Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond

Too laudatory

I find the page on Linda Darling-Hammond to be totally laudatory, and therefore very troubling. Many of us in social justice-focused teacher education are thoroughly distressed about her continuing allegiance to EdTPA, which she launched, probably with non-cynical intentions. But the effects of that initiative have been devastating to all of us; we are not only beleaguered by another layer of mostly mindless accreditation hoops costing inordinate amounts of time and money (and discouraging young people of limited means with new costly tests) competing with our precious curriculum-development time with our student teachers, (forget about the legal problems of our students having to get parental permission to send films of children in public school classrooms to a corporation; I certainly would not give permission for my own children to be filmed under such circumstances) but find ourselves reporting sensitive data to a multinational corporation that has totally disempowered the democratic processes by which educational missions and standards have been negotiated, however problematic those democratic processes have been. Is Darling-Hammond unaware of the funding alliances between/among the Walton family, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and even Rupert Murdoch's empire, and their hopes of eliminating current University-based programs in teacher education in favor of their own private certification ventures, beholden to no public? I do not use the term "fascism" lightly, but the implementation of EdTPA without sufficient public comment or teacher input, and its replacement of elected governmental bodies at least in (democratic) theory, responsive to the public by a corporation really does smack of it. Shame on you, Linda Darling Hammond, for being deaf to your own primary constituency. The Wikepeda page on Darling-Hammond is extremely biased and badly needs editing! I have never edited a Wikepedia page before, but will work with a group of colleagues to do this shortly. Sincerely, Barbara RegenspanBregenspan (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The above strikes me as perhaps a little in the weeds for an encyclopedia article, but it's up to you. It seems to me the best (and fairest) way to make the article more neutral is to remove some of the career play-by-play and praise quoting now in the piece.Flyte35 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I represent Dr. Darling-Hammond and have posted a comprehensive bio on this page today. When this page was originally created, it was done by someone who posted entirely on and clearly cares strongly for Teach for America (TFA). I respect that passion, but Dr. Darling-Hammond'spage is not the appropriate place to wage a debate on TFA. Out of dozens of books, hundreds of research publications and uncountable articles, this is *one* report, conducted more than three years ago. Dr. Darling-Hammond's work — which encompasses not just teacher education, but school redesign, district redesign, principal preparation, leadership education, and assessment -- was not accurately represented by the previous post. While there is no objection on anyone's part to a debate on research, this debate belongs on the TFA page, not Dr. Darling-Hammond's page. That research publication is only one of hundreds of projects Dr. Darling-Hammond has published on and devoting her biographical page to it is not appropriate. --Barbara McKenna; June 6, 2008

Subject-approved bios are great, but they are not justification for deleting relevant information that is backed up by sources. I encourage people to harvest important sentences from older versions of the article. --RedHouse18 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Approved Copying from her website The person who copied it claims it was approved by Darling-Hammond. Does this make it ok? --RedHouse18 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Well it's certainly ok that it's approved by Darling-Hammond but it isn't, strictly speaking, relevant. 2) It's very odd to insist on the removal of the TFA paragraph. The paragraph is not argumentative and is very relevant to her work. In fact, anyone outside of education policy is only familiar with Darling-Hammond though her TFA work so it should be addressed. Flyte35 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Career

I've removed some information from the career section. None of the information that I've removed is controversial, however, and I wouldn't get into an edit war if someone put it back in. I think that the length and tone of the section, however, is part of the reason the article has the "like a resume tag." All of the information in the original paragraph comes from the source I added also, btw, so there's no need to find a new source.Flyte35 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

This section has been removed several times, most recently using the justification that it's inaccurate and not biographical. In checking the sources, the section appears to be entirely accurate. As it pertains to the academic work of a professor, it seems like relevant biographical information to me. Flyte35 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was removed per a request on the behalf of the subject. Do not readd it - doing so is disruptive. See WP:BLP and WP:OTRS.

Can't have her pandering to the CCP in the article, eh comrades? That might let people know just what kind of ivory-tower pinhead she truly is.

Al Tally ^talk 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Next person that reverts any OTRS personnel in this article is going to be blocked. How about that? -Pilotguy contact tower 17:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pilotguy, threats are completely unnecessary. OTRS isn't a badge, and saying "because I said so" isn't enough of a justification to remove content -- nor is, on its own, a request by the subject of the article. All OTRS edits are subject to review; nothing present in this addition of content appears to violate WP:BLP. If the argument here is that something in that paragraph does violate BLP's tenets, please cite what aspects of that policy is being violated. (If it's not that, please do explain what it is.)

