s appearance on the Biden-Harris campaign website. The Black Twitter streets are talking and wondering when our voices are finally going to get lifted by this administration.
Waiting to see that "LIFT EVERY VOICE" plan come into play.
Another big thing is, Cindy Marten—Joe’s pick for Deputy Secretary of Education who’s a former educator and superintendent of San Diego Unified School District—has gotten mixed reviews on her handling of Black and brown students and families and her potential appointment doesn’t align with our immediate needs and demands.
And echoing all of these concerns is my sis in activism, San Diego native and parent, Christina Laster, who’s been going in on Marten on Twitter since she heard the news.
Someone at the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights forgot to update Cindy Marten's file with the correct # of discrimination & special education complaints! Don't worry I've collated some info here for you @usedgov@SenFeinstein@NAACP@willhuntsberry@sdschools
Bottom line, Black and brown people are feeling like Cindy is here for the status quo and not us. And for that reason, we have to start making our voices and demands heard early in the game.
And finally, America may have changed administrations, but it hasn’t changed it’s stripes.
I think it’s safe to say that last week, we were all on the same emotional rollercoaster. Us Black people in particular endured the most extreme racism these past four years—more than we’ve ever witnessed in our entire lives.
Idk about y'all but I'm emotionally exhausted all of a sudden. I guess I'll call it the release of these past 4 years where being Black in America HIT, hit.
All of us that are believers and supporters of true democracy celebrated the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the nation’s president and vice president, while simultaneously breathing a long-awaited sigh of relief because Trump’s reign of tyranny has seemingly come to an end.
But a change in administration doesn’t magically produce a change in policy and practice. And it definitely doesn’t mean that America’s long-standing history of systemic racism and oppression is going to disappear into thin air. While I wanna have faith in this administration and hope they stand on their campaign promises, I know better than to get comfortable and assume that politicians are just going to do what they said they would without a push from us.
I'm hopeful that @POTUS was sincere in words today but I know better than to get comfortable. Feel it, release it, then get back to work…our lives MUST matter. #InaugurationDay
One more thing before I go. At the top of the “Lift Every Voice” page there’s a slogan that says, “Battle for the Soul of the Nation”. Well, we (all historically marginalized communities) are that soul and we’re more than willing to fight alongside—or against—elected officials for the freedom of our souls.
This is why we’re calling on Biden and Cardona to prioritize educational justice for Black and brown families because there’s freedom in education—and we need to know if they’re really with and for us or if it’s American politricks as usual. So if you’ve been a passenger on this advocacy train, sign that letter on our site and let them know you’re in the battle for the soul of the nation, too.
By: Tanesha Peeples Title: We Need To Know if the Biden Administration Is Really With and For Us Sourced From: educationpost.org/we-need-to-know-if-the-biden-administration-is-really-with-and-for-us/ Published Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:01:45 +0000
Over my 15 years of working in education, I have grown to appreciate that parents are far more savvy, knowledgeable, and resourceful than policy wonks and pundits give them credit for. Because parents care so much about their children, they will go out of their way to find out aboutquality education options that will help them to succeed. (Just think about the learning pods and co-ops that families created this year!)
But that doesn’t mean that navigating K-12 education is exactly a walk in the park. For something that impacts every family, education can be one of the most jargon-filled, unnecessarily complicated fields there is.
In many cases, that jargon puts both a literal and metaphorical barrier between students and the schools that work best for them. If parents don’t have the right information about the school choice options in their area, don’t understand the application process, or don’t recognize that they could qualify for assistance, they may pass up opportunities that could change their children’s futures.
While the specific options vary from place to place, all states provide multiple school choice opportunities for interested parents. Forty-four states offer charter schools–taxpayer-funded schools with more flexibility than traditional public schools. A total of 46 states provide some form of open enrollment, where students can attend public schools outside their assigned neighborhood boundaries. A majority of states also offer private school choice programs to fund students’ attendance at the school that works best for them. All states offer homeschooling options, and many offer free online programs as well.
Unfortunately, states rarely present this information to parents, in a user-friendly way, on official state websites. For example, if you visit the website of your state’s department of education, you will likely find content that is written by educators and for educators, with pages of regulations, forms and bureaucratic details. What’s missing is usually a focus on presenting information easily and clearly for moms and dads.
