I am grateful to a reader for alerting me to the work of Dr. Teresa Thayer Snyder, who is the superintendent of schools in Voorheesville, New York.
She is a hero of public education.
What makes her a hero? She speaks out clearly and fearlessly about children and education. She explains the work of the schools to parents and the community. She is patient and clear, not bombastic or defensive. She is wise and she shares her wisdom.
By telling the truth about teaching and learning and child development, she is a rebuke to the zany, unproven schemes of the “reform” movement.
These days, telling the truth is powerful.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Well, you get to set whatever standards you want for your honor role, but don’t count on making a favorable impression on those policymakers oath-sworn to meet the expectations of courts and the UN OHCHR.
Teachers’ unions assert (in court) a “compelling governmental interest in educating all of our children to function effectively in a multiracial, democratic society and realize their full intellectual and academic potential.”
Assuming good faith on the part of the unions, how will teachers demonstrate realization of students’ “full intellectual and academic potential?” Is VAM entirely off the table? Even without test-based teacher evaluation? How about VAM for buildings to encourage 360 degree evaluation of the central office and building leadership and peer-based assessment?
Has New York State ever made a good faith effort to realize students’ “full intellectual and academic potential?” Where is the model legislation to help make that happen? The Obama administration notes NY state’s efforts to prohibit “student discrimination based on a person’s actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientations, gender, or sex.” (Are varsity wrestling matches still legal?) Why does this concern for students not reach intellectual and academic potential?
It’s simply not enough to “speak out clearly and fearlessly about children and education.” Helping teachers live up to the claims made by their own unions would be a welcome demonstration of good faith.
Of course, teachers are very busy, under-resourced, and forced to fund obfuscation campaigns through through their own union publications. But a quick comparison shows one national union shares concern for students’ “full intellectual and academic potential” while another prefers fear mongering. Perhaps choice and competition would work best if union locals were free to pick their own state and local affiliates.
A little tank commander sarcasm is due here: “When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream, and shout.”
Who are you and what is your problem?
… what is your problem?
Thank you for your interest. I hope to encourage teachers to take greater interest in the commitments made on their behalf by union legal staff. It’s best if teachers work to live up to the claims made in court. Regarding problems, our mutual problem is pervasive civic ignorance. Perhaps you will recall those comments of Justice David Souter made available for Constitution Day.
You still did not identify yourself and your all consuming interest in civic literacy. Just as I would not expect you to take an all consuming interest in special education policy and the many associated issues, I am puzzled by your expectation that we would all be able to understand your reference to “Teachers’ unions assert (in court)…” What court ? Where? What union? What was the court case?