Let's stay calm here and figure out how to move forward with this in such a way that cited, accurate, relevant information can be included while continuing to respect the subject in question. And if this needs to be taken offline, please email me. Not that it really matters, I suppose, but I'm an admin and am capable of keeping confidential anything that needs to be in getting to the bottom of this. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you use the information, as appropriately referenced, in a way that isn't labeled "Controversy" - that comes with a lot of negative connotation. There appear to be some reliable sources there which you can use, and subjects can't request we remove criticism just because they don't like it. We just need to be careful to not go overboard. —Giggy 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The following is the text of the section:

Darling-Hammond is a critic of alternative certification programs such as Teach For America. In the spring of 2005, a study published by Stanford researchers, including Darling-Hammond, concluded that TFA teachers in Houston who had not completed certification programs were less effective than traditionally credentialed teachers. "Our study doesn't say you shouldn't hire Teach for America teachers," said Hammond, "Our study says everyone benefits from preparation, including Teach for America teachers — that they became more effective when they became certified." Her study was criticized by several academics for lacking rigor and using questionable sample sizes.

I would suggest that the first sentence may be an overreach without a source stating that there are other alternative certification programs she criticized. Other than that, with a reasonable title ("Darling-Hammond on Teach for America," or something similar), this seems to be wholly reasonable content, and well within WP:BLP guidelines.

It's been several days since either of the individuals who objected to the inclusion of this content have weighed in, and I left a message with User:Majorly (a.k.a. User:Al tally) asking that he join the discussion here. I would suggest that in another 24 hours without clarification on the OTRS issue, the section be replaced without the first line, and with a calmer title. JDoorjam JDiscourse 06:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it best if you propose the exact text you're going to add on this page, first. —Giggy 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment above, something along the lines of:

==Darling-Hammond on Teach for America==

In the spring of 2005, a study published by Stanford researchers, including Darling-Hammond, concluded that Teach for America teachers in Houston who had not completed certification programs were less effective than traditionally credentialed teachers. "Our study doesn't say you shouldn't hire Teach for America teachers," said Hammond, "Our study says everyone benefits from preparation, including Teach for America teachers—that they became more effective when they became certified." Her study was criticized by several academics for lacking rigor and using questionable sample sizes.

There's also an Education Week article which looks like it could be relevant, but I can't get access to it. Anybody able to read the whole thing? JDoorjam JDiscourse 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor MOS changes but have no issues otherwise. I'd suggest you poke Al and Pilotguy on their talk pages to see if they have any reasonable concerns with this. —Giggy 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for making the edit that caused this problem. I didn't understand the significance of an OTRS edit and would have proceeded differently had I known. In regards to the specific paragraph, I think that it could be introduced "Darling-Hammond on Teach for America." I think the point here is not so much that she is a "critic of alternative certification" but that she is someone who studies teacher |preparation. The "controversial" article is only part of her academic work looking at what preparation is needed to make good teachers.Flyte35 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the above paragraph proposed by JDoorjam seems neural and appropriate.Flyte35 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made two critical changes to the TFA section to remove misleading and inaccuate statements:

1) Adding the cap words “…concluded that ALL TEACHERS, INCLUDING Teach for America teachers in Houston who had not completed certification programs were less effective than traditionally credentialed teachers.” The fact is that the study concluded that *all* non-certified teachers, including Teach for America teachers were less effective than credentialed teachers.

2) “Her study was criticized by several academics for lacking rigor and using questionable sample sizes.” This is a misleading statement. Firstly, as its source it cites an article (the USA Today article by Greg Toppo) that is not accurate -- and in fact is the only critical article on the study. Contrary to the story's claim, the study was peer-reviewed and ultimately published in a peer reviewed journal; it is rigorous, and it has a *very* large sample size. (The study's sample sizes ranged from 37,396 students in 1996-97, when the study began, to 38, 928 in 2001-02, when the study concluded).

Finally, the fact that the study was criticized by someone is not news and not appropriate to cite (even if the story was accurate, which it isn't) as there isn't an important study in existence that isn't criticized by someone when it comes out. Scan any paper on any given day and you will find a study in science, medicine, education, or another field and a criticism on it by someone else. Barbaramckenna (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Both good points. I've added another source for an article critical of the study that is much more complete than the USA Today source. Yes, it is, of course, very common to criticize academic studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyte35 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Following up on my previous statement, above, the statement "Her study was criticized by several academics for lacking rigor and using questionable sample sizes" is inaccurate and inappropriate. The sample sizes of the study were very large (see above) and the second source you use to back this statement up — Abigail Smith — is the Vice President of Research and Public Policy for Teach for America, not an objective academic. There is far more attention on this single study than you see on the page of any other academic in Wikipedia and if you are going to keep it in, at least keep away from false statements and biased counter-arguments. Barbaramckenna (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A contributor chose an inflammatory and very biased opinion piece from the New York Times as a citation for speculation on Darling-Hammond's possible appointment as Secretary of Education. I replaced it with a more balanced piece that also ran in the New York Times a few days earlier. The earlier piece is written by the Times' actual education reporter, Sam Dillon, rather than David Brooks, who is anything but objective. The earlier pieces is not a puff piece and does level some criticisms, so anyone looking for honest balance should be satisfied. Barbaramckenna (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just pared down the TFA section to the version agreed on by hard-wrought consensus some months ago. The section was expanded once recently and again with a very lengthy quote from a recent article. Here is why I pared it back down:

