Job Opportunities for Progressive (NEW) Charter School In Jackson, MS

Friends and educators of the world, a close friend and founder of the school is calling for resumes and cover letters for teaching positions at Midtown Public Charter School (one of the first charter schools in Mississippi history) in Jackson, Mississippi for August 2015.

In the folder linked below there are three documents:

1. Teacher Position Announcement (Provides Position Details)

2. About Midtown Public (Provides a School Overview )
3. Midtown Public School Design (Provides Insights Into School Building Design)3. Midtown Public School Design (Provides Insights Into School Building Design)

Teaching certification is not required in Mississippi, so take a look and apply if you might be interested in making a big impact with an awesome team!

Here's the link of the file: http://bit.ly/1AG6svW

To get an application, Call Dr. Kristi Hendrix at 601-354-5373.

Harvard Rugby women celebrate Body and Strength

Ask someone how much I weigh and his or her answer is probably 20-40 pounds off the mark.  I've always been on the heavier-side -- literally -- than what a mirror might otherwise indicate.  I credit my gymnastic and swimming background for helping me appreciate my muscles, my tendons, my bones, my once-was flexibility, and my physique.  And, for showing me all the amazing things a body can do.  Scales have never been my "friend" -- but they haven't been my foe either.  I learned very quickly that numbers are numbers and you are you, but that you can't ignore one to the detriment of the other.

So, when I see a tumblr like this of the Harvard Rugby team of women who are celebrating themselves, I am proud and warmed.

Here's to "Rugged Grace": http://bdcwire.com/harvard-womens-rugby-team-launches-powerful-rugged-grace-photo-campaign/

-E

Apparently, Just as Many Congresspeople attended UGA as Stanford

While legitimately pursuing Huffington Post (for a work assignment, I promise), I came across this little nugget.  According to research and data collection from a company called FindtheBest.com, just as many members of Congress attended the public universities of University of Virginia and the University of Georgia as members attended Stanford University.  Not quite sure whether that elevates those public universities, pulls down Stanford, or says something far less provocative, but I found it interesting -- in a I-might-need-this-as-a-trivia-answer kind of way.  Even more, The University of Texas - Austin has more than any of those schools.  Only Harvard (duh), Yale, and Georgetown have more members of Congress counted as alum.

What about the method?  Well, without a full statistical analysis, it seems that these differentials may even be underestimates.  For example, says FindtheBest.com, the study only counted a member's school once -- so if the member attended undergrad at particular university and then also attended some other graduate or post-secondary program at the same school, the study only counted the school once.  I suspect, if each program were independently counted, Harvard's numbers might be far and away above the others.  But, then again, so could fun public universities.  Thoughts?

-E

At Harvard: An examination of educational disparities between "haves" and the "have mores"

I renamed this piece, as the original author's title is "Kids, defined by income: Panel examines rising educational disparities between haves, have-nots" by CHRISTINA PAZZANESE/HARVARD STAFF WRITER.

This article was published on February 18 in the Harvard Gazette and on February 19, 2014 on the Harvard Graduate School of Education website.  

In the short article, Pazzanese covers a new book entitled “Restoring Opportunity: The Crisis of Inequality and the Challenge for American Education” (Harvard Education Press) by Richard J. Murnane, Thompson Professor of Education and Society at Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE), and Greg J. Duncan, distinguished professor at the University of California, Irvine’s School of Education.  Pazzabese writes:

• "income trend lines for affluent and poor Americans have dramatically diverged over the last 40 years, [and] so too have the educational achievement rates of their children."

• "average per-pupil spending in public schools continues to vary widely among communities and states, so does the amount spent on student enrichment outside of school. In 1972-1973, wealthy parents spent $2,857 more per child than low-income parents to supplement learning; in 2005-2006, wealthy parents spent $7,993 more per child, according to the book."

