A Blot on U.S. Education

A Harvard Education School summer program which trains some of the nation's elite educational administrators held its 20th reunion last weekend. In line with Harvard's usual flare for pomp and circumstance, the Institute for Educational Management (IEM) invited some very prominent speakers.

New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, President Derek C. Bok, the president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the president of the Education Commission of the States and Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos were all slated to speak at the event.

Quite a high-powered speaker's list for a reunion weekend.

But there was a blot on the weekend. A big blot--James B. Williams, the acting assistant secretary of education.

Williams, who spoke in Cavazos' stead, gave a presentation so out of sync with the mood of the weekend, so outrageous in its mediocrity and so appalling in its assumptions that six hours later, even after Governor Kean's sound, if unsurprising, speech, members of IEM were still complaining about Williams.

When Cavazos was sent by President Bush on a trip to Bolivia last weekend, the IEM was promised that Williams would read a copy of Cavazos' speech. But, as one IEM member said, "I hope that wasn't Cavazos' original speech."

WILLIAMS talked about educational reform. He talked about the "dismal performance" of our high school students. He said that it was important to have a "reinvolvement of the public in education."

So far, people were walking out because he was a boring speaker, but he wasn't offensive yet.

And then he introduced the subject of educational reform "taking its cues" from public opinion. "Are we," he asked the room, "to put our fate in the hands of educators who don't support what the public wants?"

At this point, about a third of the audience had left. More would follow.

Williams closed his speech by telling these leaders of educational administration what their role in educational reform must be:

"The only way that American education can be reformed is if you understand where the public stands on these issues, refine those views and go with something that is acceptable to them."

You, he emphasized to the audience, will not help in educational reforms if you speak in a different voice. There is no point in trying to do what you think is best if you have not seen that view reflected in the public eye.

"I always thought our point of departure should be a search for truth rather than public opinion," said one audience member after Williams concluded his presentation.

Ah, Williams shot back, the search for truth is a point of departure in searching for knowledge. It is different here when you are dealing with "practical reforms."

The audience didn't boo, but this was a civilized crowd. They just got up and kept on walking out. In the diminishing numbers, one man asked, "What is it like in a department to function without key posts?"

"What does it say about an administration which calls itself the Education Presidency that Bush would leave these posts open? What do you think is the president's opinion regarding public opinion--should educational reform reflect it or effect it?"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

THE fact that Bush is still calling himself the Education President while turning men like Williams loose on the public is terrifying. Williams' speech was mediocre and sycophantic. It was not a defense of democracy--it was a weak defense of Cavazos.

Why is someone like Williams in the Department of Education at all? And why is the position of assistant secretary of education still unfilled? Despite Bush's call for a governor's conference on education, despite his Educational Excellence Act, this state of limbo in the Department of Education refutes Bush's claims to be the Education President.

It isn't that Bush or Cavazos have bad ideas about education. Or even that they have no ideas. Bush's Educational Excellence Act seems like a sound proposal for aiding our schools. And, as Governor Kean said in his speech just hours later, the governor's conference is an "exciting first step which shows that Bush is willing to take the lead."

But why is Williams still the acting assistant secretary? (He doesn't want the permanent job--fortunately.)

His response was that Congress' failure to pass the pay raise made his job--which would have paid $120,000 under the proposed legislation--an $80,000 job. Small beans for someone who could likely be making over $100,000 elsewhere. And, he said, "Remember John Tower. Who wants to go through that scrutiny?"

This was actually Williams' best response all morning, but it doesn't seem on target. As he answered, someone in the audience wrote on the back of a piece of paper: "Sign below if you would take a job at the Department of Education for under $120,000."

There were signatures. And there were more than a few people in that room, or at least at the conference, who are eminently qualified to be in a position at the Department of Education. If Bush wanted to make that position a priority, he could fill it--probably even without a scandal. But he hasn't.

Bush's rhetoric and his actions have proven to be far apart. For the good of our country, we should hope that the idea of an Education President is not a dream. But if Williams is any indication, we should all wake up now.