In the Huffington Post on Thursday Darling-Hammond said, “It is time to get serious about how to support and enable our education system to respond to the massive changes in learning that some other nation’s systems have been addressing more systemically, with much better results, over the last two decades.”

In 2008, Dr. Darling-Hammond was slotted for the position of US Education Secretary under President Barack Obama. However, even though her qualifications far exceeded Arne Duncan’s, she was passed over at the last minute and the president appointed Mr. Duncan. Linda Darling-Hammond’s credentials are vast and wide and she would have most likely opposed many of the Race to The Top and Common Core initiatives being pushed by politicians and testing executives. So the switch from Darling-Hammond to Duncan was not too surprising.

As a professor at the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University, Darling-Hammond has continuously published on the topics of:

1. Improving teacher professional development to ensure that teachers have the knowledge and skills necessary to teach students with diverse needs.
2. Making organizational changes within schools to support more intensive learning.
3. Ensuring that targeted supports and services are available for struggling students.
4. Conducting classroom assessments that better inform teaching.

She has also helped develop the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, the test used to assess the Common Core Standards in some states like California. She has said this about the Common Core Standards:

My view about what we should be doing re: curriculum and assessments can be found in the last chapter of my book, The Flat World and Education, where I describe how many other countries create thoughtful curriculum guidance as part of an integrated teaching and learning system. In short, what I would prefer and what other more deliberative countries do is a careful process by which educators are regularly convened over several years to revise the national or state curriculum expectations (typically national in smaller countries like Finland and Singapore, and state or provincial in large ones like Canada and China). Then there is an equally careful process of developing curriculum materials and assessments (managed by the Ministry or Department of Education with the participation of educators) and organizing intensive professional development. The development process takes at least 3 years and the initial implementation process takes about the same amount of time and deeply involves educators all along the way. Unfortunately, this was not the process that was used to develop and roll out the CCSS.

Darling-Hammond, once the education darling of President Obama, has since come out opposed to the way Race to The Top has pushed for teacher accountability through high-stakes test scores. Her research shows that she is far more concerned for students and teachers rather than test scores.

Darling-Hammond’s Learning Policy Institute will provide necessary research for decision makers to use when imposing policy onto schools. According to Darling-Hammond, The Learning Policy Institute’s agenda will include:

• Examining effective designs for new schools with structures, curriculum and types of learning that young people will need to thrive in a “radically different, knowledge-based world economy.”
• Sharing early education programs with strong outcomes so that they can be brought to scale. There is an emerging bipartisan recognition nationally of the importance of early education, she said.
• Making recommendations and sharing research on how to attract, train and effectively retain the next generation of teachers; California and other states are already experiencing a diminishing supply of prospective teachers.
• Helping to shape an “equity agenda” that draws attention to the United States’ high rates of child poverty and homelessness and unequal school funding and staffing, compared with other industrialized nations.

Funding for think tanks is typically a concern for those who follow education policy.  The San Francisco-based Sandler Foundation is the lead funder of The Learning Policy Institute, with the Atlantic Philanthropies, the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Stuart Foundation also providing initial support for the institute.

While there is excitement among many that someone like Darling-Hammond is going to Washington, some people in the education world are concerned this is just another think tank with motives that may not be aligned with the best interests of students and teachers. In fact, here are just a few responses from parents, teachers and activists about Dr. Darling-Hammond’s new organization.

“Oh, no!…”

“It is being touted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction in CA as well. I’m having the same reaction.””

“Linda Darling-Hammond is a very good educator. Maybe she can change things for the better.”

“I agree and hope so. She’s also a major player behind the Race to the Top initiatives. She’s been a roller coaster. It’s hard to know how to feel about her starting a new major policy initiative. The last time she got involved with that, public education met it’s most destructive policies to date. We’ll see. We need to watch this very closely.”

Indeed people will be watching very closely, especially those who are inside school buildings having to implement and come to terms with current and future education policy.

Really angry.

I radiated it. Not just anger, but also frustration and indignation.

