When the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released the 12th grade reading scores last week, the supporters of the status quo were hard pressed to come up with anything positive to say. Because reading scores have flat-lined, the best that the defenders of our ‘evolutionary’ approach to school reform could do was talk about how the new Common Core State Standards are poised to make a huge difference. For example, former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise, now the head of the Alliance for Excellent Education, cited the low scores as proof of the “desperate need for the aggressive implementation” of the standards. Keep on keeping on, he seemed to be saying, and don’t look back.

Another interpretation from establishment circles suggested the low scores are actually evidence of the success of the country’s’ “Stay in School” effort; that insight came from the acting Commissioner of the US Department of Education’s statistics office, who suggested that scores were lower because kids who before the “Stay in School” push would have dropped out were now staying in school–and apparently doing badly on tests. Our success is making us look bad, he seemed to be saying.

But while the supporters of the Common Core may see the dismal results as reason to push harder in the same direction, others say we should look carefully at what the past dozen or so years of increased high stakes testing and test-based accountability (for students and teachers) have produced.{{1}} Perhaps it’s time to rethink what we have been doing since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? After all, it’s now 2014, so we have a lot of data.

The left–eager to scrap NCLB and its successor, Race to the Top–is using these NAEP results to support its argument. Here’s Guy Brandenburg’s analysis. In his blog, he asks, ‘Just how flat are those 12th grade NAEP scores?’ His answer, in part: “The short answer is: those scores have essentially not changed since they began giving the tests! Not for the kids at the top of the testing heap, not for those at the bottom, not for blacks, not for whites, not for hispanics.

No change, nada, zip.”

What Mr. Brandenburg has done is look for long-term patterns, something those in authority are not prone to do. I think it’s significant to consider what NAEP data can tell us about performance differences among racial groups (‘the achievement gap’) over time–but not just in 12th grade reading but in 4th and 8th grades as well.

NAEP generally tests a sample of 4th and 8th grade students in math and reading every few years. What I have done in the chart below is put the District of Columbia’s 2013 scores against the earliest available data for each category. (I used different years because in some years the District {{2}} did not have enough White kids to allow for comparisons.) What you will see is that, although the gap has grown smaller in three of the four categories, it remains the largest in the nation–by far–in all four categories:

These bad numbers may be news to you, because politicians, educators and editorial pages have not reported that DC’s scores and its achievement gaps are the worst in the nation (often by a wide margin). Instead, they report–triumphantly–that scores are going up and the gap has gotten smaller. They want to convince us, and perhaps themselves, that what they are doing (or supporting) is working.

For example, in November 2013, when it released 4th and 8th grade results, NAEP praised Washington: “The District of Columbia, Tennessee, and the Department of Defense schools were the only states/jurisdictions to score higher than in 2011 in both subjects at both grades 4 and 8.”

When Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced the November 2013 results, he too praised the District’s performance. “Among states that are making progress, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii made noteworthy gains in eighth grade and fourth grade in reading and/or math from 2011 to 2013.”{{3}}

How Secretary Duncan addressed the achievement gap encapsulates the problem. By sticking to the here-and-now, he avoided the long-term picture: “And while students in each racial group identified in the NAEP showed improvement in some areas, it is very troubling that achievement gaps between white and black students, and white and Hispanic students, failed to narrow from 2011 to 2013.”

That hits just the right note of concern (“very troubling”)…but at the same time it obscures the harsh truth: things have not improved over time.{{4}} Take another look at that chart. Any thinking person, Republican or Democrat, looking those numbers squarely in the face would have to question the path we are on. No one in power seems to want to do that.

Somebody should…..

Instead, the Secretary of Education, Achieve, the Alliance for Excellent Education and others are presenting the Common Core State Standards as a giant leap forward. Forward? From what? “Forward” is not a convincing argument when you look at the spot we are leaping from, or when you look at the long term NAEP data that reveals the impact of the policies we’ve been following.

We need higher standards, but pushing that “Forward” line seems to me to actually threaten the Common Core, not make the case for it.

I think the Common Core State Standards would be more appealing if they could honestly be presented as a departure from test-based accountability and a narrowed curriculum. But if the Common Core represent an expansion/continuation/evolution of today’s policies, which the evidence suggests are a failure, why would any impartial person endorse that?

