Sunday, May 24, 2015

Seattle Schools Community Forum: What Do You Think?

Seattle Schools Community Forum: What Do You Think?:

Seattle Schools Community Forum: What Do You Think?



 I saw this video from Creative Evolution; it's called The Truth About School (in a two-minute video).  


I think that it is simplistic and probably less-than-accurate about all public education because I don't agree all schools are doing this.  But I do think that our country is still stuck on many issues around public education.

That's the funny thing - if you don't like the current ed reform ideas, you're "for the status quo."  Nope.  But there are other things that need to happen but the problem is that basically there's a lot of busy "look at what we got done" in public education, rather than "look at the outcomes for these students."  You can "do" a lot and it may not help kids (especially when some people seem more interesting in their resume than actual outcomes). 

But I think this two-minute video does start a conversation.

Based on your experience with public education so far, tell us this:


1) what is one thing from your own education that you wish was in your child's school?
2) name 1-3 things you'd get rid of in public education
3) name 1-3 things you'd add (if public ed in WA state was fully funded)
4) what is one thing that you believe would truly help your student's teacher(s)?
5) what is your biggest worry - today - about your child's education?
6) what is your biggest worry - today - about
Seattle Schools Community Forum: What Do You Think?:





Education reformers have it all wrong: Accountability from above never works, great teaching always does - Salon.com

Education reformers have it all wrong: Accountability from above never works, great teaching always does - Salon.com:

Education reformers have it all wrong: Accountability from above never works, great teaching always does

Common Core or No Child Left Behind -- reformers always try to manage change from above. It fails & hurts our kids





In late 2001, three months after the September 11 attacks, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed both House and Senate with strong bipartisan majorities and was signed by a Republican president. Promising to use the power of the state to ensure that all children were proficient in reading and math by 2014, proponents heralded the act as the greatest piece of federal education legislation since the creation of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. By requiring the states to set high standards, pairing them with assessments that measured whether students were achieving those standards, and holding schools accountable if students failed to do so, NCLB, in the eyes of its sponsors, would close achievement gaps and make America’s schools the envy of the world.
A decade later, the bloom is off the rose. While almost everyone today continues to share the aim of leaving no child behind, the act itself has come in for criticism from many quarters, to the point that Bush’s former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings declared that NCLB is now a “toxic brand” in American politics.  Careful studies of the implementation of NCLB have shown that it has done what less bullish observers might have predicted from the outset. It has increased the focus on the education of poor and minority students, but it has not provided schools with needed tools to create higher quality schooling for these students. There has been improvement in some national test scores (e.g., 4th and 8th grade math), while others have remained largely unchanged (e.g., 4th and 8th grade reading ). Even accounting for the progress in math, there is no sign that the reforms have had a significant impact in closing achievement gaps or in improving America’s mediocre international educational standing. Particularly in the most troubled schools, there has been rampant teaching to the test and some outright cheating. In-depth studies have shown that some schools now devote a large part of their year to test prep; Atlanta and DC public schools have both contended with widespread cheating scandals. There are substantial concerns that simplistic testing is crowding out richer forms of learning. While reasonable people continue to disagree about the legacy and future of No Child Left Behind, there is broad agreement that it has not stimulated the kind of widespread improvement that we want and need for our schools.
This outcome might have been surprising if it were the first time policymakers tried to use standards, tests, and accountability to remake schooling from above. But NCLB was actually the third such movement. In the Progressive Era, newly empowered superintendents sought to use methods of rational administration, including early standards, tests, and accountability measures, to make schools more efficient and effective. In the 1960s and 1970s, newly empowered state departments of education sought to use state standards, assessments, and accountability to clarify goals and improve school performance. Not once, not twice, but three different times, school reformers have hit upon the same idea for how to remake American schools. The surprise is less that results have not met expectations than that we have repeatedly placed a high degree of faith in reforms promising to rationalize schools from above. After all, how many other policies were cochampioned by George W. Bush and Edward Kennedy?
This is about these repeated efforts to “order” schools from above. It seeks to answer a series of questions about these movements. Perhaps the most important question is the most basic: Why have American reformers repeatedly invested such high hopes in these instruments of control despite their track record of mixed results at best? What assumptions about human nature, individual psycholog y, organizational sociolog y, teachers, and students underlie these repeated efforts to “rationalize” schooling ? Politically, why have the recent movements triumphed despite the resistance of the strongest interest group in the arena, the teachers unions? Why do these movements draw support from both liberals and conservatives? In the most recent movement, why did a Republican president push for the most powerful version of this vision and in so doing buck the traditions of his own party and create the greatest expansion of the federal role in education in the country’s history? What have been the consequences of these rationalizing movements, not just for test scores, but for the teaching profession, for educational and social justice, and for the shape of the educational enterprise as a whole? And finally, if not rationalization of schools, then what? Is there an alternative that is more likely to yield the results that we seek?
How Schooling Was Rationalized over the Course of the 20th Century
In what follows, I tell the story of how schooling was rationalized over the course of the Education reformers have it all wrong: Accountability from above never works, great teaching always does - Salon.com:

