I just read this op-ed by Bob Herbert, "In Search of Education Leaders" in the New York Times about a new doctoral program at Harvard in "Educational Leadership" that will be tuition free.

If you haven't seen it, it is worth checking out. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05herbert.html?hp

It left me slightly confused.  First, I think Herbert does a good job of showing readers why there is a need for huge change in education, and for with the vision and skills to lead it.  What confuses me is whether or not Harvard's program will create education leaders who are any different than those we already have. In the NY Times article, the dean of the program, Kathleen McCartney says, “If you look at people who are running districts, some come from traditional schools of education, and they understand the core business of education but perhaps are a little weak on the management side. And then you’ve got the M.B.A.-types who understand operations, let’s say, but not so much teaching and learning.”

So it seems the program aims to produce well-rounded ed reformers who understand both business and management as well as teaching and learning.  That leaves me wondering how these candidates are going to learn about teaching and learning in a doctoral program at Harvard?  There is no mention here (or anywhere else I searched) of the role of teachers in this vision.  There is nothing that says a candidate needs to have taught in classrooms, especially those that serve Black and Hispanic students, the population Herbert says is most in danger of not getting a decent education, an important piece of his case for new leaders in American education.  

I myself read this news and thought, so let's say I were interested in the vision of this program.  What does it mean to be an education leader and how does this fit with my desire to also be a teacher?  An article at Boston.com states, "The program aims to train graduates for senior leadership roles in school systems, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector."  Does this mean that graduates of this program will not be teachers, teacher leaders, or even principals, all of whom work in actual schools and and are responsible for educating actual students?   

On the one hand, I get it.  We live in a hierarchical society.  Government itself is hierarchical and the people at the top are mostly NOT equipped to tackle the issues of education in the 21st century, though they need to be. That's what creates the imperative for innovative new programs to help fill in the gaping holes education policy makers are currently staring down into or trying to cover up.  The reality seems to be--at least at present time-- that if you work in government, you probably cannot also be a classroom teacher.  Nonetheless, I'm skeptical about the idea that graduates of this program will be in any better position to transform American education than current education reformers are so long as teachers are left out.   

Turning the question around, could a classroom teacher--or group of classroom teachers--become a major force in education reform?  I think yes.  Teacher Leaders Network and, in a different way, unions seem to be examples of this.  I'd be much more optimistic if I knew that a group of teachers were entering Harvard's program and would graduate having created and prepared to take on hybrid roles--splitting their time between actual classroom teaching and working closely with senior "educational leaders" to help transform education.  

Who will create that program? 

[image credit: life.com]