When casually asked, “Hey Kathleen!  What have you been up to?” Instead of the standard reply, “Not much. How are you?” I would fly into a full-fledged, red-faced rant about any and all of the following:

• testing companies
• unnecessary faculty meetings
• education mandates coming from non-educators
• school grade calculations
• VAM scores
• 10 page Danielson teacher evaluation rubrics
• testing companies
• testing calendars
• closed media centers due to testing (we closed ours Feb-June)
• remedial reading programs made by the same people who make the tests
• Jeb Bush
• Arne Duncan
• Bill Gates
• my local school district’s leadership team
• the superintendent
• my former boss
• my local school board
• every school board
• governors who don’t know anything about education
• Pam Stewart
• legislators, every last one of them
• unions who don’t support their teachers
• teachers who complain but don’t vote or stand up for what they want
• parents who complain but don’t vote or stand up for what they want

I even got with other angry people and we got pissed off together. We took to school board podiums; we went to conferences; we went on the news; we stood on the side of the road with signs; we assembled and mobilized.

I had the pleasure of working with education activists whom I love and respect, women who had been fighting this fight long before I quit my job in public education to join them.

And the ranting worked. We got things done. We got our local School Board to opt out of state tests (they later opted back in). Together, we brought national awareness to these issues and helped hundreds of thousands of people refuse high-stakes assessments.

I put on webinars, wrote blogs, and conducted research. All fueled by my anger.

My anger was energizing. It helped me work harder and longer. It was like a drug that made me clear and focused.  I felt like I could do anything the more and more pissed off I got.

Then something happened.

I was out on a long run, Rage Against the Machine playing through my headphones.

One of my favorite songs to run to, “Take it back! Take it back! Take it back!” was interrupted by a phone call. I looked at the screen and the name of my former boss appeared. He was also a former friend before he made the list. I knew something was up, because it had been a year since he had called me. I had a sinking feeling.

“Kathleen?”

“Yeah, George.” I said cautiously. I missed him, but I was too angry to tell him that.

“Kathleen, have you gotten a call about Coach?”

I knew before I even asked, “No, why?”

He told me that our friend, who was my mentor for the last 10 years, suddenly had a heart attack and died just a couple of hours before.

The Universe opened up and a huge hole appeared.

Coach, who was like a father, brother, and best friend all rolled into one, was gone. He had given me my start in education, had yanked me off the slow, arduous path I was on and changed the trajectory of my life. And in the last year of my angry rebellion, I had pulled away from him because my fight against all things public ed was more important than staying connected with him. He had invited me to the movies, and I passed. He invited to several other outings with his family, and I made excuses why I couldn’t go.

And now he was gone.

While standing there on the side of the road, hanging up the phone, the anger left my body like smoke coming off an extinguished candle.

I tried to be angry but I couldn’t find it anymore. I knew I was done fighting.

My outrage was replaced by anguish and my natural tendency to second-guess past decisions, although he taught me to never look back.

“Make a decision and then move forward.” He’d say. “Don’t look back, Jasper.”

So that’s what I am doing. Moving forward, eyes straight ahead.

Over ten years with him, I learned to empower people to realize their potential and take action to achieve their goals. I challenged young people to look at the world differently and reach beyond their comfort level. He taught me how to do that, and that’s what I want to do.

The absence of anger has made me realize how much I miss working with high school students and teaching them to be part of the solution. How can I expect them to do that when I am busy yelling about the problem?

Resentment and discontent are soul-sucking and toxic. So, I’ve decided to be the solution rather than focusing on all the troubles.

I’m not abandoning my feistiness towards education issues and bad policy. I will continue to bring awareness to those elements. However, I am going to spend my time helping others find ways around these problems.

ConversationED will be a solution to the problems many people face in public education in this country, by helping people hack their education. That’s right, if you are dissatisfied in education and education policies, we will help you hack your education to find ways YOU can make it better.

Here are just a few hacks we are working on:

• Workforce Essentials: Things you wish they’d teach you in school like organization, time management, professional communication and problem solving.
• Resume Building – Quick and Dirty Tricks to get noticed in a Sea of Applicants
• Finance – Understand your loan terms before you owe government-backed companies hundreds of thousands of dollars for your liberal arts degree.
• Down with the 5 Paragraph Essay – Learn How to Write for Real.
• The MLA Lie: No one uses it after high school so we’ll teach you APA – the formatting your professor wants you to use.
• SAT/ACT prep – Skip the FSA, get the concordant score, and move on with your life.
• Happiness courses. Yup that’s right, how to be happy. This is something we believe everyone should have a chance to learn.
• Wellness – Nutrition, Exercises, Mindfulness and a more productive life.
• Academic Courses that don’t Suck:
  • Genetics I, II, & III (Skip the parts of the cell and get to the good stuff!)
  • Math as a language
  • Research
  • Pairing literature with history

We are going to help people circumvent a bad system and decide for themselves how they want to learn and thrive. Maybe you can’t leave public education or you don’t want to. We will be here when you want something different, a solution to whatever problem you are feeling in your learning.