Research from Boston Public Schools: Student Achievement Scores over Art/Science Offerings

A recent report from a Harvard Kennedy School researcher analyzed parents' school preferences for Kindergarten, Sixth Grade, and Ninth Grade to determine which factors made the most differences.  In his new paper, the researcher, Edward Glaser, found:

"parents favor closer schools and schools with higher levels of academic achievement (as measured by the MCAS test). It also finds that certain school structures -- K1 (over K2 only) schools and K-8 (over K-5) schools – are preferred. . . .
Overall school size, computer facilities, and gyms did not have a significant impact. Art, music, and science lab facilities had minimal or no impact."

For the abstract and more on the paper, see here: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=9043&type=WPN 

Top Universities in the World -- Another LIst

According to a British higher education magazine, Times higher Education,the rankings for the Top Universities in the WORLD are as follows.  Not bad Michigan (special place in my heart), The Ohio State University (dad's alma mater), U of Florida (SEC pride?), and of course... Harvard :-)

More after the break...

Affirmative Action still not "decided"

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released its Opinion of the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. case, also known as our time's Affirmative Action case.

For the non-lawyers, my reading is that the Supreme Court held that a university gets deference in deciding and determining its diversity mission...but University does not get deference in deciding how to go about achieving diversity. Judicial review (strict scrutiny) is required. The case now goes back to lower courts to review whether the university went about achieving their mission in a "narrowly-tailored" (as race-neutral as possible) way.

So, the Court did not do much "deciding" today on the merits on the case (which means they did not get into whether "diversity" is actually a compelling interest, except Justice Thomas who long ago decided his stance that no use of race is acceptable to him) but rather did some clarifying on what the judicial standard is for college admissions cases. The initial Plaintiff, Fisher, did not ask the Court to decide whether past cases on college admissions (Grutter, especially) needed overturning -- a point which Scalia writes separately to justify as his reason for joining the Court's decision on this case. 

I did find some of the Court's point particularly interesting.  First, the Court actually said that universities are not required to exhaust all the race-neutral means of admissions processes that they can think of.  Instead, the Court said that universities are required to have serious, good faith consideration of race-neutral means of admissions and then justify why those alternative admissions process would not work.  570 U.S. ___ at 10 (2013).  Further, the Court reemphasized that the university's decision must be a workable decision, and tipped its hat that an administratively viable solution might be a consideration in the narrowly-tailored analysis that will follow once the lower courts sort out the judicial review.  570 U.S. ___ at 11 (2013).  Finally, the Court also restated that the judicial standard of strict scrutiny not be "fatal in fact"--which means that it cannot be the case that each time a court reviews a program by which the state has taken action or made some type of determination, a court later strikes it down and says that it was not good enough to muster the constitutional protections of the 14th Amendment.  In fairness, the Court also stated that the strict scrutiny analysis cannot also be "feeble" such that state action gets deference or an easy pass in its process.  570 U.S. ___ at 13 (2013).  

For me, I'm kinda happy that the deciding did not come today (dunno if my heart could take it), but in line with many of my colleagues' sentiments, I don't know whether the odds are going to be better years from now... And, I certainly would have loved to hear Justice Ginsburg on the merits of this case another, wonderful time.


As always, I'm providing the actual Opinion:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
 

In light of the Fiscal Cliff discussion...

Some people are worried that Congress won't pass the legislation necessary to halt cuts to important spending.  Many are also worried that tax rates will increase if the Bush-Era cuts are not extended.  

Though both of these are more about budget priorities than fiscal policy, I thought I might inject a quick clip of the Moral Limits of the Market, from Professor Michael Sandel.  Here he is appearing on the Colbert Report (back in May) with a quick synopsis of his points. 

The Moral Limits of the Market.

As a general note, I enjoy lots of these published "Episodes" of Professor Sandel's course on Justice at Harvard University.  Here's a arsenal of others: JUSTICE WITH MICHAEL SANDEL.

