Culturally Responsive Teaching by Z.Hammond my Reflections on Chapter 1 & 2

Culturally Responsive Teaching Reflection on Hammond Chapter 1

After reading the first Chapter, I was inspired as an A.Principal of Middle School to reach out to My literacy coach and tackle Chapter 1. I hope we can have meaningful dialogue around the framework as well as the importance of diving in.

Framework from Ch. 1 here:

http://ready4rigor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/READY-FOR-RIGOR_Final1.pdf

Quote from Chapter 2:

P.31
"Over time, because of structural racialization in education, we have seen a new type of intellectual apartheid happening in schools, creating dependent learners who cannot access the curriculum and independent learners who have had the opportunity to build the cognitive skills to deep learning on their own. Rather than stepping back, looking at the ways we structure inequity in education, and interrupting these practices, we simply focus on creating short-term solutions to get dependent students of color to score high on each year's standardized tests. We don't focus on building their intellective capacity so they they can begin to fill their own language gaps with proper scaffolding."

- I find this quote resonated deeply with me.  I feel like the individualist values I've place in education in my own daughter in order to succeed has been huge.  She is definitely a part of this intellectual apartheid by the nature of me as an educator knowing how to play the game of education so it benefits her in the long run. As I see what this means for me as an Educational leader, I grapple with the deficit model thinking I encounter among educators and how the reinforce this thinking when teaching becomes ultra-challenging in their classroom. Blaming the student or family vs. having to rethink their own practices.

http://ready4rigor.com/

http://ready4rigor.com/

NEA President: We Need a Course Correction on Common Core

February 19, 2014 by twalker  
Filed under Common Core State Standards, Featured News, Top Stories

25 Comments

By Dennis Van Roekel

During my 23 years as a high school math teacher, I learned some important lessons.  One of the most important was that effective teaching and learning required me at times to be the teacher and at other times, the student. I listened closely to my students because they were the ones who told me what was working and what wasn’t.  I don’t believe I am any different than any other NEA member—we all want the best for every student in our classrooms and schools.

So when 45 states adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), we as educators saw the wonderful potential of these standards to correct many of the inequities in our education system that currently exist.  Educators embraced the promise of providing equal access to high standards for all students, regardless of their zip code or family background.

We believed the standards would help students develop the critical thinking and problem-solving skillsthey need to succeed in the fast-changing world.  NEA members overwhelmingly supported the goals of the standards because we knew they could provide a better path forward for each and every student. The promise of these high standards for all students is extraordinary.  And we owe it to our students to fulfill that promise.

As educators, we also had high hopes that our policymakers would make an equal commitment to implement the standards correctly by providing students, educators, and schools with the time, supports, and resources that are absolutely crucial in order to make changes of this magnitude to our education system.

So over the last few months I have done what my students and fellow educators have taught me:  I have been listening closely. I have joined our state leaders in member listening sessions around the country, observed dozens of member focus groups, and invited hundreds of thousands of NEA members to share their views about how CCSS implementation is going.

I am sure it won’t come as a surprise to hear that in far too many states, implementation has been completely botched.  Seven of ten teachers believe that implementation of the standards is going poorly in their schools. Worse yet, teachers report that there has been little to no attempt to allow educators to share what’s needed to get CCSS implementation right.  In fact, two thirds of all teachers report that they have not even been asked how to implement these new standards in their classrooms.

Imagine that:  The very people expected to deliver universal access to high quality standards with high quality instruction have not had the opportunity to share their expertise and advice about how to make CCSS implementation work for all students, educators, and parents.

Consequently, NEA members have a right to feel frustrated, upset, and angry about the poor commitment to implementing the standards correctly.

So, where do we go from here?

NEA has been called upon to oppose the standards.  It would be simpler just to listen to the detractors from the left and the right who oppose the standards.  But scuttling these standards will simply return us to the failed days of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), where rote memorization and bubble tests drove teaching and learning.  NEA members don’t want to go backward; we know that won’t help students.  Instead, we want states to make a strong course correction and move forward.

Not surprisingly, as a math teacher I have some strong views about the proper sequence of things—not only in my classroom, but also when it comes to implementing this kind of systemic change in public education.  Start with high standards, create a curriculum that supports them, then focus on assessments that are aligned to what is taught and that really measure learning, then evaluate progress in teaching and learning, and finally pledge to make continuous adjustments to improve teaching and learning for each and every student.

So the first step is for policymakers to treat teachers as professionals and listen to what we know is needed.  Give us the resources and time—time to learn the standards, collaborate with each other, develop curriculum that is aligned to the standards, and time to field-test the standards in classrooms to determine what works and what needs adjustment.  We also need the financial resources for updated textbooks and fully aligned teaching and learning materials.

Second, work with educators—not around us—to determine how to properly use assessments in classrooms across America.  It’s beyond me how anyone would ask teachers to administer tests that have no relation whatsoever to what they have been asked to teach.  In too many states, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Old tests are being given, but new and different standards are being taught.  How on earth does that give any teacher, student, or parent information that is relevant to what they need to know or how they can improve?  Why would we waste valuable learning time for students?  And, then, to make matters worse, many states are proceeding to use these invalid test results as the basis for accountability decisions.

This is not ‘accountability’—it’s malpractice.

In states that have made a commitment to involving teachers up front and providing teachers with the time, training, and resources they need to make the standards work, educator support for the standards is strong.

So if better teaching and learning is our goal, then policymakers need to implement educators’ common sense recommendations to get implementation on track:

1. Governors and chief state school officers should set up a process to work with NEA and our state education associations to review the appropriateness of the standards and recommend any improvements that might be needed.

2. Common Core implementation plans at the state and local levels must be collaboratively developed, adequately resourced, and overseen by community advisory committees that include the voices of students, parents, and educators.

3. States and local school districts must place teachers at the center of efforts to develop aligned curriculum, assessments, and professional development that are relevant to their students and local communities.

4. States must eliminate outdated NCLB-mandated tests that are not aligned with the new standards and not based on what is being taught to students in the classroom.

5. States must actively engage educators in the field-testing of the new assessments and the process for improving them.

6. In any state that is field-testing and validating new assessments, there must be a moratorium on using the results of the new assessments for accountability purposes until at least the 2015-2016 school year. In the meantime, states still have other ways to measure student learning during this transition period—other assessments, report cards, and student portfolios.

7. Stakeholders must develop complete assessment and accountability systems. It takes more than one piece of evidence to paint a picture of what students are learning. Testing should be one way to inform effective teaching and learning—not a way to drive it.

I know that NEA members are committed to seeing the promise of the standards fulfilled. But we can’t do it alone.  Elected officials, school administrators, and other stakeholders are part of the accountability system, too, and that means stepping up and accepting more responsibility to get CCSS implementation right. There’s too much at stake for our children and our country to risk getting this wrong.

Visit nea.org/commoncore for more information and resources.

Related Posts:
Educators Being Heard on Common Core Implementation
Common Ground on Common Core
Lesson Sharing Network Launched by NEA and BetterLesson

Tags: common core Dennis Van Roekel, common core implementation, common core NEA, common core standards

The Trouble with the Common Core BY THE EDITORS OF RETHINKING SCHOOLS

Login | Join

• HOME
• ABOUT
• MAGAZINE
• BOOKS
• SUBSCRIBE
• ARCHIVE
• SUPPORT US
• ADVERTISE
• CONTACT
• FUN
• CART

 

Home > Archives > Volume 27 No.4 - Summer 2013

SUBSCRIBE ONLINE & SAVECurrent issue pdf just $4.95. Subscribe

PrintShare

CONTENTS
Vol. 27, No.4
Summer 2013

COVER THEME: PERFORMANCE TEST FOR NEW TEACHERS — A FORUM ON THE EDTPA

The Role of Performance Assessment in Developing Teaching as a Profession

BY LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND AND MARIA E. HYLER

Wrong Answer to the Wrong Question • Why we need critical teacher education, not standardization

BY BARBARA MADELONI AND JULIE GORLEWSKI

What's a Nice Test Like You Doing in a Place Like This? • EdTPA and corporate education “reform”

BY WAYNE AU

OTHER FEATURES

Our Grandparents' Civil Rights Era • Family letters bring history to life

BY WILLOW MCCORMICK

Stealing Home • Eminent domain, urban renewal, and the loss of community

BY LINDA CHRISTENSEN

Rethinking the Day of Silence

BY ADRIANA MURPHY

“Coal Poisons Everything It Touches” • Coal, climate, and the future of the Earth

BY BILL BIGELOW

Ban the Box! • A role play on mass incarceration

BY ANDY PECK

DEPARTMENTS

Editorial

The Trouble with the Common Core

BY THE EDITORS OF RETHINKING SCHOOLS

Action Education

School Closures Rock Philadelphia

BY HELEN GYM

Short Stuff

Update from Seattle: Test Boycott Victory

Crisis at City College of San Francisco

Good Stuff

Navigating Gender and Sexuality

BY KALEI SABARATNAM

Resources

Our picks for books, videos, websites, and other social justice education resources.

Got an idea for an article? Got a letter for us? Contact Jody Sokolower: jody@
rethinkingschools.org

The Trouble with the Common Core

BY THE EDITORS OF RETHINKING SCHOOLS PURCHASE A PDF OF THIS ARTICLE

Ethan Heitner

It isn't easy to find common ground on the Common Core. Already hailed as the “next big thing” in education reform, the Common Core State Standards are being rushed into classrooms in nearly every district in the country. Although these “world-class” standards raise substantive questions about curriculum choices and instructional practices, such educational concerns are likely to prove less significant than the role the Common Core is playing in the larger landscape of our polarized education reform politics.

We know there have been many positive claims made for the Common Core:

• That it represents a tighter set of smarter standards focused on developing critical learning skills instead of mastering fragmented bits of knowledge.
• That it requires more progressive, student-centered teaching with strong elements of collaborative and reflective learning.
• That it equalizes the playing field by raising expectations for all children, especially those suffering the worst effects of the “drill and kill” test prep norms of the recent past.

We also know that many creative, heroic teachers are seeking ways to use this latest reform wave to serve their students well. Especially in the current interim between the rollout of the standards and the arrival of the tests, some teachers have embraced the Common Core as an alternative to the scripted commercial formulas of recent experience, and are trying to use the space opened up by the Common Core transition to do positive things in their classrooms.

We'd like to believe these claims and efforts can trump the more political uses of the Common Core project. But we can't.

For starters, the misnamed “Common Core State Standards” are not state standards. They're national standards, created by Gates-funded consultants for the National Governors Association (NGA). They were designed, in part, to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum, hence the insertion of the word “state” in the brand name. States were coerced into adopting the Common Core by requirements attached to the federal Race to the Top grants and, later, the No Child Left Behind waivers. (This is one reason many conservative groups opposed to any federal role in education policy oppose the Common Core.)

Written mostly by academics and assessment experts—many with ties to testing companies—the Common Core standards have never been fully implemented and tested in real schools anywhere. Of the 135 members on the official Common Core review panels convened by Achieve Inc., the consulting firm that has directed the Common Core project for the NGA, few were classroom teachers or current administrators. Parents were entirely missing. K–12 educators were mostly brought in after the fact to tweak and endorse the standards—and lend legitimacy to the results.

The standards are tied to assessments that are still in development and that must be given on computers many schools don't have. So far, there is no research or experience to justify the extravagant claims being made for the ability of these standards to ensure that every child will graduate from high school “college and career ready.” By all accounts, the new Common Core tests will be considerably harder than current state assessments, leading to sharp drops in scores and proficiency rates.

We have seen this show before. The entire country just finished a decade-long experiment in standards-based, test-driven school reform called No Child Left Behind. NCLB required states to adopt “rigorous” curriculum standards and test students annually to gauge progress towards reaching them. Under threat of losing federal funds, all 50 states adopted or revised their standards and began testing every student, every year in every grade from 3–8 and again in high school. (Before NCLB, only 19 states tested all kids every year, after NCLB all 50 did.)

By any measure, NCLB was a dismal failure in both raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes. But by very publicly measuring the test results against benchmarks no real schools have ever met, NCLB did succeed in creating a narrative of failure that shaped a decade of attempts to “fix” schools while blaming those who work in them. By the time the first decade of NCLB was over, more than half the schools in the nation were on the lists of “failing schools” and the rest were poised to follow.

In reality, NCLB's test scores reflected the inequality that exists all around our schools. The disaggregated scores put the spotlight on longstanding gaps in outcomes and opportunity among student subgroups. But NCLB used these gaps to label schools as failures without providing the resources or support needed to eliminate them.

The tests showed that millions of students were not meeting existing standards. Yet the conclusion drawn by sponsors of the Common Core was that the solution was “more challenging” ones. This conclusion is simply wrong. NCLB proved that the test and punish approach to education reform doesn't work, not that we need a new, tougher version of it. Instead of targeting the inequalities of race, class, and educational opportunity reflected in the test scores, the Common Core project threatens to reproduce the narrative of public school failure that has led to a decade of bad policy in the name of reform.

The engine for this potential disaster, as it was for NCLB, will be the tests, in this case the “next generation” Common Core tests being developed by two federally funded, multi-state consortia at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Although reasonable people, including many thoughtful educators we respect, have found things of value in the Common Core standards, there is no credible defense to be made of the high-stakes uses planned for these new tests.

The same heavy-handed, top-down policies that forced adoption of the standards require use of the Common Core tests to evaluate educators. This inaccurate and unreliable practice will distort the assessments before they're even in place and make Common Core implementation part of the assault on the teaching profession instead of a renewal of it. The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core's “college and career ready” performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.

This is not just cynical speculation. It is a reasonable projection based on the history of the NCLB decade, the dismantling of public education in the nation's urban centers, and the appalling growth of the inequality and concentrated poverty that remains the central problem in public education.

Nor are we exaggerating the potential for disaster. Consider this description from Charlotte Danielson, a highly regarded mainstream authority on teacher evaluation and a strong supporter of the Common Core:

I do worry somewhat about the assessments—I'm concerned that we may be headed for a train wreck there. The test items I've seen that have been released so far are extremely challenging. If I had to take a test that was entirely comprised of items like that, I'm not sure that I would pass it—and I've got a bunch of degrees. So I do worry that in some schools we'll have 80 percent or some large number of students failing. That's what I mean by train wreck.

Reports from the first wave of Common Core testing are already confirming these fears. This spring students, parents, and teachers in New York schools responded to administration of new Common Core tests developed by Pearson Inc. with a general outcry against their length, difficulty, and inappropriate content. Pearson included corporate logos and promotional material in reading passages. Students reported feeling overstressed and underprepared—meeting the tests with shock, anger, tears, and anxiety. Administrators requested guidelines for handling tests students had vomited on. Teachers and principals complained about the disruptive nature of the testing process and many parents encouraged their children to opt out.

Common Core has become part of the corporate reform project now stalking our schools. Unless we dismantle and defeat this larger effort, Common Core implementation will become another stage in the demise of public education. As schools struggle with these new mandates, we should defend our students, our schools, our communities, and ourselves by telling the truth about the Common Core. This means pushing back against implementation timelines and plans that set schools up to fail, resisting the stakes and priority attached to the tests, and exposing the truth about the commercial and political interests shaping and benefiting from this false panacea for the problems our schools face.

Rethinking Schools has always been skeptical of standards imposed from above. Too many standards projects have been efforts to move decisions about teaching and learning away from classrooms, educators, and school communities, only to put them in the hands of distant bureaucracies. Standards have often codified sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the voices, concerns, and realities of our students and communities. Whatever positive role standards might play in truly collaborative conversations about what our schools should teach and children should learn has been repeatedly undermined by bad process, suspect political agendas, and commercial interests.

Unfortunately there's been too little honest conversation and too little democracy in the development of the Common Core. We see consultants and corporate entrepreneurs where there should be parents and teachers, and more high-stakes testing where there should be none. Until that changes, it will be hard to distinguish the “next big thing” from the last one.  

More of artist Ethan Heitner's work can be seen at freedomfunnies.wordpress.com

Home | About | Site Map | Magazine | Books | Subscribe | Advertise | Donate | Support Us | Contact | Fun

© 2014 Rethinking Schools

Business office:
1001 E. Keefe Avenue,
Milwaukee, WI 53212

• Phone: (414) 964-9646
• Fax: (414) 964-7220
• Email: office@rethinkingschools.org

Orders:
PO Box 2222
82 Winter Sport Ln,
Williston, VT 05495

• Phone (US & Canada): (800) 669-4192
• Phone (International): (802) 862-0095 ext. 565
• Fax: (802) 864-7626
• Email: rts.orders@aidcvt.com

Walking In My Shoes

Final Paper

EDUC 403

12/9/13

Walking In My Shoes

“In thinking of America, I sometimes find myself admiring her bright blue sky—her grand old woods—her fertile fields—her beautiful rivers— her mighty lakes, and star-crowned mountains. But my rapture is soon checked, my joy is soon turned to mourning. When I remember that all is cursed with the infernal spirit of slaveholding, robbery and wrong,— when I remember that with the waters of her noblest rivers, the tears of my brethren are borne to the ocean, disregarded and forgotten, and that her most fertile fields drink daily of the warm blood of my outraged sisters, I am filled with unutterable loathing, and led to reproach myself that any thing could fall from my lips in praise of such a land. America will not allow her children to love her. She seems bent on compelling those who would be her warmest friends, to be her worst enemies. May God give her repentance before it is too late, is the ardent prayer of my heart. I will continue to pray, labor and wait, believing that she cannot always be insensible to the dictates of justice, or deaf to the voice of humanity.” – Frederick Douglas

            I start this paper with this quote knowing that I am part of the healing process this country needs to go through and that I relate deeply to Frederick Douglas’ love and loathing of this country.  Like him I find myself called to leadership to “labor and wait” for justice and humanity in education.  It is my stance that a spiritual renewal around leadership is needed and therefore I am using spiritual terms of growth (borrowed from my church, East Bay Church of Religious Science) This paper will use four stages of “spiritual growth” and how I have been contemplating their roles in my leadership growth.

To Me

By Me

As Me

Thru Me

“These are the four stages of our God in this life,” Reverand Eloise stated as I sat and listened with my congregation last month, on a Sunday early morning service.  This paper will reflect my understanding of my current educational leadership journey and how it has cycled in and out of leadership roles sometimes public and formal and some in the private shadows.  In this journey my relationship to “God” or “Higher Spirit” has always been my guide.  When thinking about leadership and education I felt I could only express it using these four stages to define my philosophy and beliefs about leadership. Through these stages I always found myself refocusing  on the context of the mission and purpose of schools and education.  Finally I hope to show in my concrete examples a working application of my understanding around human learning and the role of teaching in advancing that learning and how it is not only my current career and parental choice but one that is a spiritual choice as well.

“To me” phase

At one point I felt the educational system was happening to me, I had a victimized point of view.  Similar to the introductory quote from Fredrick Douglas, I felt for many years this country had wronged my people (Mexican, Native American and Irish) in a wide variety of ways.  For example, as a female student of color who came from a low income family, most of the time public schools and “the academy” was a struggle; socially, financially, culturally, and spiritually. However to me it was just a struggle to push under the rug.  I now see how wrong I was in trying to push my past behind me and to think I don’t bring that past to my current leadership especially to my educational leadership. 

As a public educator I became very frustrated when I felt that the system was starting to “happen to me” as a teacher and in an urban public school as well as to my daughter involved in that system.  As Sinclair and Wilson state in  New faces of leadership, “Outsiders” or Biculutralism in adaptive leadership bring those viewpoints and values to leadership practice; “identities which do not rest on membership of a single social group or tribe but are able to inhabit multiple groups and cultures without feeling threatened or paralyzed,” have a different lens of leadership. In this moment of not wanting to be a victim or have my daughter “suffer” a type of situation I went through  I decided to take on every type of leadership role SFUSD offered in my school site as well as outside.

“By Me” phase

In this phase where I decided to take on the system I never felt such frustration at times as well as supreme success.  I now realize after really looking at the various organizational frames I was trying to balance and juggle many roles.  Not only did I have an intention to keep people at the center of my choices specifically students and teachers, or teaching and learning, but I realize I was also trying to change structures and political frames.  The multiple cultures became a huge struggle for me to balance.  Not only was I holding multiple roles as a teacher leader on site but I became heavily involved in teacher leadership in the political frame or with various Teacher Unions.  I wanted to tackle bureaucracy nationally and state wide and became a part of AFT and CTA in a variety of capacities; CFT Common Core Teacher Leader, CTA Proposition 30 Release Time Member, CFT Teacher Leader for Policy Change in San Francisco.  During this time however I was also doing teacher leadership by becoming Nationally Board Certified. However as Wilson states in his text, “Bureaucracies in which 2 or more cultures struggle for supremacy will experience serious conflicts as defenders of one seek to dominate representatives of the others.”(p.101)

            This conflict that was so made so clear to me as Union Representative and then National AFT leader as well as CTA leader was made controversial when I was not only trying to defend teachers but sticking up for my students as an advocate.  I knew that the various cultures I was surfing in and out of as well my past points of view were all valid voices.   Yet  being pulled in many directions I felt I needed more concrete understanding of what all these leadership conflict/choices I had taken on meant.  I felt a leadership disequilibrium and “The Call” I had needed clarification if I was going, “To be the change I wanted to see (Gandhi).          

The various ‘cultures’ surrounding leadership and education became a whole different culture in and of itself and I felt I needed a clearer “mind map”. This is what has led me to research Educational Leadership especially here at Mills which has a social justice, feminist lens.  Being aware of “the system” and that I was now a part of that system (that I at times felt victimized from) I felt needed to be able to make educated choices. Until now I refer to these leadership dilemas as “culture” however can relate to Bolman and Deal when analyzing how the conflict of structures and human resources as different frames and lens of how organizations function.

“The assumptions of the structural frame reflect a belief in rationality and a faith that the right formal arrangements minimize problems and increase quality and performance.  Where the human resources perspective emphasizes the importance of changing people (through training, rotation, promotion, or dismissal), the structural perspective focuses on designing a pattern of roles and relationship that will accomplish collective goals as well as accommodate individual differences.” (p.101) Now  after a year and half of my Masters program at Mills I feel like I am once again transitioning as well as see a different side of my leadership in education manifested.

“As Me” phase

            Now that I am truly understanding the roles in educational leadership and how it has affected my choices as a leader, parent and teacher I find myself in a metacognition about education.  I used to dread conversations around problems of learning and now through the help of various Professional Learning Communities including my Union leadership I find myself actively engaged and not emotionally overwhelmed.  For example, when brainstorming with teacher leaders from SFUSD (chosen by AFT for a year long team approach to educational policy) some of my main concerns when deciding how I wanted to engage in public policy in education. I brainstormed this picture.

 In this AFT “think tank” of teacher leaders we were asked to think of an “ideal” world in the land of educational decisions.  I felt and do feel that multiple stakeholders need to find ways to communicate and listen to one another in order to make decisions that are taking all points of view into consideration. This perspective was definitely influenced by the idea that I am modeling the type of leadership I want to see.  Through participation in Mills Ed. Program, my teacher leadership as well moving to a new district this year I am finding myself ready for the next phase of my leadership as well as my understanding of decision making.

As I am moving forward through the stages of my leadership I find that I am no longer victimized but educated in and by my experience.  I no longer attract conversations that feel isolating in intention or demoralizing in its victimized viewpoint of  bureaucratic systems. There are many leaders out there doing the work and modeling that commitment in bureaucracies as well as in their day to day decisions.  I too am that walking and breathing entity in which teaching and learning is more than a task or goal, but is a way to empower humanity especially this country that my more than half of my ancestors have been a part of for thousands of years.

“Thru Me” phase

A reflection question was once posed to us in our class, how and why should a leader nurture relationships in an organization? I emphasize this question in this part of my paper because I believe that a phase I am approaching will require me to not only recall this question but many I have had here at Mills with automaticity or leadership messages working “thru me”.

I  remember what my classmates had to say about it that day…..

My classmates key words:

·      Healthy communication

·      Nurturing strengths

·      Being aware of your weaknesses

·      Reflection in Action

            This question for me was obvious – organizations are made of people. According to Bolman and Deal, one of the frames of looking at organizations through human relationships has the metaphorical symbol of “Family”.  Boleman and Deal make that point that central to a good organization noting that when positive human resources needs are met, skills and relationships are valued organizations thrive.  I agree with this image of leadership as EMPOWERMENT.  I would like to take it one step further and say that thru my understanding of education and community we can’t help but know that we are a “family” working together to make our society better. That education doesn’t happen to us, by us, or as us, but thru us.  And as I manifest that leadership truth as a career choice in education, a parenting choice, and spiritual choice

I echo the words of many of my spiritual partners and guides when I say….

I let it go

I let it be and

So it is.

-sd