A difficult last . . .

It seems like each last is becoming more difficult and this evening continued that trend.  We celebrated School Board Recognition Month, my last opportunity to honor and thank the Board members for their commitment to our schools as superintendent.  I can safely say that because of my experience and the time spent with them our current Board has the greatest collective capacity to lead this system through the difficult, yet exciting transitions in our future.  Though I have worked with many outstanding Board members over time, none had five individuals bring the experiences and talent that comes with this team.  We are fortunate to have five individuals with the commitment, experience, and skills to maintain a focus on our young people as they provide leadership for the journey ahead of us.  

As superintendent I have much to be thankful for with this Board at the top of the list.  They have influenced my thinking on every major initiative in our system.  They challenge me and each other and have learned how to separate their emotions from the sometimes difficult decisions that they need to make.  They have contributed to making my experience rewarding and energizing.

I join all in honoring them and thanking them for their service.  

Pushing back with a bill . . .

I still haven't been able to find out who the legislators are that wrote to the Supreme Court Justices about the crisis they are creating with their position on the McCleary decision and fully funding basic education that I blogged about yesterday.  I did learn today, however, in this Education Week article that there are those who believe that the Court's position is not appropriate.

"They are way out of their lane," said Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner.

His response included more than words as he has proposed a bill this session to reduce the number of judges on the state's highest court.

Baumgartner has proposed a bill that would shrink the court from nine justices to five, acknowledging that it was partially an attempt to push back against the decision. But he also said it the change would provide significant budget savings — money that could be redirected to education.

In the article, his position is supported by Democratic Senator Hargrove, by Phil Talmadge a former legislator who also sat on the court, and by Justice James Johnson the lone dissenting voice in the January ruling.  This is looking more and more like drawing battle lines that may take on even greater significance tomorrow if the Governor proposes funding for I-732 the cost of living adjustment.

It is interesting and will probably become entertaining as we observe how this battle takes shape and will play out during and after the session.  All of this because of some well placed words in our state constitution and how the court is clarifying the meaning of those words.  Oh, I guess I should add lack of commitment over time by legislators to fund what they have defined as basic education.

Legislative news . . .

I had the opportunity to spend part of today with board members Mary Jane Glaser and Tim Adam and Mark Koch at the WASA/WSSDA/WASBO Legislative Conference in Olympia.  I learned something from each of the three speakers, but wasn't able to stay for all the session so I'm looking forward to a debrief with Mark.

From the first speaker, Superintendent Dorn, I learned that we are 42nd in the nation on basic education funding and that he is supportive of using state assessment data in the evaluation process, but not at the 50% level in some states.  He also shared the success that our state is experiencing with NAEP scores compared to other states that I blogged about here.

I appreciated his decision to recommend delaying the 1080 hour requirement for a year while people come together to determine what it will take to ensure that all kids are career and college ready.  He shared problems this requirement will cause some systems such as a small district that currently buses all students at the same time.  Forcing 1080 hours would create the need to bus in shifts causing them perceived operating inefficiencies and a loss of revenue.

The second speaker, David Schumacher, Director of the Office of Financial Management helped me understand at a deeper level the issue of tax loop holes and tax revenue.  In the mid 1990's we were 10th in the nation in state and local taxes collected per $1000 of personal income and now we are about 30th.  The national average in 2011 was $108.31 and our state average was $98.95  This reduction in collection has contributed to the state budget issues because the needs of the varied constituencies has not decreased and McCleary has only made the gap more difficult to fill.  That change over time has resulted in about $15 billion less in revenue this biennium over what it would have been had the collection rate kept level over that time.  The tax loop holes and caps on taxes have contributed to this significant change.

He also shared that even though the economy in the state is improving the outlook for the next biennium is not bright especially considering the McCleary needs.  He also said that change is needed in the process used for establishing a balanced budget.

. . . This approach is unsustainable.  Barring an unforeseen dramatic rise in economic activity and revenue collections, we will face another sizable shortfall when we begin work on the 2015-17 budget.

The third speaker was Thomas Ahearne, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the McCleary case.  He went over the history of the case and the January Supreme Court order to the legislature to speed up implementation of Basic Education under ESHB 2261 and SHB 2776.  Much of it I already knew, but he ended his presentation with some interesting news.  Last week twenty-five House members wrote a letter to the Supreme Court justices in essence challenging their right to tell the legislature what to do in this case.  The comments below are not verbatim, but close to what he shared.

