This statement is not accurate, and it assumes that the alternatives are wonderful, which is also not accurate. I have seen countless mediocre schools outside the “government” system. I have also seen some incredibly ignorant, shortsighted, and self-serving suggestions coming from some self-branded “reformers.”

I had the good fortune to go to an excellent public school, K-12. Not surprisingly, it was in a small town, and the educational system was well funded, with parents, teachers, and administrators who knew their kids, and cared.

The challenge in moving forward with meaningful improvement is to retain the good, from wherever it comes, while removing as much as possible of the bad, no matter the pressure to retain it.

And this, of course, assumes that consensus is possible about the “good” and the “bad”, and that once consensus is reached it can be articulated in a comprehensible way.

“I know I want my kids, and more importantly, kids who don’t have the advantages mine do to spend time learning with passionate, caring, nurturing adults who just exude a love of inquiry and problem solving and sharing and collaboration.”

Comment: Of the 23 teachers I had throughout my school years, three matched this description: a low-paid seventh grade teacher in a tiny (60 students) private school; a sixth grade music teacher in a public school; and the woman who taught me to read but had to buck the system by threatening to quit when it eliminated the instructional methods she’d had so much success with (the system was one of the top performing ones in the nation before the “reform” of its curricula; this teacher was given permission to conduct an “experimental” reading class in which she taught 2nd grade one year and 3rd the next, keeping the same students, of which I was one, for both years). Three out of 23 is better than a lot of kids ever experience.

On another note, there is danger (though not for yourself) when you advocate compulsory measures (public schooling) for the good of “other” kids — those who lack the advantages you’ve provided your own. You become embroiled in all manner of defining what is good for others — good enough to be shoved down their throats (coated with sugar, of course). Many low-income, “low opportunity” families are coming to resent the arrogance and presumption, not to mention compulsion (I’m not saying that applies to you), of the do-gooders who plan endless ways to rescue their children from them. Others have resigned their role as parents to the activists and make noise only to occasionally demand more, but for the most part they accept the sorry places in which we force them to incarcerate their children.

You write, “Not finding too much of that in “Common Core” which will, no doubt, soon lead to the “Common Test” which, no doubt, will be written by folks with a “Common Interest” in making money, deciding what’s right and wrong for everyone, and being able to say that they’ve “reformed” education.

Comment: How is the “Common Core” that terribly different from what’s already going on? Schools already cover a basic core of subjects and content that vary little from place to place. We already have stifling standardization and commonality. We already have a common interest in making money from the cash cow of public schooling. We already have an army of “interested parties” deciding what’s right and wrong for everyone – and it’s pretty much the same from one school to another. The jump to a common core curriculum would be a small one, hardly even noticeable.

Opportunity is critical. It hardly exists in most schools, and it exists even more rarely in inner city and many rural schools. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the really good teachers would reject the system, walk away from the government model (which, by the way, never was wonderful), and use their passion and talent to create actual opportunity?

Not realistic, many say. Why not? There are hundreds of thousands of people in our country creating all manner of opportunity and possibility in endless areas without fear of living outside the safety net of government benefits, guaranteed employment, and a customer base secured by force of law. Some of them even operate in the education field.

Part of this shift that we all keep talking about includes an assessment model that allows for multiple forms of performance-based assessment, one that allows the student to display competence in multiple modalities and circumstances. Single opportunity, single modality tests that measure memorization more so than performance and competency are more of the problem than the answer to ed reform.

Are we capable of a grander vision?

I just think that the struggle that we are all feeling here is so much bigger than we would like to admit sometimes. We desperately want to see changes, but not everyone is on board the same ship. Power seems to drives education policy as much as best practice (for lack of a better phrase). Those who have risen to the ranks of the powerful may not have the same progressive, democratic ideals that these discussions are founded on.

We need to celebrate the SLAs and continue to work at grassroots levels. We also need voices that reach the echelons of power. As Ric points out, we (in general) need to stop being so polite and passive in this discussion. We need those with these convictions to put discussion into practice at all levels.