Let Girls be Girls Damn It!

This is a response to a video supposedly created to empower girls to like more science. It was made by a female engineer that felt too few women were in the field. You can find the original post HERE.


I think girls just like different things....Nora likes easthetics, animals, is very keen on relationships, endless chatter with friends, graceful movement, etc. Luke, on the other hand, likes science, learning about the best of the best in all sports, large rough movements, running, being loud, climbing to the top of anything, racing, competing, roughhousing, AND reading about all of the above, etc. This video makes me think that if only we made girls more like boys, but how about making girls more like girls??I Interpersonal relationships, social relationships, all these skills could easily be our future peace talks leaders, our diplomats, our marriage counselors, we have our strengths too. It's should not be about "ripping away" the princess from the girl, it's should be about valuing what girls value and making girls away that those gifts have value. Nora went through a "pink stage" and so many moms would comment on it as a problem, they even gave her anti-princess books to make her become more, "empowered", to wash away the pink essentially; as if I made her this way, AND as if it was a problem. I did not put it there so I treated it as it was, a stage. so I think the video is not really looking at girls and who they are, what they are interested in, and yes, it may not be THE SAME thing boys like, and that should be okay. I empower my daughter every day by simply allowing her to define herself...limiting external images of girls/women as much as a I can in this modern world and what comes out can't help to be just fine. 

Perspective Series

Please go to my Etsy Store to see details and more variations in the series. 

I have been reflecting on the varying perspectives coming up around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this summer and as openly discussed on various Facebook pages I frequent. These "perspective" work series are representations of my experience reading these opinions coming from both sides. Work signed, labeled and dated on back. 

A mom's wishful thinking list of prescription for how DCPS could be top education district in the world in 10 years....

" In Washington, D.C., which has seen the same pattern,effective teachers now are leaving to teach in districts in which they feel more appreciated, to the detriment of the city's students."
                                                                    -Elaine Weiss, Huffington Post

                    I read this and thought, 'when will this madness of tests, stringent teacher evaluations and war against teachers end?'.  29,000 teachers marching, protesting this decade-old, new brand of education (D)eforms.  They are brave enough to ask for more, more for their children, more for their schools, more for our country's future. This statement above is so true and I know this because I left DCPS for a place I feel more 'appreciated'. The system in DC is broken, and as my 5 year-old daughter says every time she says something slightly hurtful, 'Sorry,but that is my opinion.'. As a parent in DCPS the argument to me is not about whether to keep schools closed or open anymore, to me the argument is whether or not as a whole the system  is set up to teach our children to be problem solvers and leaders of tomorrow. Sadly it is not. 

                   I have been wracking my brain for years now to find an easy way to explain to parents (and teachers sadly) why the testing culture hurts our kids, our future, our world. When people are reassured by schools and administrators within a testing culture, NO, in fact, they don't teach to the test, this is in essence a BIG fat lie. As an educator of 15 years, I have seen and experienced how the testing culture affects everything in education. When school cultures depend largely on testing scores to reward and punish teachers, one can't help to teach to the test, it's in the DNA of the system, it drives the system.  The testing culture's 'poison' gets into the cracks of everything we do as teachers, it affects our pace, our emotional availability to the kids, our ability to teach creatively, our ability to tap into what we know works best as professionals. In essence, teaching to the test is not so bad, but the fact that the test exists dictates so much of HOW we teach what we teach. Kids come out learning that there are right and wrong answers to everything, when in fact, in real life there are often many real answers. I liken it to being an experienced surgeon asked to operate on a heart with one hand tied behind her back. We have amazing teachers in DCPS and we ask them to be less, to teach in ways we don't believe and in essence rush our way through all of it in ways that sometimes lacks connection to the children and their lives. 
                    On the brighter side, a better way is very much possible in this generation. I am very hopeful that both teachers and parents will begin to finally speak up for what they KNOW is right and against what they know is wrong. Teaching children to be leaders and problem solvers is very much more affordable and as parents and teachers we need to continue to fight and speak up for genuine learning for our children. The kinds of learning that will truly prepare them for a very uncertain future. Below are my ramblings of what I think would fix DCPS and make us top in the world. I know, a tall order for sure, but after 15 years teaching, 2 masters in education and 2 kids of my own, I think I am way overqualified to give recommendations. We have much less experienced people than me leading whole districts across the country, so, emboldened by my fellow friends in Chicago I do dare speak!!
Here they are!! 

A DCPS mom's wishful thinking list of prescription for how DCPS could be top education district in the world in 10 years....