. . .We respectfully reject the court's attempt to wrongfully intrude upon the constitutional prerogative of the legislative branch.
. . .The court lacks the authority to hold the legislature in contempt.
. . .We the undersigned will not recognize such order from the court - request that you do not perpetuate a constitutional crisis - a crisis in which you will not prevail.

Doesn't sound like a group planning on doing much this session to meet the 2017-18 mandate for full implementation of basic education.  I don't know who the twenty-five are, but will be interested to see if any are from our legislative district and if there is a similar letter coming from the Senate.

I'll end by sharing that we learned the Governor is expected to announce at a Tuesday press conference his support for implementation this session of I-732, the cost of living initiative.

Some interesting bill proposals . . .

If you are a teacher you will want to read this post that might even get you to consider contacting your legislators.  In this Crosscut post I learned that yesterday Democrats introduced two bills in the House that have impact on teacher salary.  One of the bills is consistent with the Governor's proposal to restore the voter approved cost-of-living increases.  The second bill would increase the minimum salary for any teacher from a starting salary of about $34,000 to about $52,000.  I do not believe that this new starting salary will have an impact on other cells in the schedule.

The language in Reykdal's bill suggests that a compensation task force's analysis showed that Washington's teachers earn roughly $15,000 less than comparable jobs in the non-education world. His bill raises the state allocation for a rookie teacher by about $18,000, but any additional pay would still be up to each district's school board and union.

In addition to these two bills, there was a third bill introduced in the House requiring a minimum wage of $15 an hour for non-teaching school employees.  So, there is something in proposed House legislation for many school employees.  We know, however, that it takes three in Olympia to enact these proposed bills and based on the Republican response in the Senate thus far it is far from having the votes necessary for approval.

When asked, Republican House and Senate leaders would not say whether they would support oppose cost-of-living increases for teachers, a proposal that has been in play for a couple weeks. However, those leaders appeared very cool to the idea of tackling cost-of-living increases this session. Sen. Bruce Dammeier, R-Puyallup, said the overall school funding system must be reformed to trim the share that local school districts bear.  Dammeier and Sen. Andy Hill, R-Redmond and chairman of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, said these education funding issues are too complex to resolve in the current 60-day session.

What may be even more concerning for school systems is found in these comments from the Crosscut post.  If there were no Supplemental Budget to emerge in this session we would operate next year under the provisions in last year's biennial budget.  This would place the legislature and the State Supreme Court on a collision court as the Court has made clear that they expect an increase in this short session.

Also, Hill said there is a possibility that the Senate will offer no supplemental 2014-2015 budget this session, which could have major implications for Inslee's $200 million education proposal.  Hill said any Republican decision on a supplemental budget will probably be made in a couple weeks.

It could be posturing or it could be a continuation of what we have come to expect from Olympia.

One of those days . . .

It was one of those days when you wonder where it went.  In the office at 6:30, first meeting at 7:00 and then nonstop from then on.  Sat down for the first time at my table about 5 greeted by 96 new emails and phone messages.  Left the office a little after 6 knowing the emails could wait until I got home.

So, why am I sitting here writing this blog with more energy than I normally have at 8 in the evening.  There are multiple reasons, but there are two with the greatest influence and both involve teaching.  My first meeting was with my central office colleagues Annette, Lori, Dawn, and Mark people I have great respect for and simply enjoy being with.  We meet biweekly in a breakfast meeting that over the last year I have been using to challenge their thinking and to share my thinking and experiences.  It is an opportunity to influence the mental models that they bring to situations and to encourage them to act in the moment from a balcony view, always considering how that in the moment thinking and decision will influence future interactions.

Later in the day I had the opportunity to teach components of our leadership work to supervisors, PSE members, and some of the PSE elected officials.  I am always energized by the opportunity to teach and find working with PSE staff and supervisors to be one of my most rewarding experiences.  Today proved to be another one of those times.  They always engage, ask great questions, and are so appreciative.  We've started these learning opportunities in the past, but for multiple reasons they don't sustain, a pattern I'm committed to changing by using my central office colleagues to co-teach.  Today, Dawn made this experience possible with little prior planning and a true commitment to supporting learning and growth for those engaged in the work.  I am truly appreciative of these opportunities.