This is going to take us a while. We have a very small team and by small I mean 3 people. But those 3 people are the most creative educators I know.

I’ve missed being an educator. I’m back, and I hope you will join me.

If you want to learn more about what we are doing and how to hack your education, we have a really cool infographic you can download for free. Click Here to get the FREE infographic. Or click the image to the FREE infographic and Hack your ED!

For many, the term “community schools” conjures up the idea of schools as the hub of the town, with experienced principals and credentialed career teachers. We think of these schools as designed for the public good, with strong PTAs, afterschool programs, and health screenings which include a school nurse.

Most important, the community, we assume, owns these schools. They should be public in the truest sense of the word with plenty of electives including the arts and sports. With luck, community schools stay open into the evening with course offerings for adults and students! They are overseen by strong, involved school boards, we think.

Some of us might remember our own public schools as community schools when we were young. Others think their schools needed help. But all of us probably agree that community schools should be schools the community gets behind and is proud of—a source of support for families and the town or city.

The elephant in the room with community schools is…you guessed it…racial diversity. Unless the surrounding neighborhood is multicultural, community schools run the risk of being segregated.

Also, many parents might be scratching their heads. They have not forgotten the closure of what they believed used to be their community public schools. They might wonder if they will be getting their old schools back.

So, aside from the problem with integration, or the lack of it, upon hearing the term community schools, it is easy to get a warm fuzzy feeling that something good is happening in education. Maybe the tide is turning. Perhaps too, our neighborhoods are changing when it comes to ethnicity.

Alas, however, upon examining today’s term “community schools,” one realizes quickly, that they are usually charter schools.

Here is the Ohio definition of community schools.

Community schools, often called charter schools in other states, are public nonprofit, nonsectarian schools that operate independently of any school district but under a contract with an authorized sponsoring entity that is established by statute or approved by the State Board of Education. Community schools are public schools of choice and are state and federally funded.

If they aren’t charters, they are poor traditional public schools relying on some business in the community to keep the school afloat. Chances are it will only be time before they are turned into a charter. Some choice.

The mention of public-private ownership whenever community schools are mentioned, gives it away. Certainly private business has an interest in supporting local public schools. They should donate to them to help them thrive. But public schools should not be so poor that the community must rely on outsiders to keep the school open.

Public-private partnerships implies more than volunteerism. It involves ownership. We know ownership means business will run the schools—even possibly make a profit off them. They will also drive career teachers and reputable principals and superintendents out of the system. They will claim they are too costly.

In some places charter schools have turned into for-profit businesses with stocks trading on Wall Street. How does this make it a community school?

Certainly, there are charters that are run by sincere individuals doing good work. Those aren’t the charter schools I refer to. And if the ECAA passes with wraparound health services that would be a good thing. However, there is uncertainty with that part of the bill.

Also, many public schools used to offer wraparound services. They had school nurses and health screenings. Poor children usually had access to primary health and dental care. Who will monitor whether children get those services in their charter schools? Real public schools should still be able to offer those services.

The main lobbying group for community schools is the Coalition of Community Schools. It is troubling upon studying their website that anyone can start a community school. And they mention “personalized learning” which has become a euphemism for online instruction. Will the new community schools eventually be like the online Rocketship charter schools?

It is also interesting that they talk little about teachers on their website.

A traditional public school is a real community school. It is a school that rejects no one. It has legitimate career teachers and principals.

So hearing all the hype about community schools in the new Every Child Achieves Act is deceptive, because when most of us think of community schools we are dreaming of something different than charter schools. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like bologna.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

Citation Link:

Baron, Kathryn. “Senate Bill Keeps After-School and Community Schools in ESEA.” Education Week. July 17, 2015.

Some facts:

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a disaster.

It took the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – a federal law designed to ensure all schools get equitable resources and funding – and turned it into a law about standardized testing and punishing schools that don’t measure up.

This was a Republican policy proposed by President George W. Bush.
But now that the ESEA is being rewritten, those pushing to keep the same horrendous Bush era policies are the Democrats.

Almost all of the Democrats!

That includes so-called far left Dems like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren!

It comes down to the Murphy Amendment, a Democratically sponsored change to the ESEA.

This provision was an attempt to keep as many Test and Punish policies as possible in the Senate rewrite.

