David Brooks has been weighing in on the education secretary debate for a few weeks now. Today's??latest installment, however, I think was his best. He brought up the usual names for the top spot--Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, and Linda Darling-Hammond--but he also had an interesting insight that merits more attention:
The candidates before Obama apparently include: Joel Klein, the highly successful New York chancellor who has, nonetheless, been blackballed by the unions; Arne Duncan, the reforming Chicago head who is less controversial; Darling-Hammond herself; and some former governor to be named later, with Darling-Hammond as the deputy secretary.
In some sense, the final option would be the biggest setback for reform. Education is one of those areas where implementation and the details are more important than grand pronouncements. If the deputies and assistants in the secretary's office are not true reformers, nothing will get done. (my emphasis)
So what does this mean? There are many theories about the bully-pulpit skills of Rod Paige and Margaret Spellings. Mike, in fact, wrote a few weeks ago??(actually in response to another Brooks column) that the perfect education secretary would have a strong grasp of education, policy, and management. And we can certainly all agree the popularity (and perhaps respect?) matters--for the president and for his cabinet if anything is going to get accomplished (Bush and the economic crisis are case in point).??But what about the underlings? Are we spending too much time thinking about the top dog when the pups might be just as, if not more, important?
We're all worried that LDH might be in Obama's cabinet. Would it be more dangerous if she's not? (Assuming that her current role as education advisor guarantees her some kind of Obama administration-related job.)
