Let me be clear on this point, I am just as opposed to social promotion as I am to retention. Why? Both are products of the assumption that time is constant and that the best way to organize and educate is by batching same-age children together, taking them through a series of disconnected and prescribed content-based coursework, evaluating them via grades and age/time based tests and then either sending them back for re-work or moving them down the assembly line incomplete because it is "time" for them to move to the next set of curriculum.

Bottom line, administrators need to be in classrooms. These need to be authentic visits where they are a part of the learning going on. As George stated, the scheduled days and visits often turn into dog and pony shows because teachers and students know who is coming. It should be more fluid and part of the culture of the building. If teachers and students act differently when an administrator walks into a room there is something wrong. An administrator in a classroom should not be like a yeti sighting, but just par for the course. As many of the comments already stated, it is not a reality of an administrator’s job to be in classrooms every day or even for full days at a time. With that in mind, how many make excuses for not being “out there” more?

I hope those that do participate in this no office day, realize that it is one day and in no way should be a celebrated event. It should be a step towards more involvement in classrooms in their schools. If a day like this is what it takes, that’s great. However, I caution against days that try to celebrate something that should be expected. I don’t make a unique day for good behavior in my class…because it is an expectation and part of my classroom culture. My question would be what is the culture in your building and what is part of business of usual?

When the student in class who has resisted your every attempt at reaching him and teaching him shows a glimmer of interest in what you have to say, you don’t turn around and say, “You know what, I’m going to head to the Teachers Lounge and talk about what a horrible job you’ve been doing. You’re welcome to come listen in. Then, we’ll come back, and I’ll teach you.”
You teach. You teach in any moment you are given.
Ours is a profession of taking breaks where we can get them.
Not only that, you collecting every shred of data you can.
“Yes, we would love to meet with you. We are going to bring a couple of our top bloggers with us to make sure we document what happens so we can share it with all stakeholders We believe in a transparent process.”
Then, go to the rally and issue your own press release to the assembled thousands relaying exactly what happened, what was said and what plans have been made going forward.
Instead of seeing the offered meeting with the White House and making the case at today’s rally as mutually exclusive events, the chance and win lies in seeing the events as mutually beneficial

In the case of standards, quantity is not quality. The irony of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) shouts at us: Although U.S. mathematics textbooks attempt to address 175 percent more topics than do German textbooks and 350 percent more topics than do Japanese textbooks, both German and Japanese students significantly outperform U.S. students in mathematics. Similarly, although U.S. science textbooks attempt to cover 930 percent more topics than do German textbooks and 433 percent more topics than do Japanese textbooks, both German and Japanese students significantly outperform U.S. students in science achievement as well (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1996).

Clearly, U.S. schools would benefit from decreasing the amount of content they try to cover. And teacher morale and self-efficacy improve when we confidently lay out a more manageable number of essential topics to be taught and assessed in greater depth.

@Scott wrote, “That said, I also want my kids and yours to be able to get a job.”

My favorite comment of this entire conversation came in my email inbox from a teacher who described graphic novels as a “fanciful dance” that:

1. Encouraged visual literacy skills.
2. Taught students to interpret and analyze at a deep and meaningful level.
3. Introduced students to video production skills.
4. Engaged readers in critical self-analysis.

Listen to those words, y’all:  encouraged, taught, introduced and engaged.  Books don’t do those things. 

Teachers do.

We’ve got to stop believing that ANY tool—whether they are books or the digital gadgets that we like to slather our teacher-love all over—can singlehandedly save our students.

The problem isn't so much that we're making the mistake but that we assume we're doing it correctly, then provide a false answer while believing it to be true. The trick to overcoming this is to remember to ask yourself after you solve a problem, "why do I think this is correct?" One of the more important reasons you needed to show your work when doing a math problem in school was to make you think about what you were doing. Making assumptions might get you the answer sometimes, but if you spend a few more seconds thinking about the process you can develop the good habit of questioning yourself and catch these little errors. It may take a little more time, but it comes with the added bonus of potentially discovering ineffective methods you regularly use so you can change them for the better.

But perhaps we don’t need every student to have a device? I’ve been arguing for a while that schools need to think much more closely at the wonderful gift they currently have of having students actually attend school in person. As online education grows so does the potential for students to opt out of face to face attendance. What will we offer our students in person that they can’t receive online? The answer is simple. Each other. I value the way we connect online but face to face is different and valuable. We need to be very careful that we aren’t trying to replicate the face to face experience online and vice versa.

If we see teaching as the design and delivery of lessons which result in students' mastery of targeted learning objectives (don't laugh, a lot of politicians define teaching this way), then no, I don't think you can teach children to love reading. We also cannot say taking care of a pet teaches responsibility or that volunteering at the soup kitchen teaches charity. Much of what we learn in life comes from the people around us and our societal norms and values. Teachers and the other adults in children's lives serve as role models and mentors of acceptable and desired behaviors. Teaching reading, in my mind, includes fostering and promoting reading habits and role modeling a reading life for children. As Proverbs 22:6 charges us, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Talking with hundreds of adult readers during my travels, most credit at least one person in their lives--a parent, grandparent, sibling, teacher, librarian, or friend--who nurtured and encouraged their love for reading at a pivotal stage during their childhoods.

One of the big differences between Amazon Appstore and Android Market is that Amazon sends each submitted app through a manual review process, much like Apple's App Store. This gives the impression of a more serious app store, but whether or not it is actually needed for apps for the Android platform is a discussion in itself. In my opinion, the users should be educated about the very sophisticated permission system on Android instead. The user should learn to determine whether a permission should be required by an app, does a live wallpaper need access to your contacts, and if so why?