The amendment, “reads more like NCLB, with its detailed prescription for reporting on student test results, for ‘meaningfully differentiating among all public schools’ (i.e., grading schools), including publicly identifying the lowest five percent, and, among interventions, potentially firing staff and offering students the option to transfer to other schools and using part of the budget to pay for the transportation,” according to blogger Mercedes Schneider.

Education historian Diane Ravich adds, “This amendment would have enacted tough, federal-mandated accountability, akin to setting up an ‘achievement school district’ in every state.”

Thankfully it was voted down. The ESEA will probably not be affected. The rewrite was passed by both the House and Senate without these provisions. Once the two versions of the bill are combined, it is quite possible – maybe even probable – that we’ll have a slight improvement on NCLB. Sure there is plenty of crap in it and plenty of lost opportunities, but the ESEA rewrite looks to be a baby step in the right direction.

The problem is this: the failed Murphy Amendment shows the Democrats’ education vision. Almost all of them voted for it. Warren even co-sponsored it!

When it was defeated and the Senate approved the ESEA rewrite, Warren released a statement expressing her disapproval. But if you didn’t know about the Murphy Amendment, you could have read her criticisms quite differently.

She says the (ESEA rewrite) “eliminates basic, fundamental safeguards to ensure that federal dollars are actually used to improve both schools and educational outcomes for those students who are often ignored.”

That sounds good until you realize what she means. “Educational outcomes” mean test scores. She’s talking about test-based accountability. She is against the ESEA rewrite because it doesn’t necessarily put strings on schools’ funding based on standardized test scores like NCLB.

She continues, “Republicans have blocked every attempt to establish even minimum safeguards to ensure that money would be used effectively. I am deeply concerned that billions in taxpayer dollars will not actually reach those schools and students who need them the most…”

She is upset because Republicans repeatedly stripped away federal power to Test and Punish schools. The GOP gave that power to the states. So Warren is concerned that somewhere in this great nation there may be a state or two that decides NOT to take away funding if some of their schools have bad test scores! God forbid!

And Warren’s about as far left as they come!

What about liberal lion Bernie Sanders? I’d sure like an explanation for his vote.

It makes me wonder if when he promised to “end No Child Left Behind,” did he mean the policies in the bill or just the name!?

The Democrats seem to be committed to the notion that the only way to tell if a school is doing a good job is by reference to its test scores. High test scores – good school. Bad test scores – bad school.

This is baloney! Test scores show parental income, not academic achievement. Virtually every school with low test scores serves a majority of poor children. Virtually every school with high test scores serves rich kids.

Real school accountability would be something more akin to the original vision of the ESEA – making sure each district had what it needs to give kids the best education possible. This means at least equalizing funding to poverty schools so they have the same resources as wealthy ones. Even better would be ending our strange reliance on local property taxes to provide the majority of district monies.

But the Dems won’t hear it. The Murphy Amendment seems to show that they’re committed to punishing poor schools and rewarding rich ones.

I really hope I’m wrong about this. Please, anyone out there, talk me down!

Up until now I’ve always been with the Democrats because they had better – though still bad – education policies than the Republicans. I’m not sure I can say that anymore. In fact, it may be just the opposite.

Which party is most committed to ending Common Core? The Republicans!

Which party has championed reducing federal power over our schools and giving us a fighting chance at real education reforms? Republicans!

Which party more often champion’s parental rights over the state? Republicans!

Sure, most of them still love vouchers and charter schools. But increasingly so do the Democrats.

This vote has me rethinking everything.

Our country’s education voters may have just been abandoned by their longest ally.

Where do we go from here?

Steven Singer is an educator and blogger. His website is https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com and you can follow him on twitter @StevenSinger3

On the issue of K-12 education he leaves me a bit high and dry. Something is missing. I think as parents and educators, we need to not be swept off our feet by Bernie Sanders, but we need to hold his feet to the fire. I think this is important because I am hopeful he is one candidate that might listen.

We should require more answers from him about his education agenda.

You might say, “Well who else is out there who will do any better for education and public schools?” Good question.

Still, while I am no fan of Jeb Bush, I can honestly say I know where he stands on education. This will make it simple for me not to vote or support him. The others, including Sen. Sanders, leave out a lot of issues.

The Pros

These are the positive reasons I like Sen. Sanders. Please let me know if I missed something and I will add it to the list.