Not Voting on Superintendent Davis's Contract Matters

The Atlanta school board is refusing to vote on whether Superintendent Davis' contract will be renewed.

Here's why it matters:

Superintendent Davis and former-Superintendent Hall were brought in during similar public expectations.  Both Dr. Hall and Mr. Davis were asked to improve APS from the low status many perceived it to have. However, as a necessity, much of Superintendent Davis’s initial efforts have been in direct response to shortcoming of the immediate past administration under Superintendent Hall.  Namely, the previous administration had ambitious plans for success without realistic corrections for failure. The Hall administration accepted the positive trends in ways that the Davis administration is now scrutinizing. Where Superintendent Hall put in place initiatives to spur educators to reach the height of performance, Superintendent Davis is enacting initiatives to discourage educators from dipping below performance expectations. Namely, Mr. Davis addressed five areas immediately upon assuming full superintendent responsibilities: (1) combating cheating, (2) rehabilitating the district, (3) restoring students, (4) employing administrative leave, and (5) applying relevant professional, employment, and criminal penalties. These strategies are likely considered to be sound approaches for managing education systems in the context of responding to crisis, but alone they are not likely to transform the district from operating as it had under Superintendent Hall.

          ...

[Superintendent Davis took] positive steps by cleaning up the environments that incentivized cheating behavior in the first place, and he is consulting with experts to put in place professionally sound organizational strategies. What is concerning, though, is that many thought that Superintendent Hall was doing similar things at the time she was managing the district—borrowing reforms and initiatives that the education community thought were effective.  After speaking with former APS employees [during my thesis research], there may be reason to believe that simply changing superintendents and tightening administrative policies may not on their own lead to sustainable solutions. Said more strongly, it is unclear that these new policies will actually result in environments where educators and decision-makers will actually be able to police their own environments.

--excerpted from my Master's Thesis, CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN EDUCATION:
USING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE TO CREATE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS AFTER A SCHOOL DISTRICT CHEATING SCANDAL

So what am I trying to say?

I'm trying to say that Superintendent Davis may have been just what the doctor ordered to restore order in Atlanta Public Schools.  However, it is doubtful that he is what is needed to push APS to become a district that thrives on its own successes and evaluates its own shortcomings.  For all his well-deserved praise and accomplishments (seriously, no sarcasm), it's fair to say that Superintendent Davis never expected himself to be APS's long-term superintendent.

Nor should we.

But that doesn't mean that his contract must end THIS year.  There is a strong case for keeping him on long enough so that the search for a new APS superintendent isn't rushed.  Renewing Superintendent Davis' contract for another year may provide an opportunity for a meaningful administrative transition and introduction of the new leader to Atlanta's community.  It may signal a maturity and stability that APS has lacked.

You see, APS does not just need someone to stop the bleeding and prescribe the medicine-- APS needs a long-term caretaker.  Someone who helps the district regain its strength and envision new opportunities.  And, most importantly, APS needs new administration’s policies grounded in an APS specific context.

So, am I for or against Davis?

Because I am interested in the long-term stability and PROSPERITY of Atlanta Public Schools, I must be for Superintendent Davis -- he had undeniably done GOOD for the district.  I am ALSO for a predecessor to take the reigns, after an appropriate transition, and build upon the stability Davis has brought.

Anyone know any names of potential candidates that have come up in the superintendent search?

Entering a new world

I graduated yesterday from Harvard University.  Harvard Kennedy School first and then Harvard Law School, to be precise.  And I feel whole.

I feel whole because now I’ve completed all of the formal education that fulfills my innermost desires, and now I can begin to act on the changes that I would like to see in the world.  For me, formal education has been about taking steps towards an end—obtaining the means by which my achieving the ends I desire will come with the respect it inherently would have deserved on its own, save these other “prerequisites.”  So, I have attained those.  Any now, the excitement begins.

