Posts filed under ‘policy’
Submitted by Steve Evangelista
I’m writing with Margaret Ryan on the eve of a forum about inequities in public education that we are hosting at Bank Street College of Education. We chose specifically to focus this panel discussion and roundtable on public school education, and not just charter school education, even though we have been running a charter school for the past nine years. We have heard some concerns such as, “So this is a charter school panel. When is the public school panel?”
Let’s get a couple of things out of the way: inequity in public education is not a charters vs. public issue (it’s much bigger); and charter schools are public schools. Charters and district schools are indeed administered differently, and charters can do some things that district public schools cannot do.
See more at: http://www.harlemlink.org/blog/
Read more of Todd Sutler’s dialogue with visionary educator Deborah Meier on Meier’s Education Week Bridging Differences blog.
Sutler, a 2010 Bank Street graduate, is the executive director of the Odyssey Initiative. He and two other teachers are traveling the country to identify, document, and share successful practices in some of America’s best schools. Todd traded bonds for an investment bank in New York City, Toronto, and Tokyo before running an afterschool program at the Boys Club of New York. He has taught 3rd and 5th grade in Brooklyn, N.Y. and hopes to co-found the Compass Charter School in 2014.
It is an honor to be invited to correspond with you here. I have enjoyed reading your blog for years, and I am lucky to now have you as a friend and adviser to The Odyssey Initiative, an organization I founded with Michelle Healy and Brooke Peters last year. When we set off to research some of America’s best schools, it never crossed our minds that we would get a chance to sit down and talk to you. When we met, I was pleased to find that your outspokenness in person was just as engaging and inspiring as it is in your writing. I am disappointed, however, that your readers did not benefit from more of that frankness during your conversation with Mike Petrilli. More on that disappointment in a moment.
Matt Candler, of 4.0 Schools, recently introduced me to Clayton Christensen’s book, The Innovator’s Dilemma. Christensen’s theory, I believe, happens to describe the education reform movement of the last 20 years. The “dilemma,” he argues, is the choice companies face when deciding whether to allocate time and resources to address their customers’ current needs or to anticipate their future needs. Some companies are reticent to invest in research and design for the future because it requires too much time and money without a guaranteed payout. Other companies take the risk and end up profiting from a substantial increase in revenues. One of Mike’s comments made me think that the ed-reform movement is facing its own “innovator’s dilemma”:
“The choice today is not between 100,000 Central Park Easts or Mission Hills and 100,000 test-prep factories. If it were, I’d pick the Deborah Meier schools in a heartbeat. But let’s face it: There aren’t more than a handful of Deborah Meier schools out there.”
Mike implies that producing more schools like CPE and Mission Hill would use up too much human and financial capital. Even though he must know that future jobs will require workers who are flexible and critical thinkers, he believes there is too much risk involved in trying to create the schools that develop such graduates. “Test prep factories,” in his eyes, are the safer bet.
Had we not spent this year visiting schools across the country, perhaps we would agree with Mike’s premise that there “aren’t more than a handful of Deborah Meier schools out there.” However, when Michelle, Brooke, and I launched The Odyssey Initiative, we argued, “the only innovative thing left to do in education reform is to stop innovating and find the experienced educators already succeeding, identify what practices were leading to their success and replicate them.” Twenty-three states and more than 60 schools later, we are even more confident that the talent and the answers already exist.
During our Odyssey, we met with many educators who are achieving quantifiable and qualitative success without pushing test-prep, including Oakland’s Lighthouse Community Charter School. Lighthouse was founded by a group of parents and teachers, some of whom previously taught at Ted Sizer’s public school, Francis Parker. They have spent 10 years improving their program. Students maintain a portfolio of their work and regularly reflect on their strengths and weaknesses. They lead family conferences from kindergarten through 12th grade and give presentations on personal academic progress each year. Practices such as after-school office hours and two-year class cycles (“looping”) enable teachers to build relationships and support students with personalized instruction. Additionally, Lighthouse gives students a week off every quarter in order for teachers to look at assessments and modify curriculum in response to that data. When we interviewed a group of 6th graders at the school, they took pride and ownership of their education, reflecting: “At my old school, they would teach to the middle of the group, here they teach to me,” and, “I had to repeat 6th grade, but I am a better math student because of it.” Lighthouse’s test scores and college placement results also demonstrate why it has been celebrated as one of the best public schools in the country.