It is now approaching 8:30 as I've done some other things while doing this post so I better get to those emails before I run out of energy.

The TPEP experience . . .

www.slideshare.net

Based on feedback and data, we have decided to focus on TPEP and teacher growth in tomorrow's Teaching and Learning meeting with our administrative team.  We will spend time discussing the status of inquiry cycles with individual teachers on the comprehensive cycle and then support principals in reviewing the mid-year status of their comprehensive evaluations.

In reflecting on the content for the learning opportunity it makes me wonder how we are doing and what teachers are experiencing.  I have little direct feedback so I thought I'd ask for some with this post.  As a teacher in our system, how would you respond to the two questions below?

1. What is the purpose of an inquiry cycle and how has it changed interactions with your supervisor?
2. For those on the comprehensive cycle, how is this year's experience with your supervisor different and better than the experience in prior years?

Thank you for considering a response.

Yes, yes, yes . . .

Lots of 49'er fans

Ann Wilson after singing the National Anthem!

Nothing more to say other than find the truck that hit me.  Totally spent, but feeling good after a great football game.  Emotions ran the gamut from the low of the fumble on the first series to the three turn overs on the last three 49'er drives.  I'll let the pictures do the talking.

Some football plays

Maclemore at halftime - his dancers sat right in front of us

12th Man North Parking lot

Great music, good cause . . .

This evening at Tahoma Middle School was the annual music staff concert to raise money for the Mary Lou Harting Scholarship fund.  As always, I thoroughly enjoyed the music and audience engagement.  We are blessed to have committed educators who are also gifted musicians.  Once again the only negative was not filling the venue to both enjoy the music and raise additional scholarship funds.  I guess I could add to that the reminder by an unnamed Shadow Lake staff member that this would be MY LAST concert as superintendent.  As Bruce told me it would be the year is flying by.

Sorry for the quality of the pictures, the camera phone didn't do well with the floor lighting on the stage.  This is our Board President, Mary Jane Glaser, starting the evening.  Mary Jane is also the founder of the Maple Valley Creative Arts Council and the vision behind this concert.

A credible critic . . .

It seems like my latest posts are about the Common Core or something happening in Olympia as the short session is now underway.  Given the scope of issues embedded in the Common Core initiative and potential impact of additional reform coming out of the session I believe that it is important to continue this focus.  I was, however, able to get in a post earlier this week on questioning and student engagement that resulted in a comment from Scott about the five questions from the post.

It was really powerful when I used the question "Can you tell me more?" I have never asked that question in that way and the one student I asked first was taken back a bit at first but then was able to expand on her thinking. A question that I often use in my teaching and did again today was, "Does anyone else have something more to add to that thinking?" . Kids really responded to this today and adding thoughts upon thoughts. 

OK, it is important to focus on our work, but one more update on Common Core status.  There are currently  48 states that have signed onto the Common Core and so far all have maintained that status through the push back and controversy.  Yesterday, however, Indiana's Governor came closer to suggesting that his state may  move from a break from the common standards to dropping them, something easier said than done as they are also a waiver state.

Pence, a Republican, said: "Hoosiers have high expectations when it comes to Indiana schools. That's why Indiana decided to take a time-out on national education standards. When it comes to setting standards for schools, I can assure you, Indiana's will be uncommonly high. They will be written by Hoosiers, for Hoosiers and will be among the best in the nation."

Also yesterday, Alaska joined Kansas in withdrawing from the the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium leaving 23 state in the consortium.  This is important as the costs will increase as states withdraw and Washington is a member of this consortium.  The majority of the controversy has been focused in the assessments so this will be important to follow especially as other organizations bring their aligned assessments to the table.

Today I learned in a FLYPAPER post that common core critics received a big boost from a George Will column critical of the federal government's role.  Though I don't always agree with his position, I have respect for his thinking and experience something the post suggests should be a concern for those common core advocates who laugh off the critics.

Common Core advocates should keep all of this in mind as they glibly extol the virtues of embracing common standards, of setting a national bar for excellence, of following an exquisitely crafted set of learning goals fashioned by experts. They should keep it all in mind as they respond to criticism with answers amounting to “there’s nothing to worry about, we have this under control,” or—in moments of weakness—something more condescending.