Memorial Day: public schools, standardized tests, corporate profits and American values | Reclaim Reform

Memorial Day: public schools, standardized tests, corporate profits and American values | Reclaim Reform:

Memorial Day: public schools, standardized tests, corporate profits and American values

On Memorial Day those who sacrificed their lives for our country are honored for their sacrifices and their shared belief in American values.
—————————————————————
WWII kids
We did not sacrifice our lives for corporate profiteers and politicians who declare non-college ready children as failures.
——————————————————–
WWII landing
We did not sacrifice our lives for corporate profits for schools that deny access to every one of our children’s children’s children.
________________________________________
Vietnam soldier reading
I did not risk my life and watch my buddies die to have my children’s children labeled as Memorial Day: public schools, standardized tests, corporate profits and American values | Reclaim Reform:

Green Dot charter schools: A cautionary tale | Seattle Education

Green Dot charter schools: A cautionary tale | Seattle Education:

Green Dot charter schools: A cautionary tale

 Green Dot Founder Steve Barr, who is married to TFA Founder Wendy Kopp, created a mythology about his corporate charters that persists.
Green Dot Founder Steve Barr, who is married to TFA Founder Wendy Kopp, created a mythology about his corporate charters that persists.


 Green Dot Founder Steve Barr, who is married to TFA Founder Wendy Kopp, created a mythology about his corporate charters that persists.
Green Dot Founder Steve Barr, who is married to TFA Founder Wendy Kopp, created a mythology about his corporate charters that persists.
According to Melissa Westbrook over at the Seattle Schools Community Forum, Green Dot charter school is planning, with the help of Bill Gates, to open a charter school in West Seattle.
On the left margin of this page, you can find articles about Green Dot charter schools. Related Seattle Education posts include: Parent Trigger, Parent Revolution Ben Austin and his Parent Trigger now in Seattle The “school conversion” clause in Initiative 1240, the parent trigger and ALEC model legislation
One of the many problems with Green Dot, besides a high attrition rate that brings up their graduation rate, the way they scam low-income parents, many who are immigrants, to sign on to the school and their propensity for hiring Teach for America (TFA) recruits who are fresh out of college with unrelated degrees and given 5 weeks of training before putting them in a classroom and a lackluster academic track record, see 14 of 15 Green Dot schools are “failing,” by Parent Revolution’s definition, is their tendency of closing schools after a few years if things don’t work out for them.
See Taking on a Charter School Closing and What Happens When a Charter School Fails,
There is a particularly poignant story that Diane Ravitch published in 2013 that parents should read before signing onto Green Dot public charter school:

The Inside Story of a Green Dot Charter School
Green Dot Public Schools, Teacher Retention, and the Failure of Past Models
By Brett Wyatt
This is a story of a charter school in the Green Dot Public School system which, after four years of operation, is coming to an inglorious end. It is not an end to the system, or even to school itself, but an end in name and in so many exhausted careers used by Green Dot to experiment with failed policies in Watts, California.
The original Locke High School, like so many schools centered in poverty and neglect, had many systemic problems. Green Dot, a charter school system headed by Marco Petruzzi, requested to administer the school in 2008. The school was divided into 4 Green Dot charter schools: A cautionary tale | Seattle Education:




A Perfect Storm - | Issues around equity in education in New Orleans

New Orleans Education Equity Roundtable | Issues around equity in education in New Orleans:

A Perfect Storm Special Dispatch: Lagniappe Academies
In March 2015, the Recovery School District of Louisiana announced that it would close a small independent charter school called Lagniappe Academy for violations in how they treated children with special needs. This video shows the parents a couple of days be after hearing the news and being told they have a week to find another school.
This is an ongoing series called A Perfect Storm: The Takeover of New Orleans Public Schools

A Perfect Storm Part 2: The Illusion of Choice

A Perfect Storm: The Takeover of New Orleans Public Schools is a series of short videos, that reveals the real story behind the creation of the nation’s first all charter school district.
For the past nine years, state education officials and corporate school reformers have touted the dramatic turnaround of New Orleans public schools. National media outlets have published numerous articles and TV news stories of the miracle in New Orleans citing unprecedented academic achievement where parents finally had School Choice.
The first Perfect Storm video focuses on the illegal takeover and the academic failure of the Recovery School District. Part 2 explores the reality of an all charter district where parents no longer have neighborhood schools.
The film features interviews with community members and  leaders in the New Orleans education who were faced with the daunting task of reopening schools immediately following Hurricane Katrina.
We are looking to fund more short videos, followed by an hour-long documentary which will chronologically tell the story from 2005 – 2015.

A Perfect Storm Part 1: 17 Days in November

A Perfect Storm: The Takeover of New Orleans Public Schools is the first in a series of short videos, that reveals the real story behind the creation of the nation’s first all charter school district. These videos are made possible with the support of  The Schott Foundation and The New Orleans Education Equity Roundtable. They are produced in partnership with Bayou and Me Productions.
For the past seven years, state education officials and corporate school reformers have touted the dramatic turnaround of New Orleans public schools. National media outlets have published numerous articles and TV news stories of the miracle in New Orleans citing unprecedented academic achievement where parents finally had School Choice.
This first Perfect Storm video focuses on the illegal takeover and the academic failure of the Recovery School District. The film features interviews with leaders in the New Orleans education community who were faced with the daunting task of reopening schools immediately following Hurricane Katrina.

International Actions To Resist Commercialization Of Education | PopularResistance.Org

International Actions To Resist Commercialization Of Education | PopularResistance.Org:

International Actions To Resist Commercialization Of Education



1polish
Above photo: Student protest at the University of Warsaw. Photo by Michaล‚ Wende.

Polish Students are not Alone!

The student protests at the University of Warsaw joined a larger wave of international student actions that are resisting the commercialization of education.
The student protests of the past days at the University of Warsaw are not an isolated event; they join a larger wave of international student actions that are resisting the commercialization of education.
Earlier this year in Quebec, thousands of students went on strike over cuts to education in the Canadian province, thus echoing the mass student protests of the ‘Maple Spring’ of 2012, which had been aimed against the increase in university tuition fees. High tuition fees, the ongoing marketization of higher education, and austerity measures have also been the focus of ongoing protests in the UK, which resulted in the occupation of several universities in London and elsewhere in the country throughout recent months. In Amsterdam, students opposed cuts that targeted the humanities in particular. These protests were thus united in their rejection of austerity as a viable framework for the future development of higher education.
What these protests further share is the fear that the autonomy of higher education is at risk, whether through ongoing pressures on universities to drive for financial profit rather than providing a space for free and open thought, or through increased government control of universities regardless of the wishes of students themselves, as in the case of Macedonia. That the student voice is not being heard in Parliament is also one of the major concerns of students in Warsaw. In Chile, sustained pressure on the government over a number of years has finally resulted in the introduction of free higher education. Elsewhere, gains have been more modest, though not without success altogether. At the London School of Economics, for instance, university management made a number of concessions to student demands as a result of their occupation in April.
That the student voice is not being heard in Parliament is one of the major concerns of students in Warsaw.The decisions of students to rally have developed independently of one another in various countries as a response to local issues. Yet a certain level of communication and solidarity is apparent in the adoption of the red square as a symbol for student protests; first donned by students in Quebec in 2005, the small squares of red felt were also worn by students in Amsterdam earlier this year and at the occupations of British universities. The #redsquareeverywhere campaign is encouraging people internationally to show their support for the idea of open and free education by painting a red square in public spaces.
Whether or not Polish students choose to appropriate this symbol as well, they can be sure that many of their peers in other countries share similar concerns about the direction in which their universities are heading with an equal degree of urgency. Only yesterday, students went into occupation at the University of Manchester as a reaction to the prospect of five more years of austerity and funding cuts with the newly-elected conservative government in Britain. The language of their demands has been remarkably similar to their Polish counterparts: ‘We are occupying to begin to create a space where we are more than customers, and education is more than a business’. Polish students, you are not alone.