As our research continued, we found programs across the country with different practices that, like Lighthouse, demonstrated a dedication to rigor, structure, and student engagement, as well as attending to the developmental needs of their children. The schools we visited this year demonstrated that it is possible to create schools in diverse communities that are successful by a variety of metrics. Perhaps Mike and others would risk allocating money and time toward replicating schools that both meet state standards and build crucial “soft” skills if they knew more about what these schools were doing. Perhaps if he were more familiar with these schools’ commitment to presenting content in a contextual setting he would know that progressive schools do, in fact, build vocabulary and content knowledge.
So where do you fit in? On this blog, you often celebrate Sizer’s work and the success of the Coalition of Essential Schools as well as that of the Consortium in New York City. Yet I have not seen many citations of the specific practices being implemented at these schools. YourEdWeek readers want to know them. More importantly, America needs to know.
Teacher-leaders are taking action across the country by creating businesses and learning communities and sharing their experiences on blogs, videos, and at conferences. We need national platforms and megaphones (and legends like you) to amplify their voices and broadcast their practices to the rest of the country. Voters, parents, and legislators must better understand the components and merits of student-centered education because they are the stakeholders who effect change in the system. How many people know about Teach For America, KIPP, and Harlem Children’s Zone? What if the same number of people were familiar with the Coalition? Can you imagine the influence it would have?
After all, Pasi Salhberg, the mastermind behind the internationally renowned Finish school system, freely admits that cooperative learning, problem-based teaching, and portfolio assessment (practices the Coalition, the Consortium, and other colleagues of yours have championed) are examples of practices that Finland co-opted from America in the 1980s and have continued to improve upon. We should not have to read his blog to find out what America has been doing well.
The Odyssey Initiative team set out to show educators, parents, reformers, and legislators that successful, student-centered classrooms are a reality in schools across the country. We want to see more of these classrooms for more American children, and we believe that goal can only be achieved with a more informed citizenry. We need to get these messages out in the public; we need more people to know what is happening and what is possible. I am asking you and your peers, our heroes, to raise your voices for this cause.
Last July, Laura Zellerbach ’11 and current student Emily Soong journeyed to South Africa to observe and report on the workings of early childcare centers there. Here is their report from the field.
Report from South Africa:
Data Collection for the INNOVA Project- Developing an Environmental Rating Scale for Group Care for the “Under Threes”
Laura Zellerbach (Bank Street College, M.S.Ed Infant and Family Development/Early Intervention ’11)
Emily Soong (Bank Street College, M.S. Early Childhood & Childhood General candidate)
Our arrival in the black African township of Mangaung in Free State, South Africa since July 16th has been observably marked by evident lingering divisions between the old world and new. Early care and education, which also reflects existing race and social class tensions here, serves as an insightful lens into the disjointed, but still-evolving, amalgamation between this country’s historical strife with development and advancement work. (more…)
posted by Susan Ochshorn ’99, founder/principal of ECE PolicyWorks
This piece is re-posted from Susan’s blog on HuffPost Education.
Google “Teacher Evaluation and Student Performance” and 827,000 entries spring up in the queue; do the same for “Teacher Effectiveness” and the number plummets to 84,300. Such a gap, and so revealing. Teacher effectiveness has become the Holy Grail for the modern education reform movement, one of whose faithful adherents, Shael Polakow-Suransky, headlined a panel last week in New York City on “Teacher Performance,” moderated by Bank Street College of Education’s chief academic officer and dean, Jon Snyder.
Polakow-Suransky pierced the consciousness of Gotham’s education community late last year, in the wake of Cathie Black’s appointment, assuming the role of deputy chancellor for performance and accountability to buttress his boss’ subpar C.V. Dubbed “a data mining administrator” by The New York Times, he was introduced to the locals with the menacing headline, “New Schools No. 2 Wants More and Better Testing.” A child of progressive schools and a student, no less, of education visionary and reformer Ted Sizer, his faith in the infinite perfectibility of tests seemed unwavering.
Recently named the NYC DOE’s Chief Academic Officer, Polakow-Suransky is now deeper than ever in the weeds of performance and accountability. He’s grappling with the demands attached to $700 million of federal education funding, won by NY State last summer in the second round of Race to the Top, and made possible by legislation doubling the number of charter schools and plans to tie teacher evaluations to test scores. This, while a ferocious debate rages across the land about the wisdom of assessing teachers’ effectiveness by such means. As our top education policymakers embrace teacher quality as their mantra, and the states go hungrily after funding, experts — including Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Ravitch — warn of the “Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers,” and teachers are quaking in their classrooms.