1. Hire Daniel Pink as consultant for DCPS when hiring the new Chancellor. This is a non-negotiable. We need a BIG picture person in this position. Someone who is not just another numbers-pusher, not just another Rhee-in-sheep's clothes. Mr. Pink will ensure that the top person in this position will be, as he calls in his book, the Type-I personality. (Too long to explain here, but read the book....will change your life). In fact, I'd let him sit in on interviews for all upper level staff positions, all principal positions, all vice principal positions.....for a decade maybe. We are lucky for he lives right here in DC and he won't even need to move here with his family to do his magic. The issue with DCPS top officials is their primary motivation has been control.  They don't necessarily need to be wise, inspirational, or experienced in education, or exceptionally dynamic, or have any common sense. No, to a teacher like me, their only job requirements now seems to be familiarity with the reward/punish system they have in place and to toe the line and follow the program. This is evidenced by the mere fact that downtown folks have their own 'downtown speech dialect'. If you've ever talked to someone from downtown (I mean the DCPS office) whose worked there for over a year or more you know what I mean. To have your own dialect, you have to be super exclusive, 'no outside thinkers allowed' is not the way to step into the future. 

2. Work with local and national colleges to hire only teachers who are highly adept at using classroom-based assessments to know where to go next with children. Ultimately, this is a very astute teacher who is willing to really get to know her students and have the internal tools to know what needs to happen to get them to the next level. 

3. End any form of reward/punish system and replace monetary rewards with RESPECT. Come on!! this is easy and free. As Daniel Pink explains, monetary rewards only make people think they are doing an undesirable task. Teachers love teaching, they do it because it's their calling. Pay them a fair amount and they won't ask for more. 

4. Of course, end all standardized tests. Don't worry, those excellent carreer teachers you have just hired that know how to asses their children in their own classrooms will make sure kids learn.  Oh, and what will we do with all that money? Valerie Strauss writes, 'In Texas, taxpayers will pay about $93 million this year to administer standardized tests to Texas students . . . or nearly ten times the cost of just nine years earlier.'  93 million in one year? How did this happen? To multiply ten times in nine years we all must have been asleep at the wheel. It's sad to me when I meet a parent, and especially a teacher, who is unaware of the policies affecting their children's education, and their own profession. We can no longer afford, literally, to keep our heads in the sand. This is absolute madness and WE are all paying for this as a society. Test scores only predict success in academics, the 21st century classroom needs to prepare kids to be leaders, outside the box problem solvers. A multiple choice test teaches kids that the answers are all out there, pre-packaged, neat and tidy. Kids today will not have neat and tidy solutions handed to them, they will need to BE the problem-solvers and come up with various answers, not one single answer! The tail is wagging the dog and we have not stopped to consider what the dog wants, what is the dog for? Testing as it exists today defines for us what education is all about, should't it be the other way around?

5. All curriculum should consists of kids solving problems. Not just any old problems, interesting ones, juicy ones, relevant ones....Ones that matter to them, problems in their own communities, problems at home, problems with friends, problems in society. Tomorrow's leaders are people who will in essence have the answers to unknown problems. Writing, math, social studies, science all come into play together and at the same time when we solve problems, they should not be taught as discreet subjects. Tomorrow's followers do best on filling in bubbles, but tomorrow's leaders do best at tackling interesting, personally relevant, local problems. School should be all about solving interesting problems, with 'interesting' being the key word here. 

6. Stop all hiring of short-term staff such as TFA. As a parent I want a teacher who finds teaching a calling, not a stepping-stone to something they consider 'better'. It's like a difference between a marriage and a one-night stand. Glaring huh? They both might be great and all, but one has promise, the other is short -lived. One was chosen with very little scrutiny, the other was chosen with lots of care. A system can't just open their teaching doors to any loosely-trained 'teachers', then rage about the quality of education those teachers provide within that system. The system as a whole needs to have a higher level of scrutiny of our teachers from the very beginning. 

7. Stop giving out bonuses. Pay teachers fairly, commensurate to other districts, but after that all the extra money does nothing for anyone. Not one teacher I know is changing what she's doing in her classroom in order to get a bonus, this is unheard of. All teachers are already doing their very best every day for that is the makeup of all teachers, the promise of doing it better tomorrow is in our blood. Pursuit of mastery is what being a great teacher is all about, you either have it or not. But you certainly can't 'carrot-and-sticks' your way into making it happen. All this ridiculous incentivizing does is create negative competition in a profession where collaboration amongst professionals should be first and foremost. 

8. Let's hear from experienced teachers when making policy that effects schools. The 'control' freaks have been making policy in DC for far too long and that is making education worse. Take the control out of the hands of these inexperienced-in-education, control-monger policymakers and hand over control to experienced teachers, who are experts at their field. If this phrase 'expert at their field' and the word 'teacher' do not sound right in your mind, it's because we have been taught to not think of teachers as experts. But yes, in fact, experienced teachers are experts at their field. When I have a child development question I go to my daughter's kindergarten teacher who has 25+ years experienced and I am sure to get a better answer than a less experienced teacher any day. Call it ageism, call it whatever you like, but every major culture in the world revere their elders for a reason, if not, we are just reinventing the wheel with each new generation. Sadly, In DCPS, experience,  is not respected, looked down up even. Younger teachers are openly given much more praise by the non-experienced policymakers, principals and leaders and consequently the whole system lacks general respect for the more experienced ones.  It's appalling to see and very sad to experience this phenomenon. 