Student Demands for Democratic Control over Universities

By Joss Winn in JossWinn.org
These notes are the start of an ongoing attempt to document each instance where occupying students or/and academics include greater democratic governance among their demands from university management (and where they don’t, why?). My gut feeling is that forms of self-management and worker control (among whom I include students) is increasingly becoming a key demand when students go into occupation. There is a International Actions To Resist Commercialization Of Education | PopularResistance.Org

Beware Grade-Level Reading and the Cult of Proficiency | the becoming radical

Beware Grade-Level Reading and the Cult of Proficiency | the becoming radical:

Beware Grade-Level Reading and the Cult of Proficiency





 Few issues in education seem more important or more universally embraced (from so-called progressive educators to right-wing politicians such as Jeb Bush) than the need to have all children reading on grade level—specifically by thatmagical third grade:

Five years ago, communities across the country formed a network aimed at getting more of their students reading proficiently by the end of 3rd grade. States, cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, and foundations in 168 communities, spread across 41 states and the District of Columbia, are now a part of that initiative, theCampaign for Grade-Level Reading.
However, advocating that all students must read at grade level—often defined as reading proficiency—rarely acknowledges the foundational problems with those goals: identifying text by a formula claiming “grade level” and then identifying children as readers by association with those readability formulas.
This text, some claim, is a fifth-grade text, and thus children who can “read” that text independently are at the fifth-grade reading level.
While all this seems quite scientific and manageable, I must call hokum—the sort of technocratic hokum that daily ruins children as readers, under-prepares children as literate and autonomous humans, and further erodes literacy as mostly testable literacy.
So who does this grade-level reading and proficiency benefit?
First, lets consider what anyone means by “reading.” For the sake of discussion, this is oversimplified, but I think, not distorting to the point of misleading. Reading may be essentially decoding, pronouncing words, phrases, and clauses with enough fluency to give the impression of understanding. Reading may be comprehension, strategies and then behaviors or artifacts by a reader that mostly represent (usually in different and fewer words) an accurate or mostly Beware Grade-Level Reading and the Cult of Proficiency | the becoming radical:

Russ on Reading: Putting the Student and Teacher at the Center of Reading Instruction

Russ on Reading: Putting the Student and Teacher at the Center of Reading Instruction:

Putting the Student and Teacher at the Center of Reading Instruction

Take a moment and look at the chart below and ask yourself, “As a teacher and/or parent which of these two approaches to learning to read would I want for my students/children?”




Contrasting Approaches to Reading Instruction


1
2
Instructional Material
Self-selected multicultural literature
Prescribed reading material

Instructional Approach
Teaching for individual strengths & needs
One-size-fits all reading programs
Assessment of Performance
Authentic, teacher based assessment
High stakes standardized testing
Curriculum Design
Collaborative student-centered curriculum
Standards-based curriculum
Teacher Role in Instruction
Teacher as reflective practitioner
Mandated instruction
Purpose of Instruction
Achieving social justice and equity
Achieving global competitiveness

I think most of us would select #1. The first choice seems more student friendly, includes a wider variety of reading materials and empowers teachers to make instructional decisions based on the needs of the children in the seats in front of them.

Now let me label the two approaches to reading instruction.


Whole Language
Corporate Education “Reform”
Instructional Material
Self-selected multicultural literature
Prescribed reading material

Instructional Approach
Teaching for individual strengths & needs
One-size-fits all reading programs
Assessment of Performance
Authentic, teacher based assessment
High stakes standardized testing
Curriculum Design
Collaborative student-centered curriculum
Standards-based curriculum
Teacher Role in Instruction
Teacher as reflective practitioner
Mandated instruction
Purpose of Instruction
Achieving social justice and equity
Achieving global competitiveness

You might be thinking, “Wait a minute you fooled me. Isn’t whole language a discredited approach to teaching reading?” In many ways you would be right. Whole language approaches to teaching reading have been under attack almost from the moment they became prominent as a way of teaching in the 1980s. The reason whole language was discredited makes for compelling reading on its own.