George Will’s column isn’t the real story here. It’s what the column represents: the quiet but growing and hardening principled opposition to Common Core.

No one knows how this initiative to have a set of national standards will play out over time, but it is more and more difficult to watch as school systems across the country race to support student learning needs for the spring 2015 common core assessments in a background of uncertainty.  When will elected officials at the federal level reach agreement on a replacement for NCLB?  Will that replacement move the pendulum back to more state and local control?  Will common core survive the push back?

Governor lights a match . . .

I found this KUOW.org post interesting as the legislative session began on Monday.  It suggests that the short session will be played out with larger goals in mind such as control of the State Senate following next November's elections.


“This is a huge year for the state Senate,” explains Chris Vance, a former state lawmaker and Republican Party chair who often handicaps legislative races for Crosscut.com.

Vance predicts election year politics will play a big role in what happens in the Washington Senate over the next two months.

“Their minds are far more on November than they are on this 60-day session and so I think you’re going to see mostly just positioning, forcing the other guy to take bad votes and trying to set things up for election.”

This year just over half of the Washington Senate is up for re-election. But only a handful of those seats are actually in play. Democrats would need to pick up two seats and not lose any to win back control of the Senate. 

Though a reality of our governance system, it is disturbing that this plays out while there are important and difficult decisions to be made that impact public schools.  Then yesterday, Governor Inslee ratcheted up the potential for conflict by changing his mind on a teacher pay raise by saying he was adjusting his budget proposal to include $200 million new dollars for schools including a cost of living increase for teachers.  The response from Republicans was predictable and swift as covered in this Seattle Times article.


The GOP-led caucus that controls the Senate slammed the governor’s ideas, saying they would go nowhere in that chamber. Democrats control the House and the governor’s office.
Asked if more money is needed for education this session, Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom said, “No ... We already addressed the money issues this last time with over a billion dollars.”

It looks like the table is set for a continuation of the partisan fighting that characterized last year.  The Governor's proposal also calls for an increase to the state's minimum wage.  All of this on top of the Supreme Court directive and huge transportation issues creates layers of complexity making consensus and compromise very difficult to achieve.  What usually emerges from this is little money and more reforms and mandates.

The Governor's change of position on the cost of living increase was influenced by the recent Supreme Court directive I blogged about here.  From the Times article not all are in agreement with the sense of urgency the Governor is feeling.


Inslee, in his speech, said, “We need to stop downplaying the significance” of the state Supreme Court’s order, adding the justices wrote that “this case remains fully subject to judicial enforcement.”

But Republicans did not seem impressed.

“Their job is to be the judiciary branch, our job is to be the legislative branch,” said House Republican Leader Dan Kristiansen, of Snohomish. “While I appreciate their strong concerns, what I don’t appreciate is that it almost comes across that they want to do both our jobs. And if that’s what they want to do, let them run for the Legislature.”

Fuel, but no flame . . .

www.campingforfamilies.com

As Scott and Stacey said in comments to my post on the Supreme Court's response and direction to the legislature to speed up their basic education funding, maybe they are not feeling the heat.  With the threat of being held in contempt of court or other action there are too many unknowns in this uncharted area that may make it difficult to achieve consensus on any action in this short session.  At least that is what I am seeing in the responses thus far except for two Democrats suggestion in this Crosscut article.

. . . At a Friday Seattle City Club forum, House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan, D-Covington, and Senate Minority Leader Sharon Nelson, D-Maury Island, said the Legislature needs to raise more money to meet its McCleary obligations. "The McCleary ruling was all about education funding," Sullivan said.

At the same meeting, however, there was a different response from two influential Republicans.

But at the same forum, Senate Majority Coalition Caucus Leader Rodney Tom, D-Medina, and House Minority Leader Dan Kristiansen, R-Snohomish, said the McCleary ruling was not necessarily about funding, but about reforms to fix the education system. And they contended that Legislature should meet all of the McCleary obligations first before mapping out budgets for other state programs such as social services. House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, objects, saying Republicans would likely be unwilling to increase taxes to preserve social services.

As it suggests in the article this sounds like the stalemate we witnessed last year.  More of the same will not result in additional funding coming from this session.  That was reinforced for me listening to this KUOW.org interview of Senator Litzow, Senate Education Chair.  He shares how hard it is to reach consensus with 147 legislators especially in a short session.  He also reinforces the point that any new money will include additional reforms to fix a failing system.  So, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but it looks like the recent Court response may not be sufficient to create the heat necessary for finding additional revenue to meet the expectation for full funding of basic education.