• He recognizes many children in this country live in poverty. Poverty has always been an overriding issue in the struggle to have decent public schools. What more will Sen. Sanders advocate concerning poverty and public schools?
• He emphasizes good Pre-K programs. I’d like to hear more about what he means here since this is always one of the goals of politicians. But it should be addressed.
• He supports affordable public higher education for all students who are capable and wish to attend college. He seems to be fighting for the middle class here and transcends the usual “all students must go to college” hype. He focuses instead on the troubling reality many hard-working students face–especially student debt.
• He likes small class sizes! This is written in his educational platform and is one of those issues that makes me jump off my couch and cheer!
• He is against vouchers. He has more recently made some reference against sending vouchers to private schools. Most Democrats are against vouchers.
• He has supported after school programs. This issue is important and I am glad he has been a part of showcasing it in the past.
• He has supported good education facilities for elementary schools. Many schools across the country are in bad condition. It is refreshing that Sen. Sanders has spoken out on this serious and often neglected issue.
• He doesn’t like NCLB. He should discuss more about why he doesn’t like it, and he needs to discuss the problematic Race to the Top.
• He talks about the whole child. Add to this a discussion about having a balanced curriculum in our public schools which is what is needed to address the whole child. I think he has mentioned the importance of art in school.
• He supports the teachers’ unions. This is good; however, unions are also controversial these days. They seem to be on board for selective charters (thinking teachers are still in charge) and Common Core. It also remains to be seen how hard they will fight for saving special education or returning normalcy to the classroom when it comes to high-stakes testing. Although I support teacher unions, I, like many others, am not enthralled with the AFT or the NEA right now.
• He speaks against high-stakes testing. While he might say there is too much testing, so did President Obama in the early days. Still, it is always nice to hear.

The Cons

Here are the murky areas that trouble me about Sen. Sander’s education platform thus far.

• He is selective in his criticism. He knocks corporations and the Koch brothers who have certainly had what I would call a negative imprint on our public schools, especially in North Carolina. But, thus far, I have not heard a peep about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have a far more formidable influence on education at the present time.
• He has yet to mention Common Core State Standards. I heard a person in an audience ask about Common Core along with some other issues. Sen. Sanders was evasive. Yet, CCSS is one of the hottest topics in education today.
• Senator Sanders talks proudly about being on the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pension. Probably the rewrite of the 800 page ESEA will be approved this week. This bill is generating much concern and is highly supportive of charter schools and the state’s overall draconian influence on schools. Some parents and educators myself included, think they should go back to the drawing board. Here is Dr. Sandra Stotsky warning against it and requesting phone calls to appropriate lawmakers. The education community seems divided on this issue.
• He has not mentioned charter schools. Dems tend to dislike vouchers but cling to the belief charters are the old Albert Shanker idea that has teachers in charge of nice alternative schools. But this country strayed far from that concept years ago. While there may be some good charters, most lack transparency and are posed to dismantle traditional public schools. Teachers are often treated abysmally when it comes to charters. Many teachers have lost their jobs when their schools arbitrarily shut down and converted to charters. And many charters rely on teachers who are lacking suitable qualifications.
• He likes teachers but which ones? I would like Sen. Sanders to get more specific on this issue. Teacher education is being dismantled in this country in favor of the Teach for America types. I want a candidate who will speak out in favor of fully-prepared career teachers, who study the needs of children and not just data, and not fast-track Teach for America.
• Special education? There are signs everyday that special education is in serious trouble of being eliminated in public schools. We have fought too long and too hard for the rights of all students with disabilities. We also need good programming for ELL students and the gifted. I want to hear this issue addressed by Sen. Sanders and the rest.

There may be many reasons to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. In general, he has a fine political agenda on many issues. But so far, Sen. Sanders needs to answer many other questions about K-12 education. I hope this will soon change.

We are listening.

Here is a Face Book page for Bernie Sanders. Let him know how you feel about public schools and education.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is NancyeBailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

1. He received a lot of parental engagement on the chat he probably wasn’t expecting.
2. He didn’t “engage” much with the parents who were asking him the tough questions regarding his education policy that affect their kids.

In fact, Duncan didn’t say much, but parents and educators certainly did.

His first tweet:

YAWN….

That’s like saying, “As parents, we know the sky is blue,” or “we know our kids like ice-cream.”

He then tweeted:

And that’s when he stepped in it, because parents know exactly what questions to ask.

In fact, here are just a few of the hundreds of tweets that poured in by parents (To see the full bombardment of questions, go to Twitter and search #PTChat):

Seldom throughout the chat, the education secretary got a few easy ones thrown down the middle over the plate that he had no problem taking a swing at:

Wendy  was one of the only people The Education Secretary responded to.