“If I were in your shoes,” said Snyder, not unsympathetically, to the city’s chief academic officer, “I don’t know how I could sleep.” But Polakow-Suransky, whose face is smooth and inscrutable, exudes great serenity. “For decades,” he declared, “we’ve had no accountability. As you start to reform a system that’s been deeply neglected, where kids have been failing, you need to push.”
What form that push takes is the question. Nothing less than the future of teaching and learning is on the line.
The role of student learning in teacher assessment is a — if not the — critical question of the moment. One that revealed deep fault lines among the panelists, who also included Margaret Ryan, co-founder of Harlem Link Charter School; Barnett Berry, president of the Center for Teaching Quality; and Frederick Frelow, the education and scholarship program officer for the Ford Foundation’s Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom program. Polakow-Suransky, ever optimistic, envisions great opportunities to “go beyond bubbles,” while maintaining the importance of value-added data.
“When you raise the stakes, there’s a tension,” argued Frelow. “A single test is not a good metric for performance. The more examples you have of performance, the more a teacher can get a better sense of the zone the kids are in.”
Ryan championed “more portfolio and rubrics-based assessment.” “Critical thinking,” she said, “develops over time, and this all has to be part of an evaluative package.”
And Frelow, using a poignant example of his own son, who has struggled with learning disabilities and was recently admitted to Rochester Institute of Technology, reminded us that “learning is not linear,” the case for all children — those who develop typically, and those who do not.
Early childhood educators know this well. While the first five years of life are a time of explosive growth, cognitively, socially and emotionally, young children’s acquisition of skills and knowledge unfold in unique ways, with detours, stop, starts and great bursts. Today’s test-driven, academically narrow times present tremendous challenges to teaching and learning at the earliest end of the education spectrum.
But early childhood practitioners can’t put their heads in the sandbox. As Julie Diamond, Fretta Reitzes and Betsy Grob make clear in their contribution to
The Right to Learn: Preparing Early Childhood Teachers to Work in High-Need Schools, they must be test-savvy and conversant with the language of standards and accountability; they should be well educated in the methods of observation and assessment; they need to have a rich understanding of curriculum and instructional strategies; and, most important, they must be ready and able to defend their practice, by consistent documentation of children’s active learning.
A tall order, for sure, but one that must be filled.
Susan Ochshorn is the founder of ECE PolicyWorks, a consulting firm specializing in early care and education policy research, program development, and project management. She has managed the Child Care Research and Policy Project at Columbia University; co-directed the Lucent Universal Preschool Initiative; and served on the advisory council for the Early Learning Initiative of the Education Commission of the States. The author of numerous briefs, reports, and other publications, she recently launched ECE Policy Matters, a blog dedicated to bridging professional practice and public policy.
The Niemeyer Series presented a compelling discussion last week on the topic of teacher performance and evaluation. You can view the panel discussion in its entirety online: www.bankstreet.edu/niemeyer
Below are some of the questions that were submitted to the panel. Please select a question, then click “Add comment” and answer it. Or you can even ask another question!
- Conversations with teachers and principals suggest that principals and school leaders have little time to work on instruction with their staff educators. Is there any thinking going into structural changes to free up time for instructional experts to spend more time working on instruction?
- You’ve talked about systems where principals should teach; where they need to consistently be present in classrooms to observe and to coach. How will you make this happen within the constraints of the enormous operational/systemic workload of New York City principals? As a principal who is the sole administrator in my building, I’d really like to know.
- If teachers are evaluated on the assumption that their professional support is equal, how do we hold principals accountable for that?
- In evaluating teachers, how do you factor the complex learning needs of students with disabilities while maintaining a clear expectation of a rate of progress that leads to a high school diploma to access to college and meaningful employment?
- Is there any difference in evaluation effectiveness in states with and without unions?
- To improve student achievement, please describe how you would effectively involve parents, especially lower socio-economic and non-English speaking parents to extend the learning day?
- Frederick (Frelow) mentioned that the more examples you have of performance the better. (This is paraphrasing). However, teachers have taken that to an extreme and “over-assess” students. How do we make sure not to “over-assess” teachers or increase the assessments on students to demonstrate “value-added?”
- Where are the schools of education in this mix? How are we holding them accountable to “real” teacher success that trickles down to student success?
- Is there a role for students and parents in providing feedback about teacher effectiveness either through surveys, interviews, or other methods?
- What should the evaluation of principals include and why?
- Who is being trained to assess all these new evaluation models? Who is evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the principal?
- How can we help support teachers’ morale while evaluating them?
- There has been a tremendous amount of pressure to quickly develop teacher evaluation rubrics to avoid “LIFO” as the mechanism for determining teacher layoffs. Isn’t there a danger in rushing an evaluation system to address LIFO?
- If the advancement and removal of teachers is so difficult, how useful is the information gained through evaluation and assessment? When will the information be utilized?
- Do you see teacher portfolios playing a role in the change regarding teacher assessment?
- A question for Shael Polakow-Suransky: If you see so clearly the tensions, the faults, the need for better work on flawed exams, how can you excuse current grading of schools, push to publicize teacher test scores, etc.?
- Are our teaching preparational training programs preparing high quality teachers?
- To what extent should our teacher prep programs be involved in shaping an evaluation system?
- Can you speak more about how an administration can be structured composed entirely of teacher leaders?
- Are there organizations that are actively engaging classroom teachers in the discussion of building a high quality teacher evaluation system?
- Aren’t our upper-middle class schools outperforming Finland? Isn’t the real issue poverty as Diane Ravitch has recently stated?
- Talk about what role the Teacher Education Departments at colleges and universities can/must play in teacher performance/assessment/accountability.
- Describe your ideal 60% of the New York City or New York State evaluation systems.
- Administrators, at least in New York, are so overburdened with paperwork, meetings, and outside expectations to prove they’re effective, how will they possibly manage a new labor-intensive evaluation?
- If standardized tests are an important component, how will teachers of English language learners and students with disabilities be assessed? Will there be different assessments?
- Peer review was mentioned as popular in one school system, but does not seem to be very popular. In higher academia and in the corporate world, it is key. Why the difference?
- Who, realistically/logistically, should define teacher effectiveness – each school? district? state?
- Yes, teachers need to be learners. What if a teacher is improving – is that enough? How much growth, at what pace?
- Students with severe disabilities do not participate in standardized testing and some of their learning may be difficult to quantify. These students also need excellent teachers. How can teacher evaluation measures be shaped to ensure that students with disabilities are taught by excellent teachers?
- How can teachers of students with disabilities be fairly evaluated?
- How can we extend student performance/teacher performance with the current socio-economic disparity?
- During the debate, no one has mentioned Special Education in the realm of accountability. How do you see this factoring in? Along the same lines as general ed. teachers’ performance, or as a separate standard?
Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective – How Can You Tell?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 5:30 PM
The Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue (at 34th Street), New York City
To reserve a space, please contact Shannon Whitaker-Burke at 212-875-4607 or email@example.com
Chief Academic Officer & Senior Deputy Chancellor, NYC Department of Education
Bank Street Alumna, Co-founder and principal, Harlem Link Charter School
President and CEO, Center for Teaching Quality
Program Officer, Educational Opportunity and Scholarship, The Ford Foundation
Dean of the College, Bank Street
posted by Mai Jacobs ’87, 1st grade teacher
Our country is suffering. We’re frustrated and scared and angry. We get angry at the president, angry at the people in Congress, angry at the slow checker in the grocery store and angry at the traffic light that takes too long to change. But we have little control over any of these things. And it’s that feeling of powerlessness that drives the frustration, fear and anger.
We want change and we want it now. We want someone to pay for the impossible situation we find ourselves in and for some reason, teachers and other union workers have become easy targets. Rather than discuss the true reason we’re in our current fiscal quagmire, the Wisconsin governor has chosen to pit American workers against American workers. And this, at a time in our country’s history when unity is most critical.
It is not corporate CEOs at the Wisconsin capital building rallying in the snow in support of the governor’s proposal to eliminate collective bargaining and the rights of unions to exist, (although they are certainly there in the comfort of their offices, funding the governor and “grassroots” opposition to the unions). Out in the snow and cold it’s other middle class working people who believe that their Republican governor is actually seeking a rational way to balance a state budget.
Teachers and other union members are not getting wealthy on their union wages and benefits. They may own homes and pay their bills and may even have enough to retire without becoming a burden on society. But these same workers do not run and control banks, corporations and large payrolls of workers. They do not vote to fund two impossible wars abroad. They do not pass laws that enable the wealthiest Americans to reduce their tax burdens, while middle class Americans pay the rising costs of gas, food, utilities and other necessities of daily living. Teachers and police and firemen may make a living wage, but this does not make unions or the benefits unions provide the cause of this nation’s enormous fiscal problems. In the few months the Wisconsin governor has been in office, he has seen fit to pass tax break provisions for the wealthiest Americans. As a member of the Republican Party he supports the wars our country is funding abroad, which are the largest drains on our floundering economy.
Rather than attacking the middle class that makes up the largest sector of our society, we should all demand that those who led to the failures of banks and other large corporations, the true source of our economic disaster, be held accountable. We should demand that the federal government properly fund public education, which cannot be adequately funded solely by local property taxes. Somehow, money is found to fight wars and bailout large corporations. But as states go bankrupt as a direct result of those decisions and mistakes shouldn’t we demand our government protect working Americans, too? If another group of workers loses their ability to support their homes and families, if another group of workers can’t pay their bills and support themselves in retirement, then who is shopping at the store you work in? Who is hiring you to build or renovate their home, fix their plumbing, repair their car? Who is checking in at the hotels where you work, eating in restaurants you own and shopping on Main Street? If more people lose their ability to make a living, then we all suffer.
I implore you to look past the alluring sound bites that would have you believe it is unions that are single-handedly sinking our country and jeopardizing our collective financial security. Having a job that provides a living wage, decent working conditions, and health benefits that enable more people to live healthier should be every American’s right. If true security for his state and our country were the goals of this Wisconsin governor, then he would be seeking a way to lift all of us up, rather than pit us one against the other. Worker against worker. American against American. Question the logic of undoing what decades of organizing has brought many of us – unionized or not – the five-day work week, the eight-hour day, better working conditions, and health benefits (even if we help fund them), to name a few. These were not given to Americans just because we worked hard and believed in the “American Way.” People organized together to create one voice that demanded fair treatment and reasonable pay for all working Americans. And this is what we must do now.
Let your voice be heard.
Mai Jacobs has been a public school teacher for most of her career. She believes in people. (This piece was originally written as an open letter to her community.)
posted by Steven Evangelista ’01, co-director Harlem Link Charter School, NYC
Forget the fuss. Let’s put in the hard work required to involve teachers in evaluating each other.
As is often the case when complex topics are debated in the media, creative thinking is a casualty in the current hubbub over whether school districts should publicly release teacher value-added scores. Reformers on both “sides” are digging their trenches so fast and sternly that they are missing the busy bees on the surface spreading good ideas like pollen.
Deputy Chancellor John White, even while staunchly defending the controversial metric, said much the same himself in a letter to the New York Times published on New Year’s Day: “It would be unfair to claim that any one statistic, such as newly developed ‘value-added data,’ should stand alone as definitive evidence of a teacher’s effectiveness.”
One such idea is including a peer component in teacher evaluations. This practice has been tried in some districts, most notably in Ohio, in some form since the 1980s. But the fact that it requires a nuanced and locally specific structure – a strength that is a counterbalance to value-added data – makes it difficult if not impossible to bring to scale. For this reason and others, I’m doubtful that the idea has been given a fair shake.
In other professions, peer evaluation is the norm, along with feedback from one’s superiors and direct reports. Teachers deserve “360-degree feedback”; they occupy one of the most complex, demanding professions around. Supervisors should have at their disposal more data and more diverse sources of information.
I know from experience that as a teacher surrounded by one’s four walls and focused so tightly on one’s classroom, it’s hard to see the big picture of what a school community needs as a whole. But teachers have valid opinions about the practices of their colleagues that simply can’t be ignored, opinions that are sometimes more pointed and helpful than those of administrators.
At our school, building the boat as we’ve been sailing for the past five years, we have not yet incorporated peer feedback into teacher evaluation in a meaningful way. But we have laid the groundwork with teacher leadership through school walkthroughs, teacher-facilitated lesson study observations and teacher coaching.
We already trust our teachers to give meaningful feedback. For example, teachers are heavily involved in the hiring process. Our teachers observe and debrief teacher candidates’ demonstration lessons, and recommend student teachers for a temporary or permanent assignment when a vacancy arises. Anecdotal evidence tells me that while teacher leadership opportunities (outside of the traditional, Peter Principle-plagued ladder climbing to Assistant Principal, Principal, district office, etc.) are scattershot, these feedback opportunities in the hiring process are more commonplace. Should teachers’ opinions stop counting once a colleague signs on the dotted line?