Questions and engagement . . .

Last Friday Dawn and I had the opportunity with our learning cohort to visit a member district that included viewing a video of a principal meeting and two classroom observations.  I was impressed by the district's transparency and desire for feedback.  The focus of the work at the system level was on central office transformation to support principals as instructional leaders. In the classroom they asked us to focus on classroom engagement and questioning, two areas that are also a focus in our school system.

I share this because of the infographic on Larry Ferlazzo's Websites of the Day that I read this weekend.  It would serve as a nice point of departure for a conversation with the two teachers we observed and also in our own work.  The five questions are a reminder to assist us in asking questions that move the conversation to a higher level and that probe for deeper reflection on the part of students.

https://twitter.com/mkolkman/status/404704351454638081/photo/1

Another exhausting win . . .

Saints Touchdown 

I didn't play one down of football today, but I left the game feeling like I gave it my all.  I'm not usually one of those crazed fans yelling all game long, but tonight I'm sitting here with a hoarse throat and little energy.  It was once again a great game to watch and felt much closer than the final eight point margin of victory.   I just wish they would have put it away earlier than the last play so we didn't have to go through a finish with Brees driving down the field for a possible tie. Overtime would have been too much.  

It just got hotter . . .

My intent this evening was to blog about a bill that Superintendent Dorn is presenting to raise the revenue needed for the state to meet the funding obligations of SHB 2776 and the Supreme Court's findings in the McCleary case.  He has also this year sent a supplemental budget request to the legislature to increase public school funding by approximately $544 million.

vimeo.com

Following the news release of Dorn's bill, the Supreme Court released their response to the legislature's findings on how they are meeting the requirements to achieve full funding by 2018 that I blogged about here.  From this Tacoma News Tribune article you will see that the court is not in agreement with what has been accomplished and has raised the heat in a year when everything we have heard is that there would be no new funding for public schools.


Coming four days before the Legislature begins its 2014 session, the court's latest order responds to the work lawmakers did in 2013, when they budgeted an extra $1 billion for basic education.

But that fell short in most categories of recommendations by a task force, the court noted. Eight of nine justices signed the order, calling for lawmakers to write a complete plan by April for phasing in billions of dollars of extra funding by 2018.

It's clear that "the pace of progress must quicken," the court wrote. 

"We have no wish to be forced into entering specific funding directives to the State, or, as some high courts have done, holding the legislature in contempt of court," the court said, hinting at possible ways it could step up pressure on lawmakers. "But, it is incumbent upon the state to demonstrate, through immediate, concrete action, that it is making real and measurable progress, not simply promises."

You can check out the Court's response here.  It is only nine pages and well worth the read.  They use straight language in conveying the message that action in the last session did not meet the Court's expectations and that change and new money is expected.  They cite transportation, MOOCs, and salaries as examples of not meeting expectations.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/09/2985505/mccleary-state-supreme-court-wants.html#storylink=cpy

Re-posting an important question . . .

www.prweb.com

Below is a post I did on December 30th that I have decided to post again, something that I have not done before.  I don't have a lot of readers and the count always drops over longer holiday breaks so I should plan better for when to post content I would like to see generate comments and interchange between readers.  For me, this is one of those posts, a topic of importance that impacted me when I read the answers that teachers submitted.

Amy Torrens posted a comment to the original post that captures the feeling that many teachers and principals hold about needing to be perfect  that also showed up in one of the comments to the Strauss post.

I think this post captures what I hear my teachers say, and how I feel as a principal. So many people want to do it "perfectly" but there isn't the time to put in place everything we know goes into good teaching.

I won't make it a practice to re-post, but this one deserved more readers and the opportunity for comments from those of you that do this important work.  Consider sharing your answer to the question below.

ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS 

On the Washington Post Answer Sheet Valerie Strauss poses the following question.

How hard is teaching?

She includes a few examples such as this one below.

“Teaching is hard. Not only because of the curriculum, not only because of the new tests, new rules, new measures. Not only because there are tests, tests, and more tests. But because it so often feels like an insurmountable, thankless, stressful endeavor. The rules are always changing. The tests are always changing. And the blame for anything and everything that goes wrong usually falls squarely on our shoulders.” – Neyda Borges, teacher at Miami Lakes Educational Center in Florida, from this piece on the website of StateImpact Florida, a project of NPR.