And parents got engaged and used all kinds of strategies hoping the Secretary of ED would engage with them back:

But, he didn’t answer any of these tweets, and they kept coming in. Many were from educators:

Not surprisingly, Mr. Duncan didn’t use any of his 140 characters to answer.

Sadly, parents wanted answers about their children with dyslexia:

To the dyslexia concerns, Mr. Duncan said only:

Lots of people speculated that it wasn’t him on twitter at all. That it was probably a 23 year-old intern who knows very little about eduction. Although the intern could probably come up with better ed policy than Arne Duncan.  About 30 min into the chat, Duncan went silent.

Ultimately this Twitter Chat #epicfail on the part of Arne Duncan. Some suggestions:

1. When talking about parental engagement, be sure you’re ready to actually engage with parents.
2. Use less catch phrases that mean absolutely nothing and get in and answer the tough questions.
3. When engaging with parents of dyslexic kids, try not to throw dyslexia stats and figures at them. They know the stats.
4. If you organize a Twitter the chat, man up and stay in the game. Don’t bail before it’s over.
5. Choose topics you’re willing to participate in with parents. Otherwise, it looks like a 23 year old intern is tweeting for you.

In addition, they are still insisting students struggling to learn English must take the regular tests after one year instead of two.

They will not consider the waiver requested by the Regents.

Both requests were aimed at reducing stress on students and yielding more useful results. State officials say that federal rules that require testing students at their chronological age, with narrow exceptions for students with very severe disabilities, set up some disabled students for failure and turn the tests into stressful guessing games. School officials in districts with many immigrant students say one year often is not enough for new arrivals to be ready to take language arts exams written in English.

Certain civil rights groups, as we know, have been behind this draconian testing too, along with, U.S. Assistant Education Secretary Deborah Delisle who is leaving to be the new CEO of the ASCD. The requirements, she says, are “necessary to ensure that teachers and parents of all students, including (English learners) and students with disabilities, have information on their students’ proficiency and progress in reading/language arts and mathematics” and “to ensure that schools are held accountable for the academic achievement of all students.”

The U.S. DOE is on a trajectory to privatize public schools and the only way they can do it to make it look like teachers are failing to teach students with disabilities or students learning a new language. They will continue to sacrifice the mental health of children and jobs of many teachers to do this. In New York, like everywhere else, testing has been tricky business.

What happened to the Individual Educational Plan (IEP)?

We have also been in the process of witnessing the end of special education, and a return to the old days of stigmatizing children. Instead of institutions, students will be segregated into for-profit charter schools with Teach for America, turnaround teachers. Or parents will be pushed out of public school into homeschooling.

It is amazing the lengths high ranking authorities at the U.S. Dept. of Education will continue to go to make public schools, teachers and their students look bad, all while they are breaking up special education and converting public schools into charters.

The IEP meeting is where parents who want their children to take a test, or not, should work it out. No so-called advocacy groups or politicians have the right to paint all students with one broad stroke. The purpose of special education is to individualize!

The U.S. DOE is overstepping its authority. They should have been sued a long time ago. The State of New York needs to protect its children! As does the rest of the country.

Some will say these draconian plots are because those at the U.S. DOE don’t know anything about kids with disabilities, and it is easy to get that takeaway when you watch Education Secretary Arne Duncan bumble about trying to explain why there is no concerted plan for children with dyslexia.

But the assault on special education has been going on since the day the ink dried on PL 94-142. Few politicians wanted to fund it. That we had some good years in the seventies to pull children out of dismal institutions and insist that they could learn and should have rights like every other child was a miracle.

Where is the safety net now? This push to test all students this way heightens the stigma children face—does not remove it. There will be no pleasant futures made based on these test scores for many of these children.

It is pure meanness. I know of no other words to describe it.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

Our vision began with A Nation at Risk creating an urgency based on competition against Russia and emerging global economies. We have since transitioned into leaving no child behind, and we are now focused on “college and career readiness”.

These have all sounded good from their inception, all have been used in campaign speeches and state of the union addresses. They have been the cornerstone of education policies and created a nearly one trillion dollar industry. These visions have crafted every sub-category of our educational debate. The US Department of Education wants to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness”, the Florida Department of Education wants to “increase the proficiency of all students”, and my own local school district wants to be the “top producer of successful students in the nation.”

Who can argue with such great soundbites? I will.