States that find themselves without parent-friendly websites do not need to reinvent the proverbial wheel. They can simply replicate some great ideas from other states. For instance, Massachusetts contains an entire section on school options for parents—including a parent’s guide to choosing a school—on a clearly marked section of its website. Florida’s website shows details about all six types of schools and its several private school scholarship programs in one easy-to-navigate parent school choice hub. Arizona offers a school search tool for both traditional public schools and public charter schools. These resources provided by Massachusetts, Florida, and Arizona should inspire other states to improve the information they provide to families.
What else can states add to official websites to support parents? We talk to tens of thousands of parents about their school choice journeys annually and they tell us they’re looking for are school finder maps, guides to open enrollment, explainers about charter schools and webinars or videos about how choice works. They also want to know what magnet, online or private school programs exist in their state. They’re curious about homeschooling and the regulations around it. And they are very interested in the unified enrollment dates and deadlines that will guide the timing of their choice.
By improving and expanding the information provided to families, states can help families immediately, and increase the likelihood that parents will find schools and learning environments that best meet the needs of their children. This can happen without passing new legislation, without controversy and without spending much money at all.
In the meantime, National School Choice Week is happy to fill the void. Our website includes comprehensive, detailed information about school choice options in each state. The information is presented in a practical and user-friendly way, so that parents do not need to decode bureaucratic terminology. We even added a school search tool, Schools Near Me, this year.
In the face of the pandemic, parents being able to discover their school options from the safety of their home is tremendously important. It takes everyone involved in education—educators, parents, school leaders, policymakers and website designers—to make that happen. But when we do, everyone will win.
Head, Hand, Heart: Why Intelligence Is Over-Rewarded, Manual Workers Matter, and Caregivers Deserve More Respect
by David Goodhart Free Press, 2020, $27; 368 pages.
As reviewed by Michael McPherson
It is unusual for an author to open the concluding section of his book by repudiating the framework that organizes the book as a whole. Yet here is David Goodhart: “The title of this book is misleading. It implies that Head, Hand, and Heart, or thought, craft, and feeling, are distinct domains. They are not, of course, and too rigid a division between the three is one of the pathologies of the cognitive era.” Notwithstanding this late-arriving caution, Goodhart does use these three categories to organize his narrative. Goodhart’s main aims are to explain how the broad category of “head” workers, aka the “cognitive class”—roughly, those people who have at least a bachelor’s degree—have risen in status and income over the last half century or so at the expense of “heart” and especially “hand” workers and to examine the disturbing consequences of this shift. Goodhart, the founder and former editor of Prospect magazine, is British, and it shows in the institutional detail, anecdotes, and data he most often uses, though he aims to cover both his home country and the United States.
If the head workers are the college-educated, who are the hand and heart workers? In the mid-twentieth century, hand workers—mostly men—were skilled craftsmen, factory “hands,” and manual laborers, people who had limited formal education but held reliable, often unionized jobs with respectable incomes and social status. But as educational attainment has become a more decisive marker of workers’ earnings and status, and as technology and globalization have undermined factory work, hand workers today include all those who occupy jobs available to people without bachelor’s degrees, whether or not their work involves skilled hands or strong backs. That means that many hand workers now spend their days running cash registers, entering data, or preparing fast food. This broad category includes all such people except those whose occupations involve providing care for others.
Those caregivers are the “heart” workers—mostly women—who include nurses, counselors, schoolteachers, daycare workers and others, as well as people who work at home caring for members of their own families.
The problem with Good-hart’s three groupings is that many occupations today cannot be neatly categorized into one domain or another. They demand a variety of skills and competencies that involve thought, craft, and social-emotional skills. (The author says little about how many people are doing which things, perhaps because that would require systematic data reporting, which he tells us in the first chapter he now largely eschews in favor of storytelling.) This overlap of categories is especially awkward with regard to nurses and teachers, who at least in the United States and increasingly in the United Kingdom have bachelor’s degrees, and whose jobs entail substantial cognitive demands. Why aren’t they “head” workers? Perhaps it’s because they are mostly women, but, more basically, why do we have to choose?
Goodhart sees the main source of working-class resentment as the rising status, incomes, and political influence of the cognitive class, a group whose social position derives from their success in graduating from well-regarded universities. Increasingly, he argues, the most important, most respected, and best-rewarded jobs go to people who get the most extensive education at the most selective schools. The extent to which this is true varies significantly across occupations. It is most evident in the “learned professions” of medicine and law but far less so in, for example, corporate leadership, where just over half of the CEOs of the largest 100 companies in the United States have no education beyond a bachelor’s degree.