9. Lower teacher to student ratios in areas affected by poverty. Yes, more teachers, more resources, more funding for poverty areas. Teachers are tired of being blamed for 'under-performing' schools deeply affected by poverty. I put 'underperforming' in quotes because in fact, there are amazing things that go on in these schools every single day, yet, we rarely get to hear these stories. The problem comes from the fact that policymakers think of poverty in very non-realistic terms. I have long believed that education policymakers must see poverty as sections of people who just have a lesser version of things wealthier people have. Perhaps they think people in poverty just have a lesser model of car, a smaller house, a less expensive phone than say a rich person might. In fact, the reality is much more grim than that. People in poverty don't just have lesser versions of what a rich people have, instead, they lack the very essentials that make living even possible. Some children lack food, some lack physical security, some lack emotional stability, medical care, dental care, family stability, child-friendly environments, child-friendly conversations, child-friendly entertainment and the list goes on. I have also long wondered why policymakers have not yet added more resources to impoverished areas? Perhaps, it's been easier (and cheaper) to blame teachers. 
            Where will the money come from you ask? From the money we saved from no longer testing our kids of course. 

10. Cultivate our teacher population.  Every year DCPS fires hundreds of teachers under the guise of making schools better, but in fact, schools are not getting better and their own data proves that. These fired teachers, victims of the 'manhunt', are people who want to help and work with children we need their energy and stability in our schools. Yes, there will always be teachers that were not cut out to be teachers, as there will always be doctors who were not cut out to be doctors, and cashiers who suck at what they do, as there will be unhelpful receptionists....and on and on and on. But to have a yearly system primarily run on this insane manhunt to identify and fire these supposedly ineffective teachers is a huge waste of energy and money. At what point will this firing pace begin to slow down? When will the system become more concerned with primarily cultivating the ones we have left? When will it begin to primarily focus its efforts in further inspiring our effective teachers to reach even higher? 

If one more economist, think tank millionaire tells me how to fix education I will personally invite them to teach my class for a week

I am sure we have all read it by now. The big Harvard study, done by three economist, that has come out last week in which they claim proves a good teacher can mean more earning over a lifetime. I did some reading on this supposed 'research' and was appalled to find out it has not even been peer reviewed; which apparently is what typically happens before any results are reported to the public. In addition, the authors are making pretty bold 'policy prescriptions'. I cannot wait to get my hands on this publication, when and if it ever gets out; already I see holes everywhere. The icing on the cake though is to read how think tank scholars Jason Richwine and Andrew G. Biggs advocate for "shifting more funds toward the best teachers." As I read about economist, think tank people, and millionaires who create education policy daily I feel this resentment rising in me towards all non-educators who think they can come into education and quick fix it. Let's just look at the 'brilliant' idea of paying the more effective teachers more. Teachers are not like doctors in the way that each doctor can operate their practice separate from other doctors. Teachers within school communities that work, generally operate best through collaboration. Collaboration cannot happen when Ms. Jane knows Ms. Mary is labeled better by her District.

Value-added is another 'brilliant' idea from the outer banks of education reality. For those of you who might not know what value-added means, it's simply paying a teacher based on varied measured and qualitative aspects of her teaching, but primarily standardized tests. Two years ago, The District of Columbia Public schools found me to be a highly effective teacher. For that whole year I was sure I was a great teacher, it was wonderful. I got free tickets to a baseball game, a cute little plaque and lots of other perks. Unfortunately, this past year, based on a combination of factors, such as observation scores, school test scores, etc, I was only found to be just 'effective'; I missed the 'highly effective mark by .4 points. So this year, I am just effective. This is the label I have been demoted to after my year of bliss and it did not feel so great to suddenly become invisible, dispensable almost. For this whole year, I ate, slept and breathed my new label. Let me remind you that I am the same person, teaching the same way, to the same population. Because the highly effective folks get a huge bonus if found to be highly effective two years in a row, the District can only afford to keep a certain number of (highly effective) teachers in this state of bliss. Only an outsider or a short-term educator could come up with such a system in which the majority of its work population feels truly valued and in which the approach stems from the assumption that most teachers need to be prodded to do their jobs.