“Achievement”, “proficiency”, and “success” along with other great buzzwords like “rigor”, “data”, and “accountability” have done wonders for elected officials, government appointees, and educational leaders (who are rarely, if ever, educators). Policies are crafted around these words, bills are written around these words, textbooks and curriculum packages are sold around these words, and students are forgotten because of these words. All these words fit under the current national education vision of “college and career readiness” and I am here to say that this vision is wrong and it is this vision that is currently hurting our students and will suffocate our future.

What is our purpose of education? Currently, the purpose is to fit children into college enrollment statistics or cubicles/uniforms that already exist. All the education policies of today, from the national level to the school level are doing this. Ask why I teach algebra to my students and one of those two options will be the answer. These two ends for children have created the education industry. In this industry created by our national education vision, college and career readiness can be analyzed and measured. Therefore, all stakeholders within the industry, from state chancellors to students, can be measured against the metrics and held accountable. New tools for success in these two ends, from tests to entire schools, are being created and used. Students are reduced to data points, teachers are rendered obsolete, and we can claim success based on two simplistic ends: college and career readiness.

The problem is that the current vision ignores 2 large issues. The first is the rate of change in the global economy. Advancements in technology, communications, and thought are making the world much smaller and competition much more fierce. The second issue is the disabling of the greatest advantage the United States has: innovation. As a country we were born, raised, and launched to prominence due to our spirit, creativity, and thirst for newness and adventure. We can regain all this by simply changing the vision of education.

What should be the purpose of education? First and foremost it should be about the students. It should be about what they can do for themselves and the future. Since none of us can predict the future, we need to abandon the focus on college and career readiness. With our current vision, by the time students graduate from high school their education will be obsolete. So, we should have an education vision that is adaptable, focused on the student, and ready for innovation.

Our vision should be about Learning and Knowledge. Yes it is vague. Yes it is difficult to measure. Yes it will look different for nearly everyone. Yet students are people (which we currently do not acknowledge) and people are complex. So, our education must be complex. We cannot fit students into molds. We must give them all the knowledge possible so they can learn to think and create their own molds. Can a test measure this?  No. Can a pre-designed curriculum deliver this? Not on its own. As much as I love Khan Academy, it works best when I am there to give a high five, or a touch on the shoulder. With this vision, we will need teachers. We will need our schools to support our students, not the other way around (which is what we currently have).

In the current focus on “college and career ready”, we are narrowing our potential, alienating students, and stifling innovation. Why do I teach algebra to my students? Because it is knowledge, it can be learned, and most importantly, it can be fun. It’s not a means an end, it is the end itself. If we focus on Learning and Knowledge, we can set every student on their own path. We can teach students for the sake of learning, not some utilitarian design (be it a test score, enrollment requirement, or a job skill). We can ensure students have a love of thinking, a love of discovery, and what our world truly needs:  a love of creativity and innovation. But this can only happen if we Challenge the Vision.

Joshua Katz is an educator and activist in Orlando Florida and regular ConversationED author.  His blog is greaterwhenheard.com.  Check out his Ted Talk Here.

The student topics chosen get more interesting and entertaining each year. 2015 examples include a study of accidental inventions, a step-by-step guide to video editing and an exploration of the Bermuda Triangle. I’ve collected a few examples in a beautiful Smore online flyer.

What If The Genius Hour Model Was Used For Professional Development?

I began to think about this essential question as the student enthusiasm for this project continued to grow. Could this model work to facilitate passion-driven learning for educators in an informal setting? I began to visualize the successful application of my idea:

I imagined teachers excitedly embarking on pedagogical explorations this summer and beginning the school year super-charged with new instructional strategies to utilize with their new students.

I envisioned teachers of all subject areas and levels using powerful tools like Twitter to personalize their PD.

I contemplated educators collaborating online as they pursued similar pedagogical passions – sharing “web gems” and “twitter treasures”

I began to formulate a plan for Passion-Driven Learning for educators using the Genius Hour model I described here:

Plato Would Have Loved Genius Hour

This is what I came up with. Click the image below to view it.

Lee Araoz is an educator, K-12 technology coordinator, staff developer and educational consultant. and master teacher. His blog is TheGoldenageofEducation.com. You can follow him @LeeAraoz on twitter.

Here are the usual soundbites and what I wish would be said instead.

1. We should respect teachers and pay them more.

Instead:

What we have seen is an erosion of the professional development of teachers, not to mention the demolition of teacher tenure in states like California.