1) This is a biographical page, not a page to debate research findings on TFA. To a reader who knows nothing about the body of work of Darling-Hammond such an entry presents a very skewed representation of the massive work of a 30-year career. Here is guidance from the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints….

::http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

2) Even if this were the place to debate the report, the entire 50 page report is poorly represented by the paragraph chosen. Why choose that particular paragraph? Why not one of these, below?

3) Finally, it took a lot of work to get consensus on that section and H0n0r has made two substantial changes since then that expand the section even more disproportionally and don’t present a balanced report of the research.

Extracts from the PDK report (per point 2):

Our analyses suggest that in contexts where many teachers have little preparation for teaching and where there is high turnover, TFA may make a positive contribution. The Teach for America organization often notes that its goal is to bring stability for at least one or two years to classrooms in poor and minority schools that might otherwise have a parade of substitute teachers, and argues that its recruits do as well as other teachers these students might have. Page 21

It might also be argued that the reputedly strong liberal arts background of TFA teachers may contribute to their students’ relatively better showing on the TAAS mathematics tests. On this one test—though not on the other two mathematics tests used in Houston (the SAT-9 and the Aprenda)—the students of fully certified TFA recruits performed significantly better than the students of other certified teachers. Given the longstanding concerns about the mathematics background of many elementary school teachers, it would be plausible that candidates who have attended relatively selective colleges would have a stronger basic mathematics background in high school and college than the average elementary teaching candidate. Page 21

Citation: Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/.

Barbaramckenna (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for stepping into controversial territory. The quote from PDK seemed appropriate given the amount of press attention Dr. Darling-Hammond is receiving as the new cabinet forms, and also seemed appropriate given that it was directly from her, not someone's interpretation of her views. I chose it as it was the concluding paragraph of Dr. Darling Hammond's article and therefore, I assumed, a summation of her viewpoint. However, the quote from Ed. Policy Analysis is much more recent, and would be a good one to replace it with. I certainly see the point of presenting a balanced view of the research, and quotes directly from Dr. Darling Hammond make the most sense of all. I just wanted to make sure that her views, with direct sourcing - not through a media filter - were represented on this page. On another note, the Wikipedia bio guidelines are referring to the balanced use of secondary sources, with which I firmly agree. However, I see no such guideline for using the quotes of the actual subject - the quote that I included was written by the subject, not about her. It seems odd that we would want to remove, or somehow water-down, the written record of a firmly held position of this biography subject. H0n0r (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Two more claims were added to this page that I have removed for these reasons.

1. The statement: "Darling-Hammond is a critic of No Child Left Behind. She has suggested that federal spending on education is inadequate." Is an inaccurate and generalized claim and is based on an indirect source -- an article written in The New Republic that is an opinion piece and never cites the source of their claim. If you do your research you'll see that, like just about every one else in America, Darling-Hammond has pointed to the flaws in NCLB and his given testimony to Congress on ways to amend *and reauthorize* the bill. If you're willing to read the 36-page transcript of her testimony before Congress on Sept. 10, 2007, you'll see that she is making deeply considered recommendations to *add* to the bill. You can find the transcript here: http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/nclb_testimony.pdf

2. The statement " Though Darling-Hammond has acknowledged that Teach for America has brought new talent into the teaching profession, she has frequently been a critic of the program." Is not saying anything that isn't already being said in this section except it is getting in the loaded word "critic." She has been both critical and supportive of the impact of TFA and to say "critic" erases the positive and disregards the fact that her opinion is formed by substantive, peer-reviewed, multiple-partner research, not ideology. Barbaramckenna (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you for contributing so much to Linda Darling-Hammond. That said, I feel that you have many times removed information which is valuable, well sourced, written with a NPOV, and follows all wikipedia guidelines that I am aware of.

For example:

Every news article that I have read about Prof. Darling-Hammond calls her a critic of Teach for America. The press usually goes further, calling her a "long-time critic," "the toughest critic," "among the first and most prominent critics," "no fan of Teach for America."

Therefore, I believe it is totally reasonable for the wikipedia entry to call her a critic of TFA.