[TEASER ALERT] Excerpt from my Master's Thesis, CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN EDUCATION: USING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE TO CREATE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS AFTER A SCHOOL DISTRICT CHEATING SCANDAL

The following writing is excerpted from the beginning pages of my Master's Thesis submitted to the Professors and Administrators of the Harvard Law School and Harvard Kennedy School Joint Degree Program in Law & Government as part of my Integrated Written Work Requirement. Submitted on April 20, 2012, I retain all original rights and privileges. For followup questions or inquiries, email eharrison@jd12.law.harvard.edu. 

Abstract

Atlanta Public Schools is in the process of adopting more functional administrative policies in response to the system-wide cheating scandal that caused national attention last year.  This research is offered to help the new APS administration fill a potential gap in input from key stakeholders.  It argues that policy solutions must be grounded in Atlanta-specific contexts so that they are sustainable even after administrative leadership changes.  By applying the critical incidents technique to field interviews within a larger reflective practice framework, three key insights emerge about the scandal and potential solutions are proffered to the district.

More after the jump.

Secretary Duncan made a speech at Harvard Graduate School of Education-- here's what I think

Below is an analysis of Secretary Duncan's speech to HGSE students in Feb 2012.  Of course this post is part of an assignment to connect the talk to larger policy frameworks--notably, John Kingdon-- but, all the same, it's my analysis of where I think Secretary Duncan and the Obama Administration are in the education space.

Find the speech HERE.

Consistent with Kingdon’s description of political appointees, Secretary Duncan laid out issues that are of particular importance to him, even though his policy agenda has been set by President Obama.  Secretary Duncan believes in the real world and wants debates rooted in the actual challenges on the ground.  He talks about the sense of urgency ingrained within him, and he talking about the kids and communities he lived in, worked in, and understands.  The policy agenda that he delivers, however, does not seem to be his own.  He delivers an agenda about how brokered policies are better for our country than stubborn faithfulness to absolutist solutions.  He’s trying to soften up the system such that when a window opens—perhaps post November 2012—the policy agenda he is delivering about mutual respect and collaboration will be heard.

The field of education is filled with opposite choices, remarks Secretary Duncan.  He finds incompatibility that being for one choice means that one is necessarily not in agreement to other choices (i.e. flexible state funders being against accountability, English and math tests for performance being against well-rounded curriculum, etc.).  He suggests that win-win is possible and compromises of “both . . . and” exist.  But what he is really saying is that a policy community of people who should all care about kids has splintered—that this policy community is fragmented by the specialists who avow their approaches are best in their pure form: the perfect has become the enemy of the good, he says. 

Snippet from my Personal Statement for law school, (four years ago)

It is quite risky to post what you believe, but at the risk of being vulnerable, here goes.  It's almost 2012 and I have always looked back to what I've done and who I've been to fine tune my future.  Thought I'd share my thoughts from four years ago.

If I fail them, then I fail at life.

My work had become just that serious. I opened my classroom door to the faces of five seven-year-olds waiting for their first glimpse of “teacher,” post-Winter Break. They scrambled in, hung their backpacks on their hooks, got out their materials for the day, and took their seats. Learning to execute just those things had taken us until the end of September to perfect. Amazingly, after a one-month vacation, my students remembered our morning routine and did it flawlessly. Even as the rest staggered in, not a single child went looking for a pencil, forgot his or her holiday “get-smart” homework packet, or asked me to read the directions for the beginning activity. The room was silent. And as they diligently wrote in their journals, I monitored them, doing my best to choke back the tears.

The pride I felt in that moment fueled my commitment to teach for the next eighteen months. My December holiday had been spent analyzing reading unit assessments, math performance projects, and writing samples. The results showed phenomenal growth. My class of predominantly African-American and Latino children had improved an entire grade level in literacy in only five month’s time. These students had transformed into a new group of children now infused with perhaps the greatest source of renewable energy any child has available to him: the motivation to succeed. That January, I knew I had to do everything I could to prepare them for our first high-stakes standardized test in April.