Garn Press under the leadership of literacy researcher and family literacy Russ on Reading: Putting the Student and Teacher at the Center of Reading Instruction:

Jersey Jazzman: Standardized Tests: Symptoms, Not Causes

Jersey Jazzman: Standardized Tests: Symptoms, Not Causes:

Standardized Tests: Symptoms, Not Causes



Let's talk about tests for a bit:

All standardized tests, by design, yield "normal" or bell curve distributions:



You sometimes hear quanty folks say: "God loves the normal distribution." In this case, however, man is creating God in his own image, because the tests are designed to yield this distribution of scores.



In a normal distribution, most students get average scores: that's why the highest point in the curve is in the middle. As we move to the right from the middle, the test scores go up, but fewer and fewer students get those higher scores. Likewise, as we move to the left from the center, fewer students get the lowest scores.

How does this happen? Well, to start, and as testing expert Daniel Koretz has explained, we only test students on what we reasonably expect them to be able to do. We don't test fourth graders on trigonometry because we know most of them can't solve those kind of problems and wouldn't be able to even if we drilled them on it repeatedly. Similarly, we don't test high school juniors on adding one-digit numbers because we know that would be too easy.

Are there fourth graders that know the difference between a sine and a cosine? Are there juniors who can't add 5 and 4? Of course there are, but we know they are far away from the norm; we don't set our standards based on these outliers. Because we like to see
- See more at: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2015/05/standardized-tests-symptoms-not-causes.html#sthash.KPPj8HD7.dpuf



Children and Literacy Be Damned | educarenow

Children and Literacy Be Damned | educarenow:
Children and Literacy Be Damned




 Education Trust, and its Midwest component, is at it again.  This Gates backed foundation just released a report pointing out that “the trajectory” of Michigan’s education system has Michigan headed to a state ranking of 44th in the country in 4th grade reading by 2030.  In an article on this report, the Detroit News fails to write where the state of Michigan is in the year 2015, but I guess that is much less newsworthy, though it would (at least seemingly accurately) show our present condition.

However, to do so would be to undermine the true purpose of these reports.
The fact of the matter is that these reports put out by Education Trust are not meant to be accurate representations of the current state of education. They are meant to raise alarms and to paint our schools as failing.  
But, before going there, let’s take a closer look at this supposed reading issue. In“Beware Grade Level Reading”and the Cult of Proficiency,” Paul Thomas points out that standardized testing necessarily limits what we mean by “reading.” Thus, the “data” that Midwest Education Trust uses for its report has already bastardized the real life experience and purposes of actual reading.
“…advocating that all students must read at grade level—often defined as reading proficiency—rarely acknowledges the foundational problems with those goals: identifying text by a formula claiming “grade level” and then Children and Literacy Be Damned | educarenow:

Our K-12 Policies Resemble Those of Imperial Japan - Education Week

Our K-12 Policies Resemble Those of Imperial Japan - Education Week:

Our K-12 Policies Resemble Those of Imperial Japan

Image result for EDUCATION WEEK


Year after year, students from Japan are at the top of the charts in international comparisons of student achievement, particularly in mathematics and science. In addition to their high achievement, Japanese students seem to be compliant and cooperative in school. According to a 2013 report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Japan has "the best disciplinary climate among students in all other OECD countries."
What is not as widely known is that, after the end of World War II, the United States helped Japan create a new K-12 education system. The Report of the United States Education Mission to Japan, published by the U.S. State Department in 1946, explicates the flaws of Imperial Japan's system of education and outlines a detailed plan for the future "based on the recognition of the worth and dignity of the individual."
In the foreword to the book, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the commander of allied forces in the Pacific and then directing the reconstruction of Japan, states that the report is "a document of ideals high in the democratic tradition." In particular, its American authors excoriate the old Japanese regime for its mistaken beliefs about education. The system the Japanese built, they write, was conceptually flawed:
• It presumed "a fixed quantum of knowledge to be absorbed, and tended to disregard differences of ability and interest among students."
• It established that "the measure of efficiency was the degree to which standardization and uniformity was secured."
• And it "lessened the opportunities for teachers to exercise their professional freedom."
What is most surprising about the 1946 Mission Report is that the educational practices of Imperial Japan, which the report's American authors characterized as "malicious," are strikingly similar to recent reforms enacted in the United States.
—iStockphoto
Breadth of Curriculum. According to the report, the old Japanese educational system was overly reliant on a fixed curriculum and failed to prepare students for the real world. About the prevalence of high-stakes testing, the report states: "A system of education that is dominated by preparation for examinations becomes formal and stereotyped; it makes for conformity on the part of teachers and students. It stifles freedom of inquiry and critical judgment."
Of course, the American educational system today is predicated upon high-stakes exams that may have little relevance to the real world. In his 2001 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the aim of this new brand of American education should revolve around test performance.
"They talk about 'teaching to the test,'" Mr. Bush said. "But let's put that logic to the test. If you test a child on basic math and reading skills, and you're 'teaching to the test,' you're teaching math and reading. And that's the whole idea."
Frequent testing, it turns out, is of negligible value, though it consumes inordinate amounts of instructional time, as ever more hours, days, and weeks are devoted to "practice tests" and test-taking strategies.
Today in American classrooms, any lesson, discussion, or event that does not directly correlate to a test is viewed as problematic. Indeed, the solution for continued low test-score performance has become the threat of a state takeover, in which the fixed curriculum becomes petrified—in the form of scripted lessons and a doubling-down on test preparation.
Standardization and Uniformity. Across the United States, superintendents, school administrators, and department chairs enthusiastically announce that they have aligned the curriculum so that they know precisely the material that every teacher in every class will cover every day. These school officials are enthusiastic because uniformity is what gets rewarded under the current American system. It does not matter that a particular class might be teeming with kids who have IQs above 130, or is crowded with children who emigrated from Haiti last week. The curriculum must be followed, regardless of the students who might actually be sitting in the seats. When the curriculum is standardized, the needs of students become superfluous.
The 1946 Mission Report notes that a good curriculum is not standardized, but "must start with the interests of the pupils." No curriculum, it says, is "valid under all circumstances, irrespective of the environment and abilities of pupils."
Uniformity is a poor strategy for developing human potential. Learning how to solve a quadratic equation, run the steeplechase, sew a blouse, camp in the wilderness, and understand literature have inherent degrees of difficulty, and typically, students are at different places on the road to mastery at different points in time. To maximize efficiency and to maintain student interest, the ideal starting point for learning is where the student happens to be, not where the curriculum guide commands.
According to the report, "Teaching methods emphasizing memorization [and] conformity ... should be modified to encourage independent thinking, the development of personality, and the rights and responsibilities of democratic citizenship."
Opportunities for Teachers. The most strongly worded exhortations in the Mission Report involve the role of Japanese teachers, who, during World War II, were poorly paid and were ordered by the government to extol national supremacy, to valorize military service, and to encourage blind self-sacrifice. "The effects of the old regime are manifest in the teaching practices," chides the report. "Teachers have been told exactly what to teach and how to teach it."
Similarly, American teachers today have precious little autonomy, perhaps less than at any other time in history. Yet, to improve the quality of teachers in future Japanese schools, the report implores that "to do their best work, [teachers] must have freedom to think, speak, and act. They must have security in their positions, reasonable salaries, and adequate retirement provisions."
MORE OPINION
The Japanese government eventually passed legislation specifying that salaries for teachers be set at the highest possible level. As a result, the salaries for beginning engineers and beginning teachers in Japan are about the same. Japanese teachers must teach for a year under a mentor teacher, and continually engage in professional development, which is paid for by the government.
In most states in this country, teacher pay is low, requirements for certification are widely varied, and expectations for paid and facilitated professional development are almost nil.
Unquestionably, Japan's post-World War II educational experiment, based on democratic values, has flourished. Today, Japan has one of the strongest education systems in the world. On the other hand, the United States, which used to have one of the strongest education systems in the world, has reverted to the practices of pre-World War II Imperial Japan. Not only has America borrowed Imperial Japan's discredited educational practices, but these "malicious practices" have also become the cornerstone for education reform in the 21st century.
American education could improve, at absolutely no cost, if we took our own advice from 1946 and rid ourselves of the autocratic, misanthropic, and illogical policies of the past. A return to democratic ideals would mean:
• Appreciating the differences among students;
• Teaching the child, not the curriculum; and
• Giving teachers the freedom to teach.
Japan changed its outdated system of education in 1946. Perhaps the United States can change its outdated system in 2015. After years of repression and regimentation, with disastrous results, it is time to give American public education back to the people.