Let’s improve the schools of education and require a teaching degree from an accredited university along with strict state credentials. No more diploma mills and fast-track prep. Our students need real teachers who are fully prepared to teach, and we need to discuss the important meaning of tenure to the teaching profession.

Teach for America will become Teacher Aides for America. Let young people out of college work under the supervision of fully degreed and prepared teachers who have been in the field for at least five years. If they then choose teaching they will receive assistance to return to school to become real teachers.

2. Public schools fail and we need competition—charter schools.

Instead:

We have had charter schools for 23 years and there is no proof they are better than traditional public schools—many have worse results. Let’s put a hold on new charter school development and investigate every single charter school to ensure they are rejecting no children and are making legitimate progress.

We will also penalize those charter company operators who siphon money from the state and fail.

3. We need choice.

Instead:

Any school that accepts funding in the form of a voucher will have to demonstrate beforehand that they provide a better education compared to the traditional public school from where a student originated. There will also be consistent monitoring.

4. Students need to be prepared to compete in the 21st century.

Instead:

We are going to bring more jobs home to America and pay workers fairly (living wage). We will encourage young people to pursue careers they are interested in and provide them with career education and support in high school and beyond.

We will help them find their vocational strengths in high school. In order to do this we will bring back a well-balanced curriculum that includes the arts and which starts from an early age.

We will include good vocational-technical education.

5. Common Core State Standards are great!

Instead:

Common Core State Standards are controversial and were never tested. We need to revisit how they were developed, why they were created, and whether they are as good as many say. We need to weigh the two sides of opinion and explore standards in general and the role the state and federal government have played in creating standards.

We need independent research studies done on the Common Core pronto!

6. There is too much standardized testing.

Instead:

We know many parents are concerned about high-stakes testing because there is too much of it and it is designed to fail students, fire teachers and close schools.

Let’s put a moratorium on testing and let school districts, teachers and parents determine what tests are necessary to help their children succeed…and that includes testing tied to Common Core.

Furthermore, no child should be punished for not taking a test. Parents should have the right to reject any testing they don’t think is appropriate without repercussions.

Every local school board should bring teachers together with parents to discuss the meaning of school accountability. After all, who are public schools supposed to be accountable to?

7. Make four year public colleges free.

Instead:

How do other countries provide public college tuition free? Let us have a task force to examine this refreshing idea. We did this once in California, so why can’t we do it again in this country? And we will also look into giving parents and students who have been paying for college in recent years some kind of rebate. Yes. Education is that important.

8. Students attend dropout factories.

Instead:

How many students are dropping out and how much of this perception is due to bad record keeping in the school districts? Why do students drop out? Let’s ask the students who drop out how we could encourage them to stay in school.

9. We need universal preschool.

Instead:

Universal preschool has been used by politicians to garner support for years. Let’s get down to business and increase developmentally friendly preschools especially for the poor—which include more children who were once in the middle class. Let’s revisit Head Start and see how we can help increase supportive early public childhood education. Education for the poor should include necessary wraparound services, and no child should be denied health care.

10. We will reinvent education.

Instead:

Our public schools have served us well for many years. But the defunding of schools since the early 1980s and the involvement of big business in the corporatization of schooling needs to be investigated. While business has a vested interest in public schooling, and philanthropy is welcome, corporate venture philanthropy should not be allowed. Public schools are great democratic institutions that belong to the people. They should not be turned into businesses.

11. We need new leaders in education.

Instead:

Anyone who is a leader in education, overseeing public schooling, will have to have been a professional teacher for at least 5 years and have earned a degree in the area of their expertise. Gone will be the days of public policy wonks and MBAs who never professionally set foot in a classroom, running our schools.

12. We need to stop throwing money at schools.

Instead:

While we need to audit state and local school districts better and question selective federal grant programs that do not serve all children, we also need better transparency of both charter and private schools. But the reality is that public schools have been defunded for many years. And tax dollars are being thrown at untested programs that do not benefit all children.

13. We need to put the best teachers on the Internet.

Instead:

While technology can supplement the classroom and be a good resource for teachers and students, it is not a proven mechanism to replace public schools and public school teachers. We still need good public schools where children get to socialize and learn to be tolerant of one another. And real teachers still matter greatly.

_________________________________________________________________

I’m sure you can think of other comments about education that you would like to hear expanded or where you disagree. Feel free to comment on any of the above.  I would also like a discussion about the following areas which seem ignored:

14. Special education,
15. The loss of the arts,
16. School facility overcrowding and danger.

_________________________________________________________________

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1