Those first moments still resonate deeply with me. Each day, my students “got smarter” because I taught through their deficiencies and beyond my own self-expectations. We strengthened one another: they worked hard to learn because I worked hard to teach. I saw myself in their little minority faces and knew they needed to see an African-American woman working just as hard for each of them.  By the end of my two years, my two separate classes outperformed projections for their underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds.

Politics as a Barrier to Fairness in Educational Outcomes for Our Children

The following is a response to a course presentation on the Achievement Gap.

Until Dai Ellis spoke up, it seemed that the students and speakers were going to continue to mosey around the big elephant in the room that is responsible for stifling the progress of closing racial achievement gaps for our nation’s most vulnerable children.  Professor Roland Fryer told a narrative of how he’d presented several decisionmakers with his “vaccine” of five “common sense” interventions and how each turned him down, even though they had been initially interested in his achievement gap research because it had potential benefits for their communities.  And Professor Tom Payzant followed Fryer’s presentation by adding that parents and community members ought to be engaged in the process of turning around the lowest performing schools in order for reform efforts to be authentic to the communities with the most to benefit or loose from the interventions.  The former Boston Public Schools Superintendent also cautioned reformers to think about creative ways to replicate charter management organizations without also replicating the bureaucratic ills begotten to many school systems.  But until Mr. Ellis, CEO of Excel Academy “no excuses” charter schools network, advanced his two talking points ((1) “ideology kills” and (2) scaling up charter success is possible), the class conversation seemed mainly about the problem of the achievement gap and proffered solutions coming from research and practice.  The conversation would have never moved to the real takeaway lesson for the evening:  individuals from various backgrounds can become change-agents for the education systems in their communities.  The counterintuitive politics of education reform has made it increasingly difficult to deliver solutions that make our student outcomes more fair.

In the child welfare space, none of us chose this.

None of us chose this for our lives.  As mothers, we don’t choose dysfunction over healthy family units and as children we don’t choose to be orphaned over being nurtured.  None of us look down the barrel and say “Sign me up for the hard life!”  But, it’s true—our choices have consequences and those kinetics run deep and long. When we take toxins into our pregnant bodies we seep destruction into our children.  When we run away from the institutions that simulate normalcy, we claim our autonomy and our vulnerability.  And when we open ourselves up to revolving door of caretakers, we become the bests and worse parts of humanity. What separates those that plead for adoption now and removal yesterday versus those that urge family preservation first and resources soon is not a game of who to blame. But rather, both recognize that none of us chose this for our lives, yet all of us must take care to fix it. Using the babies in the river parable, we are just torn as to whether to concentrate on scooping up the babies we see floating downstream or trekking upstream to search for the baby thrower.  As and much as I would like to strap on my backpack and charge after the evildoer throwing away lives, I cannot contemplate passing by the lives in front of our needing solutions now.

Exam Week and Education Pauses

In the middle of exam week now and the only two on the horizon both tie together my excitement for law and students-- one Child, Family, and State 8-hour exam and one mediation paper on IDEA voluntary mediation provisions. However, I'm most excited reminding myself that I have articles and blog entries waiting for me on my Google Reader from my weekly education clippings. Which begs the question, "Am I going in the wrong direction?"

Of course, I'll strongly defend with a "no, there is no 'wrong' direction." I hardly think that Ms. Wright Edelman or Mr. Klein knew exactly where they'd be careers later when they graduated from the nation's top law schools Yale and Harvard, respectively. But, I'm sure they find daily passion that they are right where they were always meant to be grinding it out for children and students. 

That's the direction I want to go in. So I gotta get through these last academic tests to start the journey. Ok, back to the books.

Blogging from The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas

with Rick Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute

March 30, 2011

On Today’s agenda: attend the talk with author, education-thinker Rick Hess. I’d read article after article of his during my Fall Introduction to Education Policy class at Harvard University Graduate School of Education. I own his “Common Sense Reform” book, so I was eager to hear what he had to say.