The practice of slotting people into top jobs based on their educational achievement is a defining characteristic of a “meritocracy,” a term coined by the British sociologist Michael Young in a dystopian satire published in 1958. Some analysts see meritocracy as a worthy organizing principle for a society, while others, including Goodhart, view it as an impoverished ideal whose single-minded pursuit can bring about great social harm.
Critics of meritocracy don’t deny that employers, in hiring for a particular job, should in general select the candidate judged most likely to perform the best. This is hiring according to merit, where “merit” is defined in relation to the specific characteristics required to do a job.
Trouble arises, the critics assert, when a single overriding conception of “merit,” largely divorced from actual job requirements, comes to dominate a society’s judgments about people’s capabilities and productive value. That across-the-board index of merit, at least in contemporary societies, tends to be some notion of brainpower or “cognitive merit,” as measured by an individual’s educational achievement. Increasingly, then, the most important positions in both the United States and the United Kingdom accrue to the most highly-educated people, and not only in professions such as law, medicine, or engineering that require specific advanced training.
In the twentieth century, hand workers were craftsmen, factory “hands,” and laborers with limited formal education.
Goodhart is particularly exercised about the steadily rising education levels of elected politicians. He worries that, in government roles, the cognitive elite may too readily confuse their own interests and worldview with the common good, leaving the laboring classes without effective representation. Further, he notes that many members of this elite have trouble communicating in the plain language politics requires (a handicap two of Goodhart’s favorite populists, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, both graduates of elite universities, seem to have overcome.)
Goodhart joins other critics in decrying the human costs of meritocracy. Accepting the legitimacy of a one-dimensional index of “merit” linked to economic and social status encourages those who fare poorly on that index to blame themselves, to see themselves as losers in a “fair” contest. As the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah (whom Goodhart relies on for some of his analysis), puts it, “a significant portion . . . of the white working class [believe] that they do not deserve the opportunities that have been denied to them.” That is, they think they haven’t “tried hard enough,” or that they simply lack the intelligence or ability to make significant contributions to their society. At a time when less-well-educated individuals see their job prospects and earnings dropping, their dignity is threatened and their resentments grow. Goodhart suggests that maybe it was better in some ways when the class structure was clearer and status was more visibly linked to the accidents of birth. “In the relatively immobile class society of the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, if you failed to rise from the working class into more genteel society, it was no reflection on your own aptitudes; it was just the way things were,” he writes. This is an easier story to tell about England than the United States, where the culture has always supported the notion that everyone—that is, every white man—is the author of his own destiny.
One might argue that a meritocratic society, despite its human costs, is at least good for the economy. Goodhart is having none of this. He acknowledges that there are many important jobs that demand extensive education. But he doubts that today’s heavy emphasis on educational credentials in staffing good jobs is genuinely productive. In his view, the education offered at elite institutions is often narrowly academic and far more concerned with mastering arcane subjects than acquiring practical know-how. He asserts that, at least outside technical subjects, undergraduate education is mainly a matter of sorting and signaling, with little meaningful learning going on. He agrees with Bryan Caplan’s 2018 contention in The Case Against Education that little is taught or learned in most of higher education (see “The Main Purpose of Education,” books, Winter 2018).
Goodhart brings a lot of energy to his economic critique, but not much evidence. In attempting to show what goes on inside universities, he relies mainly on personal observations and affords no opportunity for university leaders to respond to the assertion that they don’t teach anything useful. At least in the United States, universities purport to educate people in problem solving, critical thinking, civic judgment, and effective communication, all important forms of know-how. Derek Bok, in his 2020 book Higher Expectations, thoughtfully assesses the role that colleges should play in teaching such skills (see “The Purposes of Higher Education,” books, Winter 2021). There is plenty of reason to criticize university education and hiring practices that place undue value on undergraduate and advanced degrees, but Goodhart’s treatment verges on caricature.
The author’s argument about the cognitive class constitutes the core of the book and takes up about two-thirds of its pages. In those pages he also wanders into extensive discussions of matters such as IQ and heritability, which don’t add much to the main narrative. Hand and heart each get a chapter addressing assorted topics such as the decline of the skilled trades, deaths of despair, implications of an aging population for nursing care, and the sharing of housework between men and women. Regrettably, Goodhart passes up the opportunity to discuss the distinctive struggles of African Americans in the United States and of ethnic-minority populations in the United Kingdom.