I cannot begrudge these economists, these think tank people or millionaires for doing what they feel is an area they could support with their specific skill sets, resources or knowledge. Yet, it's seriously time educators took back their profession. Perhaps erase, 'took back' for I don't think we ever really were in charge of it. It's become painfully obvious that these outside entities will continue to create systems, studies and fund projects that build upon very negative assumptions about who we are and what we are capable of. In school districts, just as in relationships, when we operate from negative assumptions the results can and will never be a genuine fit for the problem. The weight of the stress of these externally-created policies should be enough to make every teacher in America stand up and demand a seat at the table, yet, that is not happening? Most teachers are not political souls and lack the tools to navigate education policy-related issues. Regardless of what is your excuse, it's time we forced our way in, even if we are not invited. I don't need a Harvard degree to know this study is flawed. It's flawed because it defines an 'effective teacher' by tests and defines life success by how much you make. But I will wait until it's actually peer-reviewed and PUBLISHED before I pick at it further.

self-righteousness is one of the last vehicles left for uninhibited hatred

We are becoming a world of black and white, rights and wrongs, where mistakes and imperfections are unforgivable. People who live in the public eye, for example, are treated with this wire-thin measure and when they inevitably fail, as all humans do, we crucify them, we pellet them with hard hatred. When I witness utter self-righteousness on the side of people who claim to be 'right' I am reminded of the Gandhi's famous quote, "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world" and wonder whether or not these same people would like this same type of treatment when they (and they inevitably will) make mistakes.

I am blessed to be married. In marriage you learn how to be soft, how to forgive, how to practice compassion daily, how to work with the other, and how to love both yourself and the other despite your imperfections. Yet, in order to have a marriage work, really work, one needs to abandon these essentially fundamentalist, black and white ways of looking at life and delve in the grey. Most married couples I know have recurring arguments about and around the same subjects that often come up again and again. The issue then becomes how does one address these recurring arguments once and for all so that the ugly interaction does not recur over and over? Assuming there is love in the marriage and real interest in its success coming from both sides, one then starts to examine the 'whys', the purpose, the 'behind the scenes' thought processes that led to these actions. Eventually, one discovers, to make things work, one must abandon the black and white ways of looking at life and live, breathe, exist in the grey. Understanding the other and developing understanding in ourselves then becomes the vehicle for forgiveness and compassion. I am more likely to forgive a person who hurt my feelings if I understand why it happened. Surprisingly, I have found, that more often than not a negative interaction is brought on by factors external to me.

Oprah is always talking about the evolution of the person and where people are on this continuum. I have come to believe that reaching this point in our lives where we start to abandon the hard self-righteousness, stop thinking in absolutes and soften our deeply held fundamentalist-style way, rates much higher on the proverbial human evolutionary scale. If there were a revolutionary scale, I am more than confident that softness, understanding, and compassion would be fairly high up there.

If you doubt that the world is getting harder and less compassionate. Look at these facts. The amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation was $40 million, while the amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission was only $14 million. These facts tells me that in the 'modern' world we care more about sounding right and winning then actually doing right by people.

Anybody can say they are doing what they are doing for a righteous cause but it's in how they pave their solutions that one must look instead. When I meet someone with hard, unrelenting views and with forgiveness and compassion nowhere to be found, I get very wary. In fact, I most often walk away. No solutions that agrees with all stakeholders can come from hard, unrelenting, self-righteous people.

The most traumatizing movie I ever watched and that to this day still haunts me to the core is the movie, The Stoning of Soriya M. (it's on streaming video on Netflix). In the end of this movie you see a horrific, no bars held, stoning of an innocent mother of three you have come to respect and understand. Although this type of bloody justice is far from our modern reality in the US, we do as a society exact that same severity and intensity of 'justice' through our judgements. Our leaders, our celebrities, our politicians may not be literally stoned when they do wrong, but they are symbolically stoned with words, with judgements, with hatred.

I believe self-righteousness is close neighbors with hatred. I've come to experience these brutal forms of justice in my own personal world and have come to the conclusion that self-righteousness is one of the last vehicles left for uninhibited hatred. It's like watching those 'revenge movies" that begin with some child abduction that then makes all killings in the next two hours justified.

I am not buying it any more. I am staying clear of all forms of fundamentalism with their hard, relentless and cut-throat solutions that take us all in the wrong direction. Long lasting solutions can only come from conversations with the other, understanding of the other and compassion. From now on I will live, breathe and walk the change I wish to see in the world and I am choosing people for my circle who mirror back these softer qualities.

The powerful or the powerless, who can be happiest?

I've been thinking a lot about class lately. Not about the class that's associated with schools and classes. I am talking about the "economic or cultural arrangements of groups in society of which the most basic class distinction is between the powerful and the powerless" (according to Wikipedia).

Funny, growing up in a home where my mom worked as a housekeeper to a wealthy family never made me feel I was part of a separate class at all, neither did going to a private high school where 90% of the students in my grade could actually afford to live in Manhattan while all along I commuted from Queens daily. So why suddenly now, working as a teacher in a affluent community do I feel the affects of class and experience powerlessness?

Recently, I read an amazing, life-changing piece in New York Magazine, called Paper Tigers written by a young man named, Wesley Yang. The 10+ pages in this article made me allowed me to experience his life being unilaterally discounted by the people in power due to the fact that he was born to Korean parents. As a teacher in America and more specifically, as a teacher living in an affluent part of DC, I have been subjected to a certain level of powerlessness perpetuated by people who perceive themselves to be in control.