Some critics of this idea – especially those stumbling over the sins of a toxic work environment – would question teachers’ willingness to criticize their colleagues when necessary. After all, why wouldn’t a teacher concerned about protecting his or her own hide take it easy on a colleague in exchange for the same treatment back? One clear answer is that a strong process with purposeful layers of feedback and oversight will prevent such an indulgence.
A better answer is that as constant learners, committed teachers are their own harshest critics—and when relationships with families and students are involved, that value extends to colleagues. Those who work hard and take pride in their students’ success, who have strong bonds throughout the school community and are focused on children, will not stand for a teacher in the next grade faltering and ruining their hard work. By the same token, imagine the motivation to help a teacher in a lower grade get it right when the evaluator will be teaching the affected students in only a few months!
Finally, if folks aren’t willing to be honest when it comes to student results, then the school community has bigger problems than incompetence. In other words, a modicum of two-way trust is required for this process to work. But rather than an obstacle, that’s another reason why fretting over value-added data is beside the point; without a supportive, trusting environment, it’s a fool’s errand to evaluate teachers anyway.
Steven Evangelista co-founded Harlem Link Charter School in 2005 after teaching in Harlem public schools through Teach For America beginning in 1998. In his role as Co-Director for Operations, he oversees all of the district-office level functions at Harlem Link and continues to guide implementation of its mission and vision. He is also an alumnus of Hunter College High School, Georgetown University, and the Building Excellent Schools fellowship. This post also appears on the Harlem Link blog.
posted by Joan Goldstein ’67, sociologist and educator
On my November TV30 show, “Back Story with Joan Goldstein,” I looked at the state of American Public Education with guests, Louise Wilson, former Mayor of Montgomery Township, and a college student, Phoebe Brown. Phoebe, one of my sociology students and a third generation of educators shared her concerns about over-testing and under-learning. She is not alone; other students have expressed similar views. One young man, David, told me, “I figured out how to ace those tests in high school, but I didn’t learn anything.”
Louise Wilson, as a local official talked about the newest, heavier tax burden placed upon local residents to support the public schools; and, as a lifelong educator, I shared my experiences working with children of all ages and young adults, and the amazing joy of accomplishment while participating in a sometimes physically and mentally exhausting profession.
From a short distance away, across the river from New Jersey, the New York Times reported on a publishing executive named Catherine P. Black who was recently named by Mayor Bloomberg for the position of Chancellor of Education. I began to wonder how an executive with no experience whatsoever in the field of public education could become the New York City Mayor’s candidate for Chancellor of Education. “No Education Experience to Run Schools? An Idea is Taken to a New Level” (NYT. Thursday, 11/11/10) was the headline in The New York Times. What was I missing? And more troubling yet, how does public education become the latest “cash cow” of our economic system.
My answer came a few days later when in a follow-up story, the Times (on Saturday 1/13/10) reported that the Chancellor would have to “leave boards to avoid conflict of interest.” One of the boards on which Black served (and was paid handsomely) was “I.B.M. with contracts totaling more than $300 million, (and) is one of the city’s largest vendors.” It called to mind Diane Ravitch’s “The Death and Life of the Great American School System,” a book I had chosen to discuss in my TALKING POLITICS series at the Princeton Public Library. In it, Ravitch comments on the emerging business model applied to public education, now a source of funding to support the emergence of charter schools, a process which appears to sprout without the burden (or benefit) of unions or prior professional experience.
While teachers and librarians are down-sized (and down-graded) in the local schools, we need to question how leadership in education has strayed so far from the stated purpose of public education – that is, to develop educated citizens to participate in a democratic society.
This piece is re-posted from Joan’s blog on All Princeton. Joan Goldstein, Ph.D., is a professor at Mercer County Community College in New Jersey. She hosts Back Story, a monthly forum that explores current issues of the day, both national and local, with guests invited for their expertise or particular viewpoints. The show is broadcast on public access television in Princeton, NJ and also online. All of the episodes can be viewed here: Back Story with Joan Goldstein.
posted by Beth Norford ’89, consultant and former School for Children teacher
A recent article in The Washington Post (October 11, 2010, p.A17)…
I wonder if anyone is interested in starting a conversation about this (or using this forum to add to conversations that are ongoing)?
Beth is a Bank Street graduate and former School for Children teacher who is currently an educational consultant. Much of her work is concentrated in South Asia (India, Nepal, Pakistan).
Please join the conversation by posting your comment below.