In sum, Goodhart paints a picture of a society in which a monolithic cognitive elite of university graduates have managed to gather for themselves most of the well-paying and socially respected jobs, while the fading of the industrial economy has robbed the working class of secure incomes and social status.
In his concluding section, Goodhart turns from his diagnosis of the failings of contemporary society to admittedly scattered remarks on cure. He describes early on in the book his personal transition from a “leftish” journalistic perspective to one more aligned with that of “decent” populists. In the conclusion, he allows his inner leftist to come forward. Here he finally comes to grips with the reality that jobs can’t be classified as requiring only one of the trio of thinking, feeling, or manual skills. Most jobs require, and most people possess, some mixture of these capacities, all of which can be developed through attention and effort, whether in school or elsewhere. Moreover, cognitive capacity cannot be reduced to some one-dimensional index of general intelligence such as IQ, as much of his earlier discussion seems to imply; instead, we should recognize and even celebrate “cognitive diversity,” a concept that seems closely aligned with Howard Gardner’s highly influential theory of “multiple intelligences” introduced almost 40 years ago.
David Goodhart
Recognizing that human endeavors and capacities are diverse in multiple ways is valuable for at least two reasons, one descriptive and one normative. Descriptively, it frees us from trying to force the complexities of work life into these three Procrustean beds, as in Goodhart’s struggle over whether nursing is a head job or a heart job when obviously it is both. Similarly, the recognition that human ability is complex leads us to see how some highly educated politicians, such as Franklin Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, succeed—by combining considerable analytical powers with a keen emotional intelligence that helps them connect with people. Normatively, the recognition that personal achievement hinges on a diverse range of talents and skills undercuts the notion of a single all-purpose index of merit that shapes people’s social standing.
In this concluding section, Goodhart also warms to the notion that governments should help to restore the sense of community that he believes our current economic structure is ripping away. He wants government to invest substantial public funds to support the caregiving professions, both to improve the lives of those who need care and to bolster the earnings and respect accorded to caregivers. He would, for example, expand the tax allowances Britain already affords to caregivers, support families’ investments in their children through child allowances, and subsidize various forms of counseling.
Goodhart recognizes that high levels of material inequality, and especially the travail of growing up in conditions of deprivation, tend to reinforce a misconception of education as purely a means to economic success. This opportunity gap also stacks the deck in favor of the more affluent in the competition for access to the best and best-rewarded education. Goodhart is broadly sympathetic with government investment to combat such inequality. “A gradual rearrangement of current trade-offs to produce a more even distribution of status—while avoiding false egalitarian extremes—is the most desirable direction of travel for rich countries.” He says little about what kind of “rearrangement” he has in mind, and I don’t know what he means by “false egalitarian extremes,” but he does seem eager to reassure readers that he is not some kind of “democratic socialist.”
I do wonder how this book would have unfolded if the author had begun with a frank recognition that the “too rigid” segregation of people and work into head, hand, and heart is misleading and so from the outset had told the story with the richer perspective he embraces near the end. I’m not sure that his main conclusions would be any different, but my hunch is that, told that way, his story might have proved more persuasive.
Michael McPherson is president emeritus of the Spencer Foundation.
By: Michael McPherson Title: Examining the Human Costs of a Narrow Meritocracy Sourced From: www.educationnext.org/examining-human-costs-of-narrow-meritocracy-review-head-hand-heart-goodhart/ Published Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:00:01 +0000
The impact of COVID-19 on the education community was astonishing. Educators pivoted all of their curricula to a virtual landscape for the first time. Guardians found themselves supplementing as teachers in addition to working from home. High school students across the country were left free-falling as college and career opportunities became increasingly scarce as the pandemic raged on. There was political and social unrest, a deeply divided nation, and an overall feeling of uncertainty surrounding just about every aspect of our lives.
Our team at Prismatic was determined to keep teens on track and inspire hope in our future leaders. Over the summer, we launched a national program called IGNITE during the month of July that was designed for teens ages 14-18 living in low-income communities with a demonstrated passion for social change. As a Chicago-based non-profit, we typically partner with schools throughout our home city to provide programming during the school day or after school. Our new virtual program allowed us to expand our impact, reaching teens in underserved communities throughout the US.