How would you answer the question?  I was particularly moved by a comment to the post from palan.

. . . But in some ways the hardest part is never being enough.

You know what, in a perfect world, you would do-- the assignments you would give, the personal attention you would give, the feedback you would give on assignments, the preparation you would put into units. You will never have enough time to do all of it, especially if you have a life of your own (and you have to, even if only to be able to connect to students), and so you must always decide what thing that ought to be done is not going to be done.

You grow every year (if you're any good) and you get better at juggling more balls faster. But every day is still educational triage and you are still bothered by the things you know you ought to do, but you don't have the time or the resources.

You will never be perfect, even though you have a pretty good idea of what perfect looks like. You will always be better than you used to be, but all good teachers know exactly in what ways they are failing.

Please consider sharing your answer with our readers and commenting on the Strauss post.  It is important for policy makers to get closer to the reality of how hard teaching is as they make decisions that impact what young people need to know and do and the resources they allocate for teachers and support staff to accomplish this difficult task.  

Simple language change, significant consequences . . .

Once more I am drawn to a Seattle Times editorial focused on strengthening teacher evaluation by mandating the use of state test scores in  individual teacher evaluations.  It is the second of three education editorials from January 4th found here.


Lawmakers' first important task is to strengthen the state teacher and principal evaluation law, if the state wants to keep its federal waiver under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The new evaluation system, enacted in 2012, is more useful than the previous one. It includes the use of student test scores as one element out of many when rating teacher and principal performance.

Is the primary motivation to assure the state maintains the waiver I have blogged about before?   Would this change be a top priority in the upcoming legislative session if the waiver was not in jeopardy?   How does this change support what we have been told is the primary driver for the mandated evaluation changes; supporting teacher growth?

But the law's weak language — it says that statewide student test scores "can" be used, rather than "must" — resulted in battles throughout the state's 295 districts as teachers' unions and administrators faced off over whether to use state test scores.

With my limited data, I am not aware of any school system that faced a "battle" between teachers and administrators over whether to use state test scores.  That was certainly the case in our system where conversations were collaborative and decisions reached through consensus.

State test scores should be used, just as the scores from district and teacher-developed tests will be used. If Washington does not change the law to reflect this important principle, it may lose a federal waiver exempting it from mandates in the No Child Left Behind law.  The word "can" must be exchanged for "must" in the law. 

Changing the word will more than likely be done this session, but what will it accomplish?  I don't believe that it will strengthen our capacity to support teacher growth, it could in the short term have the opposite effect depending on how the scores must be used.  It will, however, position the state to maintain the waiver so lets be open about the motivation for the proposed change.  What it does to our culture and to our capacity to maintain the focus on teacher growth is the unintended consequence I would like to not face.

A little too far . . .

This Education Week Teacher post by Anthony Cody is one that is worth the read for staff at the building level.  It is a memo received by a Chicago elementary school teacher this past week outlining two bathroom policy changes.  The first requires teachers to take their class to the restroom at a scheduled time and the second provides two restroom passes per student for the remainder of the quarter.

www.homemadecountry.com

The title suggesting that bathroom passes and timed restroom visits is to preserve time for common core test preparation may be Cody's assumption as there is no reason given in the memo for the policy changes. If accurate, it troubles me that someone in a leadership position is placed in a situation where he or she believes this is a positive and necessary step to take.  It makes me wonder what, if any, focus has been created on supporting change in instructional practice.  It also makes me wonder what support, materials, and guidance are available to this building administrator from the district and state to support common core implementation.

The tension being felt by this building level administrator is beyond what we call creative tension and is leading to policies that will not influence instructional practice, the vehicle for preparing young people for the common core assessments in their future.  I believe that the common core authors did not envision restroom policies as a byproduct of their work.  What about the education reformers, how would they respond to these policies?

Adding time to 3D printing . . .

Over time I've shared my fascination with 3D printing such as in this post.  In this TED Ideas Worth Sharing video I learned about 4D printing a process intended to add time to 3D printing with smart materials programmed to refigure over time.  Skylar Tibbits of MIT explains how they program materials that respond to motion in this short video.