—-

[[1]]1. Besides all the cheating scandals, the most recent being last week in Philadelphia.[[1]]

[[2]]2. I know Washington, DC, schools better than any other district’s. My three children went to public schools there, and I have done considerable reporting about the system over the past 40 years. [[2]]

[[3]]3. He added an apparent reference to Washington’s widespread erasures on its own standardized test, the DC-CAS.  “Signs of progress on the NAEP—known as the nation’s report card—are especially compelling because they cannot be attributed to teaching to the test or testing irregularities, such as cheating.”  (For more about that: http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=6232 )[[3]]

[[4]]4. The numbers for other states are also depressing. Take Minnesota, for example. Since 1998, its achievement gaps have increased in 8th grade math and reading and shrunk ever so slightly in 4th grade math and reading.[[4]]

In early 2000 E. D. Hirsch, Jr, the developer of the “Core Knowledge” curriculum, said this about the growing importance of reading tests: “If you want students to do well on reading tests, they should read, read, read. Not spend time practicing taking reading tests.”

That interview is in the Learning Matters archive.

Some 25 years earlier I asked John Holt, the ‘deschooling’ advocate, a similar question.

Have you ever actually taken a reading achievement test and gone through it question by question and looked at the answer sheet to see what kinds of answers are declared to be right? Very instructive experience. It hasn’t got anything to do with reading. It has a lot to do with how to answer reading tests. ….
There are a number of things you can’t test on reading tests. One is how adventurously children read. Because good readers are adventurous readers. Kids who read well–you know, kids who wind up reading four and five years ahead of grade level, love books–they are the kids who are always reading books that are too hard for them. Because they don’t worry about what they don’t understand. But kids who are always being tested on their reading learn to read only what they can be sure they can answer all the questions about. So they don’t read adventurously, and so they become ‘not good’ readers.
You can’t test the adventurousness of reading. You can’t test how deeply kids respond to what they read, how real what they read is. It’s not testable. And those are the only things, the only things, that are important. If you get kids reading for the wrong reasons, you insure that they will not read for the right reasons.

His response is also in our archive.

In 1978 I asked Professor Jeanne Chall, the author of “Reading: The Great Debate,” when parents ought to begin reading to their children (I had a 3 ½-month old daughter at the time.) She had this to say:

Oh, I think you could start at 8 months of age. I’m not kidding. I’m not kidding, because I have seen 9-month-old children, 10-month-old children with little books of their own, fabric books, and I see them get up in the morning when everyone else is asleep and they play with their toys; and then they pick up one of these little books and by themselves, and to themselves they start pointing and laughing and making noises to the different pictures. You know, this, that and so on. When they can’t speak, of course, but they can do this… This is pre-reading behavior, and it’s terribly important for this child’s success later in the ‘beginning reading’ that you asked me about. Well, the point is, they start long before they start.
And by the time they are 2 ½ or 3, they will insist on reading something to you. Sometimes they’ll hold it upside down, but usually they’ll hold it straight. … All this is very important, and it only takes place if you read a great deal to the child, and the child imitates it back and goes through this process, do you see?

The archive that includes the interviews with Jeanne Chall, John Holt and Don Hirsch goes back to 1974. It now consists of approximately 10,000 hours (and counting) of broadcast quality video and audio covering 40 tumultuous years of American public education.

Here’s the question: What should we do with the archive? How can we make it accessible to scholars, students, reporters and others interested in American education?

Of course, historians, scholars, reporters and students seeking to understand the shifting winds of education reform since 1974 have other options: They might interview the participants who are still living; examine original documents; and review the day-to-day reportage.

Unfortunately, memories fade and change, people die, and yesterday’s journalism is inevitably incomplete. Those harsh realities often lead historians and scholars to surmise, to opine, fill in the gaps in other way–and to perhaps get the story wrong.

What if they could turn to the original sources, 10,000 hours of video and audio recorded by Learning Matters–which does not throw away, erase or discard recordings? The audio archive dates back to 1974, the year the “Options in Education” series began on National Public Radio. The video archive begins in 1982 with the 5-part “Your Children, Our Children” series. Our NewsHour reporting dates from 1985. The archive now includes more than 300 full-length documentaries and NewsHour pieces, about 500 NPR documentaries, and hundreds of audio and video podcasts.

Behind those produced pieces are hours and hours of uncut interviews with many of the leading lights{{1}} of American education: Albert Shanker, Deborah Meier, Jonathan Kozol, Richard Riley, Lamar Alexander, Margaret Spellings, Arne Duncan, John Holt, Jeanne Chall, Rod Paige, Bruno Bettelheim, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Dr. Berry Brazelton, Fred Rogers, Bob Keeshan, Marian Wright Edelman, James A. Nabrit, Jack Greenberg, William T. Coleman, Derrick Bell, William Taylor, Gary Orfield, Alonzo Crim, Mel and Norma Gabler, Michelle Rhee, Paul Vallas, Linda Darling-Hammond, David Hornbeck, Wendy Kopp, David Tyack, Urie Bronfenbrenner, Bernice “Bunny” Sandler, Margaret Mead, Leon Botstein, Arlene Ackerman, E.D. Hirsch, Jr, Joseph Olshevski, Joel Klein, Alan Bersin, Patricia Albjerg Graham, Fred Burke, Frank Newman, Diane Ravitch, Harold “Doc” Howe, Checker Finn, James Comer, Larry Cuban, Ken Komoski, John Porter, George Miller, Joseph Cronin, Ed Ziegler, Judah Schwartz, Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Arthur Levine, Lynn Kagan, Stanley Kaplan, Yetta and Ken Goodman, Ralph Turlington, Alfie Kohn, Randi Weingarten, Dennis Van Roekel, George Gerbner, Peggy Charren, Henry Levin, Hayes Mizell, Ted Sizer and dozens more.

Also of great value to scholars are hours of uncut, unedited interviews with teachers, administrators and students, and hours of video and audio presenting schools, from pre-k to college, as they actually were, day by day, from 1974 to the present.{{2}}

The archive is a living, growing collection, because we are still hard at work, producing new reports and adding new material.

Where should this material be located, and with what safeguards?  We have a plan for completely digitizing, transcribing and cataloguing all the material so that it is fully searchable, and the Board of Learning Matters is committed to making it available. What we need now is the financial support to make this vision a reality.

—-

[[1]]1. If you don’t recognize some names, try Googling them.[[1]]

[[2]]2. Here’s some detail of what the archive contains, by subject: 6 years in Philadelphia with David Hornbeck for “Toughest Job in America”; 4 years in Washington, DC, with Michelle Rhee—12 reports for the PBS NewsHour, plus Frontline material; 6 ½ years in New Orleans since Katrina: 15 PBS Newshour reports (plus many hours recorded well before Katrina) and material for our documentary “Rebirth” (now available on Netflix); 1 year in a Brooklyn PS following 5 1st year teachers—7 NewsHour reports and a 1-hour documentary; 1 year following the Intel science competition in two New York high schools; 3 years in a ‘Coalition of Essential Schools’ high school in Cincinnati; 2 years in New Orleans following Teach for America corps members; 2 years on multiple college campuses for “Declining by Degrees’; 1 year with ADD students/teachers for “ADD: A Dubious Diagnosis”; 1 year following a “turnaround” principal in Richmond, VA; 13 years of reporting about No Child Left Behind and its successor, the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top program; 2 years of reporting about the Common Core State Standards and their ramifications for public education; Deep exploration of education’s newest buzz words and hopes, such as ‘deeper learning’ and ‘blended learning’; Inside the college admissions process at Williams, Amherst, Dartmouth and Middlebury; 1 year’s worth of filming different ways technology is being incorporated into public schools across the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for our “Return of the School Sleuth” documentary, currently in production.[[2]]

These days one needs a scorecard to keep track of the politics of education: The Common Core, the two national tests now being piloted, bubble test fatigue, the opt-out movement, opposition to top-down technocrats, and the ‘commodification’ of education–all are factors in a serious brouhaha.

The New York Times recently acknowledged that the right wing is making political hay out of the Common Core State Standards. Earlier in the same week, conservative columnist David Brooks attacked the attackers, likening them to the occupants of a clown car. Like the Times’ reporter, Mr. Brooks wrote as if all the opposition were coming from the right fringe.

The left, feeling left out, wants it known that it too belongs on the list of the disgruntled. From that side, Diane Ravitch and others are doing their best to be heard. A central complaint: teachers were not part of the development of the new standards, which, they maintain, treat education and children as commodities. More about that later.

The glib analysis, which is is actually kind of clever, goes something like this: the right hates the CCSS because they are ‘common,’ and thus denigrate individualism and limit choice, while the left detests them because they are ‘core.’ (Or maybe it’s the other way around.)

When left and right find common ground, something big is happening. In fact, we may have a perfect storm brewing, where forces upset about a variety of controversial issues create enough noise, rancor and controversy to reshape public education. These groups may not be against the same things—and they definitely are not for the same things, but the weight of their outrage may be enough to topple the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying national testing.

At least two other issues are at play: bubble test fatigue and concern over top-down ‘technocratic’ control of what most Americans think of as a local enterprise, public education.

And lurking in the wings are profiteers hoping to grab a bigger share of the trillion dollars we spend on education, and ideologues determined to break apart the public system (and teacher unions), whatever the cost.

It’s the essence of drama that we can push a boulder down the hill but are powerless to control what happens next. That’s what seems to be going on here, and at some point we are going to find out what and who will be crushed. As often happens when adults do battle in education, some children’s futures will be ‘collateral damage.’

From my vantage point, the Common Core State Standards and the two largely computer-based national testing programs are on a collision course that the planners should have anticipated and could have avoided. Here’s what I mean: The CCSS call for developing ‘soft’ skills like working cooperatively and speaking persuasively. However, those cannot be assessed by a computer-based test, or by any sort of bubble test, but machine-based testing is what the powers-that-be have invested in. They did this because they want data that can be used to hold teachers accountable. The bottom line is pretty clear: the decision-makers do not trust teachers.

You do the math: Scores are going to be used to evaluate (and possibly fire) teachers, and the soft skills mentioned above are not going to be tested. Will teachers focus their instruction on ‘speaking persuasively,’ ‘working cooperatively,’ and the like? Some will, because they genuinely care, but most will probably act in their own self interest (as they should). Bottom line: those essential skills will be cast aside, and kids lose, because possessing those skills would make them more employable.

The digital divide between poor kids and well-off kids guarantees that computer-based testing is not going to go well. Even schools with an ample supply of computers do not have enough of the machines to allow the testing to occur in a single week; instead, we are hearing reports that the testing will take as long as a month or even five weeks. That’s time taken away from teaching and learning.

Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas, who sits firmly on the right in most education debates, is very upset about the role of ‘technocrats’ in education. His blog is worth your time.

The opt-out movement may become a force to be reckoned with, if and when it organizes effectively. What has to happen, it seems to me, is that the movement must also be FOR something. I suggest a straight trade: two weeks of project-based learning for every day of testing AND test-prep! In other words, don’t just stay home; fight for positive changes.

Come to think of it, why would any school board agree to add more days of testing, instead of insisting on a subtraction for every addition? American kids are already the most tested in the world. (Sick joke: We could drop a test or two and still beat our chests and shout, “We’re Number One!”)

The critics scored a major victory when Inbloom, the data collecting effort strongly backed by the Gates Foundation, threw in the towel. Emboldened by this triumph, the critics are energized. The center is fighting back, of course, with advice and encouragement. Because I am an education reporter, I’m now receiving press releases letting me know that supporters of the Common Core are available for interviews. I take this as evidence that those folks are worried.

Perhaps the chickens are coming home to roost. As Rick Hess and Michael McShane of the American Enterprise Institute reported recently, media coverage of the run-up to and development of the Common Core State Standards was close to non-existent, and even now most Americans know nothing or very little about the standards. Into that near-vacuum the opponents have ridden, taking the supporters by surprise.

Higher and more challenging standards are a good idea, in my view, but whether the Common Core State Standards are good enough probably doesn’t matter now. This is now a political fight, and the quality of the standards will not be the determining factor. Expect the opponents to seize on every stumble going forward. For example, the Common Core tests are now being piloted in schools around the nation. There will be glitches{{1}}, because every new thing has glitches, but don’t be surprised if the opponents make each misstep sound like the end of the world.

If we end up starting the higher standards process all over again, let’s agree that teachers must be well-represented at the table. Education is, at the end of the day, about relationships. It’s not a commodity to be acquired, and children are not objects to be weighed and measured. Teachers have to be trusted, because the enterprise cannot succeed without them, no matter what technocrats may believe or wish.

Last night at Stanford Anna Deveare Smith, the multi-talented artist, reminded an audience (mostly education types) that learning is about “I-thou” connections, and not “I-it.” Unfortunately, the testing industry and many decision-makers approach students as objects, as commodities to be weighed and measured. That’s the problem that must be addressed, in my judgment.

—-
[[1]]1. And speaking of glitches, I visited two testing classrooms this morning. One teacher told me that, if students hadn’t logged on in a precise sequence, the volume control stayed at ‘zero,’ meaning no sound at all for the questions that required listening. Another teacher told me that the tool bar for creating math answers did not allow students to provide a fractional answer, such as 8 ⅓, and so, she said, she ended up helping almost every student give their answers as improper fractions (25/3, in the example above). Two classrooms, two glitches.[[1]]

In my 40 years as an education reporter, I have been helped by more people than I can name here, but I owe my career to one man, Samuel Halperin. Sam knows this, because I’ve told him on more than one occasion, but now I’d like to express my admiration for this remarkable man, not so much for helping me but for all that he has contributed to building a fairer and more just society.

As his friends know, Sam is very ill. He’s resting comfortably at home with his family, looking back on a life well lived. He and Marlene raised two terrific children, Deena and Elan, and are the proud grandparents of five grandchildren. In this space last week I wrote about ‘Seizing the Day,’ and I can think of no one who exemplifies what I wrote about more than Sam.

Some of you know Sam{{1}} as the lead author of “The Forgotten Half,” a ground-breaking examination of widely accepted educational policies that were trying to put all young people into the college-bound track–and doing lots of damage to about half of our kids.

Others may know Sam from his days as President of the Institute for Educational Leadership or founder of the American Youth Policy Forum.

Older hands know that Sam was Deputy Assistant Secretary at the old HEW, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and Assistant U.S. Commissioner for Legislation at the old U.S. Office of Education.{{2}}

The thread that runs through his resumé is service to others and fairness to all. Sam is both a ‘small d’ democrat and a ‘Capital D’ Democrat. For me, the best proof is in a program he created and ran at IEL called “Education Staff Seminars’ or ESS. Recognizing that, in a hectic Congress, staffers were most often the key to passing effective legislation, Sam dreamed up a way to educate them about education. He did this by taking them out of Washington, their comfort zone, and immersing them in some new and foreign world. So, for example, Sam might take 20-30 House and Senate staffers, an equal mix of Republicans and Democrats, to a Native American reservation for three days. When they got on the plane, all they had in common was that they worked for a member of Congress who served on an Education Committee or Subcommittee. After three days of nearly 24-7 immersion, including meals and bus rides, however, these men and women understood much more about education and about each other. And while Sam most likely held strong views about various programs he would take ESS to visit, that was never his agenda. He wanted full and free discussion, and let the best ideas win.{{3}}

What Sam did for me is a variation on a theme, because he has mentored hundreds, probably thousands, of young men and women over his long career. I met Sam in the early 70’s when I was writing my doctoral dissertation; my subject was the legislation that created the Teacher Corps and a few other federal programs, and I interviewed Sam at least twice. While other interviewees clearly spun the story to favor their world view, I remember Sam’s telling me that I had to speak with this man or that woman to get the full story.

By 1974 I was job-hunting, and IEL hired me for a job that I think Sam may have created for me. The position, something like ‘Communications Coordinator,’ came with the vaguest of job descriptions. I clearly recall Sam’s urging me to figure out what I felt I HAD to do. “When you know, tell me,” he said, “and I will do my best to help you be successful.”

IEL was basically a ‘think tank,’ an environment that I am neither temperamentally nor intellectually suited for, and before long I told Sam that I was feeling restless.

“So do something,” he said. “Start a forum, like the Ford Hall Forum in Boston,” he advised. He meant rent an auditorium, recruit a famous speaker, publicize the event and fill the hall. He gave me a budget, $10,000.

While that sounded like an OK idea, I had heard about a new organization, National Public Radio, so new that the people who worked there found themselves explaining, ‘Well, it’s like public television, but there aren’t any pictures.”

When I knocked on the door at NPR and said that I had $10,000 to spend, I was ushered right in and invited to make a program. At that time about all NPR had in the way of programs was ‘All Things Considered” in the evening, a weekly folk music program called “Voices in the Wind” and a catch-all series called “Options,” where it stuck everything else.

With NPR’s blessing, I invited a couple of experts to come to the studio to talk about education. For some bizarre reason, I chose ‘school finance’ as my subject. The two guests droned on and on, but NPR was thrilled. As I remember, the producer turned it into TWO 1-hour programs, “School Finance: Where the Money Comes From” and “Whence it Goes.” (If I owned the rights to those programs now, I would market them as a safe alternative to Ambien.)

After we made a few more programs for the “Options” series, NPR wanted to turn it into a semi-separate series, “Options in Education,” but to do that, I would need money, more than $10,000 for sure.

I went to Sam and told him that I had finally found what I HAD to do. I said I thought a weekly radio series about education could have a positive impact. As he had promised he would, he went to bat for me. He told IEL’s major supporter, the Ford Foundation, that he wanted to green light his newest staffer’s idea, a weekly program about education on National Public Radio. He couldn’t promise thousands and thousands of listeners because NPR had no audience figures, but he persuaded Harold “Doc” Howe and Ed Meade that it was a worthwhile venture.

I don’t remember the budget number, but I vividly remember Sam’s advice–more of a demand. He made me promise to come to him when I screwed up. “You will mess up,” he said, “because everybody messes up. Whatever you do, don’t cover it up. Come to me, and I will help you dig out of the hole.” (Remember, this was the year after Watergate.)

That’s the best professional advice I’ve ever gotten, from the best boss I have ever had. When I screwed up, he helped me clean up the mess, just as he had promised he would.

I ended up staying at NPR for 8 years and more than 400 programs, and “Options in Education” became one of NPR’s most-listened to programs. I learned pretty quickly to get out of the studio and then out of Washington, DC, and into schools, colleges, pre-schools, juvenile detention facilities and anywhere else where young people were learning.

In 1982 I got the itch to try television, and Sam supported my decision to give up “Options in Education” and devote my time to fundraising for a PBS series that we called “Your Children, Our Children.” In 1985 I joined what was then known as The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, where I have been working ever since.

When I established my own non-profit company, Learning Matters, in 1995, Sam was the first person I asked to serve on the Board of Directors. That made him my boss again, and more than once he and other Directors reined in some of my more questionable enthusiasms and kept me from taking the young organization off the track, or off the rails completely.

Sam mentored me–and so many others like me–because he believes in people. However, he was never a soft touch. He always set high standards for himself and everyone around him, and, when he caught you not doing your best, he told you so, directly and forcefully. Even his anger, however, was founded in love and generosity. He believed then and believes now that the only moral course of action for every human being is to use whatever gifts he or she may have been given in the service of others.

Thank you, Sam. I love you.

If you would like to let Sam know your feelings, write to him at his daughter’s email address, deenabarlev@gmail.com, or post your thoughts here. Thank you.

—-
[[1]]1. He’s actually Dr. Halperin. Sam earned his bachelor’s degree, his master’s degree, and his doctorate in political science from Washington University in St. Louis.[[1]]
[[2]]2. Sam’s contributions have not gone unnoticed. He received HEW’s Superior Service Award, HEW’s Distinguished Service Award (twice) the National Association of State Boards of Education Distinguished Service Award (also twice), the Distinguished Service Award of the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award from Jobs for the Future, the President’s Medal of the George Washington University, the Harry S. Truman Award of the American Association of Community Colleges, and the Lewis Hine Award for Service to Children and Youth from the National Child Labor Committee.[[2]]
[[3]]3.Today’s polarized Washington needs programs like ESS more than ever. Unfortunately, they don’t exist.[[3]]

Two related stories:

The first: On a beach in Costa Rica a week or so ago, I struck up a conversation with another vacationer, a guy in his early 40’s who was walking with his daughters, who looked to be about the same age as my granddaughters. Just beach talk, until–after his daughters went into the water–he asked me what I did for a living. When I told him I reported about education, he had a curious response: Is that what you’ve always wanted to do, he wanted to know?   Yes, I answered, and because I was once a teacher, education was a natural choice of a beat to cover. You’re lucky, he said, and then proceeded to tell me about his work as some sort of mortgage banker. His firm invested in homes where the mortgages were ‘underwater’ and tried to restructure with the current owners. When that did not work (which was most of the time), his company paid the owners $20,000 or so to walk away from the debt and their home. He said it was a $6 billion business, and that his company owned ‘more homes than you can imagine.’

He went on. This isn’t what I want to be doing, he said. If I could, I would be remodeling old homes and reselling them, one at a time, with a good buddy of mine.  That’s been my dream job forever, he said, but I have to make money. He gestured toward his daughters.  School, later college, all that stuff, he sighed.

I’m 40, he said, so it’s probably too late for me to change. Because it wasn’t my place to contradict him or encourage him to follow his passion, I said nothing.  Basically, I chalked it up to one of those conversations between strangers, where they feel free to say stuff they don’t or can’t talk about with friends and family.

The second story is about Vivian Connell, who taught high school English, ESL, and Japanese, for two decades. She is about the same age as the man on the beach, and, like him, she was dissatisfied at work. And so a few years ago she followed her intuition/heart/gut and made a huge change.  By all reports an effective teacher, she came to believe that her chosen profession was being denigrated by powerful forces bent on destroying public schools.  And so, determined to put her energy into fighting the negativity, she went to UNC Law, where she graduated with honors and was admitted to the bar.  She declined a clerkship opportunity in order to spend 2013-14 advocating for public education.

I met Vivian this February in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she was one of six teachers on a panel I moderated.  I met with my panel before our session and explained how we would proceed: no opening remarks, all Q&A, and no off-topic speeches.  Vivian immediately piped up. I tend to get carried away, she said, because I feel passionately about what North Carolina and the Obama Administration are doing to public education. If that happens, I said, I will interrupt.  Will you do it nicely, she asked with a smile?

Well, as she warned me, she did get carried away a couple of times. As promised, I cut her off (nicely, I think). But when you listen to what she does say, you will understand her strength of character, passion and commitment.  If I didn’t say it then, I certainly thought to myself how lucky public education was that Vivian took the leap. Yes, a school lost a terrific teacher, and that’s sad, but the public interest is better served by Vivian’s being an education lawyer.

That wonderful and profoundly moving panel was in February. A month later, Vivian went to her doctor to find out why one leg was giving her trouble.  She wrote about it on her blog:

On March 12th, 2014, I learned that I have ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, and that over the next 2-10 years – most likely 3-5 years – my motor neurons will gradually stop working and I will lose the use of my limbs, then become unable to breathe and swallow, and then cease to be.

I learned this horrible news the afternoon of my morning conversation on the beach. Vivian writes about this tragedy with dispassionate honesty on her blog, and I insist–if a writer can do that–that you go to her blog now.   Please come back later and finish reading this piece.

I wish I could talk again to that man on the beach. If I could, I would tell him about Vivian, and I would ask him to watch Steve Jobs’ graduation speech at Stanford in 2005, perhaps the most significant graduation speech ever delivered.  He had received a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer 11 years earlier, in 1994, an event that changed his life in every way possible, and he spoke movingly about death and life.

Here are parts of Mr. Jobs’ remarkable speech {{1}}: “You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.”

And: “Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.”

Finally: “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

Vivian Connell doesn’t ask for pity or sympathy, just that we do the right thing. It’s unlikely that I will see that man on the beach again, but I hope that he decides to follow his heart and intuition, as Steve Jobs did, and as Vivian did….and as I hope you are doing, and are encouraging your children and your students to do.

—

[[1]]1. The full text: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-full-text-of-steve-jobs-stanford-commencement-speech-2011-10#ixzz2yQ23XhOC[[1]]

The Times has learned that Whom has passed away after a long, lingering illness. Few details have emerged, although speculation is that the cause of death was indifference. Whom, of Latin origin, leaves no immediate survivors. A sole sibling, Whomever, passed away many years earlier. One distant cousin, Who, survives, but the bitter rivals rarely appeared together.

When robust, Whom was known for maintaining a high profile. He (or she–gender indeterminate) regularly insisted on jumping to the head of the line, as in “Whom may I say is calling?” and “To Whom it may concern.” Whom was particularly proud of surviving a frontal assault by Johnny Carson’s quiz show “Who Do You Trust?” that aired on ABC from 1957-1963. “I beat that upstart,” Whom would boast, although some observers suspect that the lingering effects of the 6-year struggle sealed Whom’s fate.

In recent years Whom regularly lost to Who in competition for jobs and prestige. The final blow, Whom’s supporters say, was when Twitter chose Who over Whom to fill the prestigious slot, “Who to Follow.”

Whom reportedly drowned his (or her) disappointment at a bar near Twitter headquarters in San Francisco. “I was born for that job. It was made for me,” Whom told the bartender before passing out.

Whom’s passing has drawn scant attention. Only one word, As, issued a public statement. “I understand Whom’s feelings of rejection. I was the subordinating conjunction of choice until that damn Winston campaign came along. ‘…..like a cigarette should.’ Awful English, but it blew me away, and, frankly, I have been depressed ever since.”

No national observance is planned; however, small groups have been springing up at some private colleges and in a few churches, most of them Episcopalian. These ad hoc organizations, determined to bring Whom back, are uniting under the name, “In Whom We Trust.” Contributions may be made on the group’s website, InWhomWeTrust.org.