Instead of coming up with the general and obvious questions about class, such as why or how, I want to address how does one begin work alongside these divergent realities that essentially have a very powerful discounting or canceling affect on your own reality? How do you maintain a sense of balance when faced with complete and utter powerlessness? As someone who follows Buddhist philosophy, fighting back with the same type of energy just seems futile.

The solution that rises in me tells me that the power is not and will never truly be in the hands of the powerful; that it just appears that way. Another answer that floats up from within me tells me that no matter what happens, you still own your own power. That it's what you do with the sense of powerlessness that defines whether you have lost it or not. In other words, the feeling of powerlessness only happens when you actually give into the pressures of being placed in powerless situations. Therefore, by simply redefining our situation to ourselves we begin to free ourselves from the feeling of powerlessness.

Wesley Yang perfectly summed up the very solution I'm about to offer:

"There is something salutary in that proud defiance. ....we will need more people with this kind of defiance, willing to push themselves into the spotlight and to make some noise, to make mistakes, to become entrepreneurs, to stop doggedly pursuing official paper emblems attesting to their worthiness, to stop thinking those scraps of paper will secure anyone’s happiness, and to dare to be interesting."

Like Yang, the powerless could simply choose to continue on their predetermined path, strengthened by their own inner priorities and intentions, and being overtly unperturbed by the bold attempts of others to dispossess them from their voices. People who abuse their power usually have huge issues with differing opinions of any kind as well as differing realities that threaten their highly guarded structure. When people boldly guard their realities with such intense energy I immediately know they have an ego problem. In the Buddhist world, a person with an 'ego' problem is suffering. This person desperately needs a certain reality to be perpetuated in order for them to function and feel happy. Unfortunately, anyone with an ego problem cannot entirely be trusted, for their top priority is and will always be fiercely protecting their reality and nothing else. That being said, set your own sail, plan your own agenda, define your own world. FULLY accept that there will always be people who cannot live without being in control for no other reason than to just be in control. But also be assured that they are the ones suffering and that you can always choose to simply ignore their loud claims and carry on your own merry path if so you choose.

Union Leader George Parker joins the 'dark side'

I just learned the news that ousted Washington Teacher's Union President, George Parker has joined forces with Michelle Rhee. After I got up from the floor I started fuming; connecting the pieces, yet fuming. What does this mean to us DC teachers? Parker was involved in the making of our famous 'balanced, fair and negotiated' contract 2 years back, so how fair could it have really been with our own union president having one foot on the other side?

I was talking to a friend yesterday about trust and he shared how he does not trust anyone involved in the education policy world, not even the unions. I added that perhaps the distrust came from the fact that most people no longer cared to do the right thing, but only cared about doing precisely what would place them in control, at the top or give them some sort of fame. No situation proves my point more strongly than this situation with Parker. We've all seen the media coverage on Rhee's wardrobe, her expensive purses, etc. She has become a sort of celebrity. For control and fame-hungry people like Rhee (and other unmentionables in the education deform movement), once people put you in on pedestal it's hard not to believe the hype going around about you; it gets to your head and clouds all traces of common sense. This process of moral decomposition must have happened to him; perhaps the money is better. Who knows, maybe soon we will begin hearing about Parker, "the celebrity" and his expensive Italian suits.

Where are you on the Trust-Data Continuum?

Imagine a continuum, let's call this continuum the Trust-Data continuum. In one end of this continuum there is complete and utter dependence on data where we cannot make a move without incorporating it into our decision making and on the other end there is complete and utter trust in our inner knowledge where we fully and utterly trust our ideas and instincts alone. I have had to tread this line many times in my life and have learned that both extreme ends holds no solutions.

When I was pregnant with my first child we opted for a midwife, no drugs; the whole natural, trust your body, birthing process. It seemed the most healthy and natural option and we were so excited to go this route. Since we were considered 'low risk' we felt in our element choosing an out-of-hospital birth. Unfortunately, things did not go as expected. In short, we had a c-section. We did not plan on this of course, but that's what usually happens after almost 2 days of labor and no baby. With my second child, we again wanted a natural birth, but now being categorized as 'high risk' pregnancy due to a prior C-section, we needed the structure and security provided by the hospital. Although being at a hospital was protocol for a V-BAC (vaginal birth after c-section) I no longer fully trusted my body to do the right thing, and I too felt I needed to be in a hospital. I had moved from one end of the scale where I fully trusted my body to do the right thing, to the other end where I became dependent on the structure of a hospital to give me that sense of trust I needed. This ended up being a good thing, for I again had a c-section.

And yet another example.

I am a teacher in DC where the latest corporate reform efforts have taken hold of the system as they are in many other urban cities across the country. As an ardent advocate against these corporate reforms, which are all based on reward/punish paradigms, I am often asked, "What do we do then, with ineffective teachers?" I see reward-punish systems as essentially lacking in all forms of trust. Teachers are not trusted, schools are not trusted, hence we need data to see past the murky waters. The corporate reformers who are seeking to dismantle public education have done everything possible to form the negative myths that now intoxicate and choke the life out of our profession. This is very unfortunate news for our kids, for the public response is a need for more and more data, more oversight, more mania, more panic.

The more we surround and encapsulate education with testing, data and more testing, the more we squeeze the magic out of good teachers. Teacher who know how to teach need to be allowed to teach. My question is, with so many demands on teachers and hoops now set up for them to jump through, who would want to do this job in the future? What is the lure? In this situation, TRUST is the dire prescription. It will breathe back respect into a system that now operates like a dysfunctional home, where one sibling is openly favored and lauded over another.

I believe the answer to all life's problems lies somewhere in the middle of my Trust-Data continuum, with either end being way too fundamentalist and unbalanced to bring true, lasting success. Too much data and no trust is just as distorted as blind trust and no data.

Keep your incentive money....RESPECT, the incentive teachers dream of

Did you read the paper today about how "New York City’s heralded $75 million experiment in teacher incentive pay" did not improve achievement? I am not at all surprised....in fact, no one should be surprised.

First and foremost, teachers do not go into teaching to make a load of money. We knew going into this we would not be wall-street rich or even close, therefore throwing money at us for doing a good job is a absolutely a nice 'pat on the back', but only helps to affirm that we are doing a good job. For teachers that do not get the incentive pay, they could do just fine without it; for it was never about the money anyway. The problem with economists and business-minded folks infiltrating and privatizing our schools in this corporate reform movement is that they bring with them the ideas of the business world, such as 'incentive pay for performance'. These ideas work well in wall-street, but fall flat on its face in education overall. So the education reformers need to rethink incentives or throw it out all together.

Now, as a teacher of 13 years I can give you the kid-in-a-candy store incentive that would automatically help raise achievement scores, and that is respect. In fact, I would even take a pay cut to get it. But how would respect raise scores? Up to now, most reforms are handed from above (district-level) and while they theoretically sound good they do not often fit the reality of the schools or the community they address making them ineffective. If teachers were invited to the proverbial 'table' and treated as a part of the solution, teachers could give valuable insight that would better work for their schools. Right now, in the country, teachers are depicted by wall-street and the media as the problem and millions are poured by each state into weeding out 'bad' teachers. Not all teachers are under attack we are told, just the 'bad ones'. turn on the TV you'll hear about the 'avarice' of teachers, our greedy pensions, health and dental and cushy 10-month contracts. But while each and every District spend millions on smoking out the 'bad teachers', every teachers is feeling the pressure and that makes the profession very unattractive for young teachers. I loved the most recent Jon Stewart , during his interview with Diane Ravitch he jokes,

"The whole bad teachers argument blows my mind too, have you been in the world, there is a bad everything. How many fast food restaurants have you been to and think, what the h*** is going on here? How many times you've been to the bank, the wall street...there are crappy people working almost in every field and yet, somehow teachers don't have the luxury of having a couple of crappy ones."

As funny as this is, it's probably true. In my 13 years teaching I have run across maybe 1 or 2 teachers who I felt should not be teaching. But, wouldn't this incentive money be better spent getting the right learning environment for our children and getting all the teachers the right professional learning environment to learn from one another with the right resources? I would urge any district to stop wasting money on incentive pay. While I don't mind getting an extra 5k a year for being highly effective, I would more happily give it up for an invitation to the 'table'.

How experts can be like quitters (sometimes)

I went to a very fun birthday party last week at a Karate studio and there were signs everywhere that read "never quit." As an art teacher I have come to many crossroads where kids who think they can't do the work, and simply quit. I always give them a small pep talk consisting of how experts are not born, they try and fail, try and fail many times before they become an expert, so to stop now means they have chosen to stop growing. But the opposite can be just as detrimental. Someone who thinks they know everything, someone like an expert, has also quit; quit learning, quit being open, quit growing inside.

I have run across several 'experts' just this week who seem so convinced in their positions that no matter what the circumstances they will not open their mind to other possibilities or ideas. Too often these people who think themselves 'experts' at something mistakenly think they have done all the knowledge absorption there is to soak up in their field and think they can can now just sit back and bask in their enormous breadth of knowledge. My question here would be, how is this predicament different from a quitter? In essence aren't they both in the same type of space, no longer growing, no longer opened to life and all its possibilities, totally stuck?

The current version of a successful expert in any given field is someone who has reached the apex of knowledge. We don't dare question these people for fear of being shot back to our rightful place or of having our own ignorance harshly revealed to all. Too often when we meet an expert our experience of them is of a closed individual, too often unable to authentically work with others who they think may not be equal in category; in essence they have stopped growing and have become closed to change, closed to being affected, sadly stuck. Most of us, I'm sure, have experienced trying to argue with a doctor's decision, a contentious conversation at best.

I propose a different, 21st century definition for an expert. The definition of an expert should be someone who has honed down a system of soaking up knowledge in their field from every incident, every conversation, every experience that all of life then becomes a rich ground for learning and making more infinite connections. In this definition of an expert, the knowledge base can be multiplied over the years without a finite end. We all have met these amazing forms of experts too. I aim to find these experts in the field of education and education policy and learn all I can from them. People that make me want to grow, be more open and live and rise to higher frequencies.

So to quitters and experts alike I say, 'never quit, don't give up' (on growing from within).

Linda Darling-Hammond.....my new education policy guru

On The Future of Education I heard an amazing interview with Linda Darling-Hammond. If ever there was a person I would most aspire to be like in the education world it's her! She is the author of the book, The Flat World and Education. How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future and here again is a book I ordered on Amazon. I think I need to stop listening to these interviews I would save a lot of money.

She also wrote another book about 20 years ago called The Right to Learn.

Here are my notes from the interview and my reactions. Please be advised that some quotes come directly from the author.

* Linda states that today schools are run from the outside 'by remote control'. She states that while this is 'well intentioned, quite a lot of it (policy) gets in the way' more than help.

* She labels today's school system as a 'test and punish paradigm' and asks how do we create a setting when students can be supported, where teachers and parents can collaborate on students' behalf.

* Linda believe that schools exists within an extreme inequality in opportunity. The Dilemma, she explains is that 'politics does not do a good job with complex issues'. We continues that we look for a federal level policy for answers yet, that can't be done at that large level. There is a tremendous need to individualize what is done at the level of the school to make sure it's appropriate for that population and that cannot be addressed from above. Policy, she further explains, is 'standardized and unable to handle differentiation and nuance'. For example, policy make it difficult for professionals to do their job for with all types of restrictions they do not feel trusted.

Better way to meet students....than try to figure out the one right way....

* In her Book, Right to Learn Linda describes why progressive educational philosophy demand infinitely skilled teachers which is not sustainable in the long run. She writes in the book that the systems are not organized to fuel reforms over the long haul for there is a tremendous widening inequality to schools. She offers an example of how is a school comes up with a solution, then others try to replicate it, yet, with no support, the ideas 'crash and burn'

** Linda addresses what she called 'popcorn reform' movements. In which systems changes course very often. She compares this approach to education policy to other countries who got it right and demonstrates how other countries adopt one system and improve upon it for 26-30 years giving the whole system more stability and trust on the side of teachers. She attributes this behavior as part of the 'disposable culture that characterizes US, and our failure to invest systematically' in one idea.

** She is very strong on the idea that in order for reform to work we need to investment in our teachers. She brings as an example the Teach For America program and claims that there are 'ideas about teaching that are just not fair to teachers'. She compares America to Singapore and in Singapore a teacher makes 3 to 4 times more than a beginning doctor in government service. In Singapore a teacher is very well trained for the work she will do. We (in America) have this idea as short term work in teaching, that a few weeks of training and a scripted curriculum will do. Instead of recruiting 2-3 year commitment teachers we should instead be focused on getting very bright people who want to make teaching a career.

** One of the most shocking revelation Linda shared and one that got me thinking were her views on teaching as a profession. She claims teaching is not a profession. She backs up her argument by listing 3 qualities of a Professionals.

1. A moral commitment to do what is best for client, not cheapest or the most expedient.

She says, 'we rely on engineers to know how to build a safe bridge even if they're working for county gov. who might like to cut corners.' Linda states that in some cases teachers are asked to do things that are actually malpractice. For example, a school board, or policy might decide on a new requirement and teachers would have to follow it and held to technical requirements that are not professionally well grounded.

2. Professionals have a knowledge based. shared by profession; a common denominator shared by all. Teachers do not have that. Teachers can come into teaching with no experience at all.

3. Last, professional take responsibility for the body of research and knowledge in their profession. Teachers are not able to take control of standards of practice in their field.

For these three reasons, Linda claims teaching is not a profession.

** Linda gives several suggestions for getting in track. (1) She suggests offering free high quality preparation for everyone who wants to teach in exchange for 4-5 years of service in a high need area/location. (2) She suggests that all curriculum be aimed at higher order

assessment that looks to improve not punish. She brings up the state of NJ as having achieved gains by equalized funding, offering coaching, etc.

Linda worries that multiple choice has become the curriculum and states that other countries lave less assessments, higher quality ways of assessing what students know, and they do not attach low quality test measures to their assessments. She warns not to make multiple choice standardized tests 'the tail that wags the dog.'

** Linda believes in putting teachers in position to work together to create solutions. She still believes that there needs to be area that are regulated from above, yet, it's important that decisions be made close to families communities for the purpose of individualizing to the local level. Teachers and parents know best what the needs are of their children. The system has to be engaged by those who are affected.

Kieran Egan on the nature of Knowledge

Kieran Egan was born in Clonmel, Ireland in 1942. He was brought up and educated in England. He read History (Hons.) at the University of London, graduating with a B.A. in 1966. He worked for a year as a Research fellow at the Institute for Comparative Studies in Kingston-upon-Thames and then moved to the USA to begin a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education at Stanford University. He worked concurrently as a consultant to the I.B.M. Corp. on adaptation of a programming method, called Structural Communication, to new computing systems. He completed his Ph.D. at Cornell University in 1972. His first job was at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, where he has remained ever since. He is the author of over 20 books, and co-author, editor, or co-editor of a few more. In 1991 he received the Grawemeyer Award in Education. In 1993 he was elected to the Royal Society of Canada, in 2000 he was elected as Foreign Associate member to U.S. National Academy of Education, he received a Canada Research Chair in 2001, won the Whitworth Award in 2007. His main area of interest is education. His work focuses on a new educational theory, which he has developed during the past two decades, and its implications for a changed curriculum, teaching practices, and the institution of the school. His work deals both with innovative educational theory and detailed practical methods whereby implications of his theory can be applied at the classroom level. Various of his books have been translated into about 10 European and Asian languages. His recent books include Teaching as Story Telling and Imagination in Teaching and Learning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), The Educated Mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), Getting it Wrong from the Beginning: Our progressivist inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), An imaginative approach to teaching (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,2005), and Teaching literacy: Engaging the imagination of new readers and writers(Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2006), and most recently The Future of Education: Reimagining our schools from the ground up (New Haven: Yale University Press).

I am having a blast listening to all these authors on education on WWW.FutureonEducation.com. Egan has many controversial ideas about education. One of the quotes discussed in his interview is,

"Education is a contentious and unsatisfactory activity." That quote alone got me interested.

These notes below are from the interview, please note some ideas are quoted verbatim.

**Egan claims education is made up of three ideas that ultimately do not fit or work well together, the three ideas are:

1. School's purpose id to socialize children to the world we live in

2. Then there is the academic purpose/idea

3. And last there is the developmental aspect of education.

** Egan believes that the problem with these ideas is that they are mutually incompatible and that this incompatibility explains why education is hard to do

* Egan claims that we have typically looked at education as part of a balance. The idea being that if not able to be balanced then ultimately the compromise is the best solution. He says that these ideas are traditional ideas and they are not hacking it for us. He offers that we need to give up that each of these ideas for 3 bad ideas does necessarily make a good idea. He clarifies that confused ideas make for confused solutions.

** Egan is huge on developing of the imagination in children. He says that the world is wonderful and that it should not be so difficult to show kids that the world is wonderful. he has written several books about developing imagination.

** Egan likens education to the process of giving children tool kits. These tool kits can be anything from oral language, cognitive, storytelling skills, metaphor, images in mind to express ideas, sense of mystery, or story structure. He describes education equal to picking up as many tools as many as possible. he puts forth the idea of children choosing a topic each year and building on that topic over the year, so that in the next 12 years, every child will know as much on that topic as most people n the world.

** Egan out forth the imagination as crucial to children learning about the world around them. Yet, he claims the imagination can work only with what you know. The more you know the richer you can imagine.

** He became curious about education by asking questions such as why kids collect cards. He says there is very little out there about how children make sense of the world.

** Egan proposes that the problem of today's schools is that they do not get a sense of that wonder and asks "how you can make everyday teaching infused with wonder"

** In commenting on the PISA (international testing of industrialized countries) he says that we need to look on what is being tested. He says of course a child at a private school, where wealthy kids go, are doing superbly well on the 5 paragraph essay for they teach it to death. He says, of course, if the finite goal is measurable, it's not hard to reach the goal. He adds that in Singapore they do great on the tests, but that a great deal (of schools) is dreary beyond belief". He ends with saying that "This is a not an education triumph one we should be seeking to emulate." Oh! what a breath of fresh air this guy is. At this quote I made up my mind to buy one of his books.....I'm sold!!

** On questions about the role of technology in education, he says that "education is a conversation amongst generation, but that crucial to education is a conversation, face to face conversation is always going to be crucial to education."

** The most important message Egan left me with was his view on nature of knowledge. He proposes that no knowledge can be in books, on the Internet. He calls those things carrier of we 'codes'. He says books, Internet are invented ways we have found to express our knowledge. He says that the only source of knowledge is in human mind. He says schools often confuse codes and knowledge. "We see as satisfactory the repeat of certain kinds of codes are rewarded. We reward people for something that could be meaningless. We accept code in place of knowledge. He sees the role of the teacher as needing to "resuscitate knowledge from code. Instead of getting kids to replicate code, to seek meaning."