Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond

message: I find the page on Linda Darling-Hammond to be totally laudatory, and therefore very troubling.  Many of us in social justice-focused teacher education are thoroughly distressed about her continuing allegiance to EdTPA, which she launched, probably with non-cynical intentions.   But the effects of that initiative have been devastating to all of us; we are not only beleaguered by another layer of mostly mindless accreditation hoops costing inordinate amounts of time and money (and discouraging young people of limited means with new costly tests) competing with our precious curriculum-development time with our student teachers, (forget about the legal problems of our students having to get parental permission to send films of children in public school classrooms to a corporation; I certainly would not give permission for my own children to be filmed under such circumstances)  but find ourselves reporting sensitive data to a multinational corporation that has totally disempowered the democratic processes by which educational missions and standards have been negotiated, however problematic those democratic processes have been.   Is Darling-Hammond unaware of the funding alliances between/among the Walton family, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and even Rupert Murdoch's empire, and their hopes of eliminating current University-based programs in teacher education in favor of their own private certification ventures, beholden to no public?   I do not use the term "fascism" lightly, but the implementation of EdTPA without sufficient public comment or teacher input, and its replacement of elected governmental bodies at least in (democratic) theory, responsive to the public by a corporation really does smack of it.   Shame on you, Linda Darling Hammond, for being deaf to your own primary constituency.  The Wikepeda page on Darling-Hammond is extremely biased and badly needs editing!  I have never edited a Wikepedia page before, but will work with a group of colleagues to do this shortly.   Sincerely, Barbara RegenspanBregenspan (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above strikes me as perhaps a little in the weeds for an encyclopedia article, but it's up to you. It seems to me the best (and fairest) way to make the article more neutral is to remove some of the career play-by-play and praise quoting now in the piece.Flyte35 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Too laudatory

message: I represent Dr. Darling-Hammond and have posted a comprehensive bio on this page today. When this page was originally created, it was done by someone who posted entirely on and clearly cares strongly for Teach for America (TFA). I respect that passion, but Dr. Darling-Hammond'spage is not the appropriate place to wage a debate on TFA. Out of dozens of books, hundreds of research publications and uncountable articles, this is *one* report, conducted more than three years ago. Dr. Darling-Hammond's work — which encompasses not just teacher education, but school redesign, district redesign, principal preparation, leadership education, and assessment -- was not accurately represented by the previous post.  While there is no objection on anyone's part to a debate on research, this debate belongs on the TFA page, not Dr. Darling-Hammond's page. That research publication is only one of hundreds of projects Dr. Darling-Hammond has published on and devoting her biographical page to it is not appropriate.  
--Barbara McKenna; June 6, 2008
Subject-approved bios are great, but they are not justification for deleting relevant information that is backed up by sources.  I encourage people to harvest important sentences from older versions of the article. 
--RedHouse18 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've removed some information from the career section. None of the information that I've removed is controversial, however, and I wouldn't get into an edit war if someone put it back in. I think that the length and tone of the section, however, is part of the reason the article has the "like a resume tag."  All of the information in the original paragraph comes from the source I added also, btw, so there's no need to find a new source.Flyte35 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Career

message: I think it is very important that this article document Linda Darling-Hammond's views on a number of issues in education reform.  For example: (please suggest other issues)
1.  Public school choice
2.  School vouchers
3.  Standardized testing
4.  No Child Left Behind
5.  Teacher merit-pay
6.  Alternative teacher certification programs
7.  Teach For America
8.  Charter schools
9.  The proper role of the federal, state, and local governments in education
10. Extended day and/or extended year schools
11. Early childhood education
12. Teachers unions
I'm sure her views are complex and the article should attempt to reflect that complexity.  I call on all parties to contribute to this article as much and as soon as possible.  We are responsible for informing the public about someone who is very important.  As always, use a a NPOV and provide citations.
--RedHouse18 21:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Education Reforms 

message: This tag was added back in June 2008, apparently by User:Pilotguy. There have been significant edits to the piece since then, many of which bring in additional, encyclopedic information. I believe that with the removal of the Awards section (which doesn't really seem terribly informative) it would be appropriate to remove the tag. Thoughts?Flyte35 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Like a résumé

message: I've removed a section someone posted on "Stanford New School" (which is actually Stanford New Schools) because it was completely inaccurate and while there is relevancy to Linda Darling-Hammond in the topic, it has been blown entirely out of proportion. Here are the facts:
Linda Darling-Hammond didn't found Stanford New Schools and had nothing to so the the *elementary school* charter, that recently had its charter revoked. Stanford New Schools did not exist in 2001 when the East Palo Alto Academy High School was formed. SNS was formed in 2006 to launch an elementary school, and at that time the high school, founded in 2001 by a group of people that included Darling-Hammond, and newly launched elementary school were merged into one charter, administered by SNS. It would be accurate to say Linda Darling-Hammond was one of the founders (she was the faculty advisor many other people were involved) of the *high school* in 2001. And the high school is still in operation and not closing and doing very well by its students.
The high school, East Palo Alto Academy High School (EPAAHS), charter continuation was approved April 14, 2010, by the Ravenswood City School District and the high school continues to operate, serving student population that is 20 percent African American, 70 percent Latino, 10 percent Pacific Islander, and more than half English language learners. The school stats include a graduation rate of 86 percent—well above the state average of 80 percent overall and approximately 65 percent statewide for African American and Latino students; a college admission rate of 96 percent of graduates, with 53 percent admitted to four-year colleges in 2009-2010 (latest year I have stats for)--more than twice the rate for California students as a whole; an Early College program in which 125 of the school’s students earned more than 550 college credits last year while they were still in high school, with more than 40 percent earning an “A” and many graduating with a full year of college already completed. It's also had achievement gains of 180 points on the Academic Performance Index (API), the state’s measure of academic achievement, over the last seven years. 
If you'd like to create a section about EPAAHS, those are the facts above, easily verified by any intelligent Google search or by contacting Ravenswood School District. And a section about Stanford New Schools on this page is entirely inappropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaramckenna (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it seems pretty well sourced and the points made above don't don't really seem to contradict anything in the removed text. They merely add context. They would be entirely appropriate to include as well. It does seem that the Stanford New School information should probably be within the "Developing schools and programs" section.Flyte35 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of recent section on "Stanford New School" [sic] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Linda Darling-Hammond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326184555/http://www.swarthmore.edu/alumni/edsite/keynote3.html to http://www.swarthmore.edu/alumni/edsite/keynote3.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://varenne.tc.columbia.edu/bib/texts/intasc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625193056/http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/ to http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313224318/http://www.mcgrawprize.com/winners/past/ to http://www.mcgrawprize.com/winners/past/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified