Sometimes, ed policy world feels like the jocks' table in the cafeteria--men tossing out stats, men wrestling with contrary views , men confidently making strong opinion plays and engaging in a little verbal back-slapping.
Who wouldn't want to add value to a child's education and life prospects? When you understand the clear, working definition of the numeric value being appended, however, the noble-sounding descriptor "value" feels a lot less...valuable.
Do elitist credentials improve the odds that teachers will be more effective? If so, there must be more to accomplished teaching than most people think.
Our kids--and our nation--deserve a better way to genuinely invest in public education than a 5% kickback on cargo shorts for missionary teachers.
It's become kind of hip to take potshots at the collective IQ of the teaching pool and teachers' training models. Are we going to pay for that, eventually?
Is it essential for a good teacher--the kind of teacher who will raise achievement in tough schools--to have fluent mastery of these common standards, assessments, curriculum benchmarks, 21st century skills, and so on...? Apparently, yes.
What did you learn in high school? Has it lasted 40 years? Why not?
Improving and investing in public education should never be a partisan issue. It's a vital economic issue and pigeonholing ed policy into partisan camps is moronic.
Can't handle outbursts? Do we send our special education students to virtual school instead?
Anybody else notice the striking similarities between the Race to the Top, Part Deux, and the traditional Miss America Pageant?