Apparently, the session was a book talk. He was self-depreciating at the beginning but also declaring that all the good ideas, he would take credit for. He’s sociable—but I wanted to withhold my opinion. He opened with a reference to a different context—a past article he’d written on teacher certification. What he found most useful about the past discussion was that the habit of discussing teacher licensure opened doors of attack or defense of the education system. He wanted people to engage in the debates of education—not just the notions of whether something is a solution to schooling or an attack on schooling (of course, I’m paraphrasing).  He’d like to discuss using new tools to solve new problems, instead of whether certain principles are sacrosanct. Sounds good, right? Cut to the substance…

On Autonomy, Scalability, and other nonsense words of the graduate student life

Hardly one education policy class goes by without hearing the words "autonomy" and "scalability." The two usually appear in fantasy sentences such as "teachers need more autonomy in their classrooms" or "I think we should consider the scalability of that model before we adopt it." I try not to roll my eyes when it comes out—because it always does, I really do try to be helpful in the discussion. But, there's always that one student—no "one" in particular but "one" all the same—that, trying super hard to sound very smart, interjects with one of the above choice words and then settles back into his or her seat smugly as the rest of the room considers the ridiculous proposal as though it was said by Dewey himself.

Here's what gets me:

Autonomy sounds great… but pursued to its fullness… means probably the very opposite of the point the student is trying to make. (I use "trying" lightly.) When a statement such as the one above is made, "teachers need more autonomy in their classrooms," what I hear the student trying to say is that teachers feel powerless and out of control in a sphere that was designed especially for them. That on their very throne, teachers feel/are-made-to-feel that they aren't worthy of the title they have been given to wear. Teacher as educator. Teacher as instructor. Teacher as leader. Teacher. I empathize with those feelings. I've felt/been-made-to-feel the same humiliation. But I don't think that the tag word "autonomy" is what teachers are really after. "Autonomy" is simply the new "it" word for academics discussing education or graduate students trying to sound insightful. Instead, what I think captures that desire to be appreciated are words like "respect," "contributor," "decision-maker," or "support." Of course, those words don't fit as easily into the same sentence. Any of those words requires that the sentences be restructured to actually mean something or to actually contribute a solution to the discussion. It would be vocalizing that "teachers need to be treated as co-equal decision-makers about how to structure the learning in their classrooms" or "teachers need to be respected when they offer evaluations of students' needs" or "teachers need to be consulted on school policies regarding instructional practices and viewed as policy contributors in best ways to structure curriculum" or "teachers need more instructional support to increase the efficiency of classroom procedures." Any of those will do. But "autonomy" alone is insufficient for me for some reason. What I want to instinctively ask is "autonomy over what?" but then I become the dissenting thorn.



In fact, I would argue that teachers do not want complete autonomy! Most teachers, I would argue, want to know that when they push the little intercom button, someone will be at the other end to address what the teacher needs and (gasp) provide it for them. Most teachers, I would argue, want to know that if they are having "difficulty" with an individual student, they will have a chain of command that will "assist" by diffusing the situation, providing extra monitoring or momentary relief, removing the student, or giving quick professional coaching on how to handle the "situation." Most teachers, I would argue, do not want to have to provide all the supplies in their room (though they often do) or be the only one responsible for restocking the pile when items run low. Most teachers do not want to clean up the "accident" on the floor, the "boo-boo" on the skinned knee, or the pools of water from the roof when it rains. I could go on with my lists, but I think you see my point. It is simply to say that "autonomy" means many things: self-governing, directing oneself, and freedom are among those things. But, I highly doubt that teachers truly want to be left alone in their classrooms to fend for themselves or to make their own ways. Teachers want control over their spheres—just as most professionals enjoy—without the controlling mechanisms that employees and servants are subjected to. Teachers are employees of the school system… not of their administration. The frustration is real, but so is the distinction. So, to use "autonomous" as a word a student is encouraged to throw out into a graduate level conversation without some background statement or context does a disservice to the conversation, to the student and the class, and to my eyeballs until I learn better to control them.