She has been called a "leading critic of No Child Left Behind," and she has endorsed more federal funding for poor students and schools. My personal feelings don't matter, but if you are curious, I feel that many of Prof. Darling-Hammond's critiques have been good ones, even if I personally feel she has emphasized the negative too much when it comes to TFA.

I do not believe there is any justification for removing this information. If you feel that that the wikipedia article and the sources used give an incomplete picture of Prof. Darling-Hammond I invite you to add additional text and references, but I ask you not to remove perfectly fair contributions that others have made.

--RedHouse18 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored (in a considerably revised form) some of what Barbara Mckenna recently removed.--RedHouse18 00:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

Removed claim that Darling-Hammond is against pay for performance for teachers, which is incorrect and cites a debated *opinion* piece from the LA Times as its source. Darling-Hammond supports pay for performance. What she does not support is measuring teacher effectiveness by relying exclusively on the results of multiple-choice tests, which focus the curriculum on low-level skills. She is an advocate of high standards for teachers, and the need for teachers to be evaluated but says it should be based on how they deliver a curriculum focused on critical thinking and problem solving skills, not simple multiple-choice tests. Barbaramckenna (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Views on Education Reforms

I think it is very important that this article document Linda Darling-Hammond's views on a number of issues in education reform. For example: (please suggest other issues)

1. Public school choice
2. School vouchers
3. Standardized testing
4. No Child Left Behind
5. Teacher merit-pay
6. Alternative teacher certification programs
7. Teach For America
8. Charter schools
9. The proper role of the federal, state, and local governments in education
10. Extended day and/or extended year schools
11. Early childhood education
12. Teachers unions

I'm sure her views are complex and the article should attempt to reflect that complexity. I call on all parties to contribute to this article as much and as soon as possible. We are responsible for informing the public about someone who is very important. As always, use a a NPOV and provide citations.

--RedHouse18 21:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

Like a résumé

This tag was added back in June 2008, apparently by User:Pilotguy. There have been significant edits to the piece since then, many of which bring in additional, encyclopedic information. I believe that with the removal of the Awards section (which doesn't really seem terribly informative) it would be appropriate to remove the tag. Thoughts?Flyte35 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of recent section on "Stanford New School" [sic]

I've removed a section someone posted on "Stanford New School" (which is actually Stanford New Schools) because it was completely inaccurate and while there is relevancy to Linda Darling-Hammond in the topic, it has been blown entirely out of proportion. Here are the facts:

Linda Darling-Hammond didn't found Stanford New Schools and had nothing to so the the *elementary school* charter, that recently had its charter revoked. Stanford New Schools did not exist in 2001 when the East Palo Alto Academy High School was formed. SNS was formed in 2006 to launch an elementary school, and at that time the high school, founded in 2001 by a group of people that included Darling-Hammond, and newly launched elementary school were merged into one charter, administered by SNS. It would be accurate to say Linda Darling-Hammond was one of the founders (she was the faculty advisor many other people were involved) of the *high school* in 2001. And the high school is still in operation and not closing and doing very well by its students.

The high school, East Palo Alto Academy High School (EPAAHS), charter continuation was approved April 14, 2010, by the Ravenswood City School District and the high school continues to operate, serving student population that is 20 percent African American, 70 percent Latino, 10 percent Pacific Islander, and more than half English language learners. The school stats include a graduation rate of 86 percent—well above the state average of 80 percent overall and approximately 65 percent statewide for African American and Latino students; a college admission rate of 96 percent of graduates, with 53 percent admitted to four-year colleges in 2009-2010 (latest year I have stats for)--more than twice the rate for California students as a whole; an Early College program in which 125 of the school’s students earned more than 550 college credits last year while they were still in high school, with more than 40 percent earning an “A” and many graduating with a full year of college already completed. It's also had achievement gains of 180 points on the Academic Performance Index (API), the state’s measure of academic achievement, over the last seven years.

If you'd like to create a section about EPAAHS, those are the facts above, easily verified by any intelligent Google search or by contacting Ravenswood School District. And a section about Stanford New Schools on this page is entirely inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaramckenna (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it seems pretty well sourced and the points made above don't don't really seem to contradict anything in the removed text. They merely add context. They would be entirely appropriate to include as well. It does seem that the Stanford New School information should probably be within the "Developing schools and programs" section.Flyte35 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Linda Darling-Hammond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326184555/http://www.swarthmore.edu/alumni/edsite/keynote3.html to http://www.swarthmore.edu/alumni/edsite/keynote3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://varenne.tc.columbia.edu/bib/texts/intasc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625193056/http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/ to http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313224318/http://www.mcgrawprize.com/winners/past/ to http://www.mcgrawprize.com/winners/past/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)