Our tuition-free, online series of workshops strived to help students further their education and community involvement amidst social distancing guidelines. Our teens began to identify their passions and kick-start their personal goals by meeting with trailblazing mentors making a difference in Chicago and beyond.
The program has been very inspiring and I really appreciate that it encourages individualism.
Former IGNITE Student
I really enjoyed this program overall. It gave me assurance to know that other professionals didn’t have a straight step-by-step plan and that it’s OK to not have everything figured out yet. It also helped me become more mindful in looking after myself and finding a way to pursue my mission.
Amanda, Former IGNITE Student
I learned a lot about myself and how I can use my strengths as a benefit in my everyday life and in my career. I learned so much from all the guest speakers and feel reassured. Everything that is meant for me in the future will happen at the right time.
Emily, Former IGNITE Student
Coming off of a successful summer program, we looked to the upcoming school year. “After we experienced a 100% retention rate in our summer program and no signs of the end of the pandemic insight, we knew we had to identify a creative way to continue to help low-income students during the school year,” explains Debra Giunta, Prismatic’s Founder and recent Crain’s Chicago Notable Entrepreneur.
Our IGNITE fall cohort has attracted students from all over the country from states like Washington, Illinois, New York, Georgia, and Massachusetts with ambitious dreams and aspirations of bettering not only themselves but their communities at large.
I am very interested in how I can impact my community and how I can help become more of an advocate for mental health and other important topics, such as racial equality, gender equality and supporting the LGBTQ+ community. I have many goals and ideas about my future, and I’m very conflicted on which field I should go into.
Sera, Current IGNITE Student
In the next 10 years, I would like to see my neighborhood have adequate health insurance since almost everyone is uninsured because of their immigration status. I personally want to teach financial literacy courses and workshops to people in my community.
George, Current IGNITE Student
After the recent events of BLM, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and the presidential election, it has motivated me to contribute to and learn more about my community and the world around me to make it a better place in the future and for all citizens of America.
Amelia, Current IGNITE Student
At the core of IGNITE is a robust blend of social-emotional learning (SEL) exercises and concrete career development guided by the expertise of the Prismatic team and our growing roster of insightful volunteer mentors. We put the focus on SEL because the research shows that Emotional Quotient (EQ) is 400% more powerful than IQ when predicting who would have success in their field.71% of hiring managers say they valued an employee’s EQ over their IQ and 90% of high-performers had high EQs and earned on average $29,000 more per year.
The dynamic features of IGNITE allow us to bring virtual, high-quality programming to all students, regardless of their economic status and from the safety of their own homes. Our career-defining programming is tuition-free for teens and 100% funded through the generosity of those who understand the importance of uplifting teens from the most vulnerable communities.
If we want to ensure our young people have the opportunities they deserve, we must invest in their education today.
To learn more about Prismatic’s IGNITE program and how we’re helping teens across the nation, visit prismaticmovement.org.
By: Amanda Diiulis Title: How Do We ‘IGNITE’ Social Change in the Next Generation of Leaders? Sourced From: educationpost.org/how-do-we-ignite-social-change-in-the-next-generation-of-leaders/ Published Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:02:53 +0000
The Director of the Public Policy Research Lab at Louisiana State University, Michael Henderson, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss findings from the latest Education Next survey. The poll surveys parents on their experiences as schools attempted to reopen amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
(@yashar) January 19, 2021
(@edu_post) 
Wise Society (@ChristinaLast3r) 
If the head workers are the college-educated, who are the hand and heart workers? In the mid-twentieth century, hand workers—mostly men—were skilled craftsmen, factory “hands,” and manual laborers, people who had limited formal education but held reliable, often unionized jobs with respectable incomes and social status. But as educational attainment has become a more decisive marker of workers’ earnings and status, and as technology and globalization have undermined factory work, hand workers today include all those who occupy jobs available to people without bachelor’s degrees, whether or not their work involves skilled hands or strong backs. That means that many hand workers now spend their days running cash registers, entering data, or preparing fast food. This broad category includes all such people except those whose occupations involve providing care for others.
The Director of the Public Policy Research Lab at Louisiana State University, Michael Henderson, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss findings from the latest Education Next survey. The poll surveys parents on their experiences as schools attempted to reopen amid the Covid-19 pandemic.