 
We're here for solutions people! How can we get them if we continue to say nothing….?


 
Next on the chopping block?: "Scalability" and how its paternalism and indefiniteness make me unable to take it seriously…

Why Education Needs Teachers More Than Ever

This is not about hiring more effective teachers nor is it about pay-for-performance.


This is not about the achievement gap.


This is not about ensuring that we can "staff" our schools and that each child has someone to teach him or her.


It's not even about the instrinsic value a teacher brings to the classroom.


This is about why, more than ever, policy makers NEED teachers and why teachers NEED to critically analyze (and embrace) significant education research.


I will do my best to make this as generalizable as possible. But, in an effort to be as transparent as possible, it must be understood that my plea cries from not only the academic background I've been exposed to, the professionals I've dialogued with, the policy reports and findings I've read, or the environments I've worked in or have knowledge of. Combined in my statements are deductions from what I've felt around me, from what I've seen, and from what I know-- very concretely-- to be true.


Right there I've lost half of the readers. My appeal to authority has been undermined because I introduced conditions that are outside of objective, data based, or quantitative conclusions. I violated the Harvard-iron-clad law of "substantive argument." That I use my gut isn't good enough. At the least, I would be asked for my antecodotal notes. I need a central thesis, literature review, findings, results and analysis before I make my ultimate judgement. Sorry readers, I don't have any of those. Again, I've lost some.


But those whom I've lost probably wouldn't have accepted my plea anyway.


Actually, it's exactly "those people" who create the environment I'm suggesting we abolish. It's those people that (no matter how politically vulnerable it will make them if they were forthcoming) cringe everytime someone identifies herself as a "teacher." Those people-- these macro-level, policy analyst, think-tank professionals, education-reform stamped experts-- "know better" and "know more" than any teacher would, even though teachers, of course think that they have all the answers. I'm harsh. But I'm precise.


I understand that each education program or social innovation geared toward making improvements in education falls short of its gains. I even get the fact that identifying oneself as a Teach For America alumna builds a barrcade that's extremely difficult to overcome successfully. I even agree, in some cases, why these programs, entrepreunerial endeavors and movements should be challenged. What I don't get is why one's experience in the classroom isn't relevant to policy. Why interfacing with the same children that others count in a sample isn't as significant as the data trend that child produces. I don't understand why there is teacher-aversion.


It sickens me, as it would presumeably sicken any onlooker who's been at the dinner table in both houses, to be a part of a conversation where both policy maker and practioner sit together and dismiss the other.


To be skeptical, yes. To be synical, no. Big no. Brash disjointment is unacceptable when we have children not learning. They don't have time for adults to make themselves play nice or respect one another. They don't really have time for much.


Education policy makers NEED teachers now more than ever.


Perhaps I will develop this argument out further, and the implications of what I am saying, and most importantly, for what I am proposing and what it means for each party. I will list why I think teachers need to be given education policy professional development through university-leave opportunities after the first five years of teaching. And why I think education policy makers need to be recruiting, in high volume, teachers to fill in the seats around their idea tables and to be part of their research evaluation process. And, to get to my purpose in all of this, why every education policy maker or reformer needs to step into a classroom.


Best case scenario? If you wanna make decisions regarding education policy, you need to have taught for at least two-years. Because (and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise), you don't really know unless you were there.


So, maybe I'll accept comparable education experience. Perhaps you were not a teacher in a classroom, but you have acquired comparable insight which includes being responsibile for implementing the policies you proscribe or support. Not through research or volunteerism, but something that has punitive and biting consequences. Again, still have to flesh this one out. I'll accept coverletters and counter-arguments until then.