Reformers Have Broken Thanksgiving

Mmm...More Gravy please.

With Thanksgiving Break just ahead I thought I get it started a bit early.  So I hustled from my classroom into the crowded cafeteria during one of our 24-minute lunch periods eager to grab a meal and scarf it down before the bell rang and the hordes of students headed out the door, some back to my class.  I waited patiently to place my order in the line.   I could have cut as some staff do but that never seems right to me.   The menu featured turkey, stuffing, green beans and mashed potatoes, all among the most American of meals.  I stepped forward and said "I'll take some of everything..and gravy on all of it too please"  But before she reached for the first helping of Turkey with the tongs, she paused.  She looked up just for a moment and then paused.  I hung on the slightest movement.  Then it happened.

She signed and said "You cannot get Mashed Potatoes and Stuffing Together."

What?!

She apologetically offered "it's not up to me" and she simply was not able to serve the two together.  The words stung me like a slap to the face.  I recoiled and said "Oh?"  I added a second later that "sounded pretty Un-American to me."  She agreed and I reluctantly chose the stuffing as she added to my gravy across styrofoam tray.

This scenario should not serve as an indictment of my school's or any other cafeteria in the nation.  She and they are doing their best.  (Nevermind the choice to throw away thousands of styrofoam trays a month...that seems flawed.)  But the un-Thanksgiving-like choice forced upon me illustrates the point perfectly and is a microcosm of education.  In an well intentioned effort to make things better, decision makers had done something that just wasn't right.  Sure child obesity is a major concern and yes healthy meals are important, but that did little to assuage my discontent.  Could anyone who decided that two starches cannot go together look me in the eye and make a rationale case for why that was so in this particular case?  I think not.  As a result of their decision, quality didn't get better, it got worse. 

And at every turn classroom teachers are facing similar sorts of situations.  Reformers, working to make things "better" are too far removed from ground level.  They've lost touch and in many ways are affecting change without really knowing the consequences to students and teachers.  The result is we feel powerless to help things improve and do what we know would make things better.  Paternal activism in this case is a bad thing.

I see it every day where testing, data collection, standardization and top down policy inadvertently interfere with the ability of talented classroom teachers to do their job well. But like the lunch lady, what choice do we have?  When we speak up we run the risk of being labelled an agitator or not a team player.  It's tough.

My colleague said it best:

"The only way to get common sense reform is to put decisions 

in the hands of those closest to where it matters most"

But we continue to move in the opposite direction in our misguided national effort to improve education quality.  No magic elixir exists and issues facing schools are as diverse as the students themselves.  Solutions and reforms should be local and driven by those with the greatest sense of understanding.  So unless you want to be told what you can't do as I was, then encourage decision makers to entrust people in schools to direct and affect change in the way they see fit.  Let them give me both stuffing and mashed potatoes.  It's the right thing to do

Principal Wanted: No Experience. No Problem.

Administrators and School Boards take plenty of beatings from teachers.   My experience with both has been mixed but I don't have any complaints beyond the norm(their experience with me might be described in much the same way).  Mostly because I understand that even though we have the same goal in mind for students, we see the day to day realities of education differently.  I am sympathetic to their plight and certainly would have much tougher time without their support.  That said there are the more and more individuals entering leadership roles I don't tend to appreciate.

Want to be Principal?  No Teaching Experience?  Not a problem.

They are usually teachers, administrators or other "educrats" who are focused on getting somewhere instead of focusing on doing the job here and now.  They seem to be serving in their position only because it serves a vehicle for self advancement.  We all know the self promoting appearance over substance type who are slicker than a barber shop shave.   The private sector is not immune from the same thing but that doesn't make me feel better.   In education they seem be more disruptive.  The movement of these individuals into administrative with little consequential experience in subordinate  roles brings a cascade of unfortunate consequences for just about everyone else.

They radically change policy to provide a feather in their cap to trumpet in advance of the next move. They forgo the measured approach for the sake of expediency and instead angle and network to ease their ascension to a "higher" job.   Their consistent lack of understanding of why a teacher makes a decision or  frequent miscommunication due to the absence of been there before wisdom becomes troubling.  Simple time proven methods are swept aside as a byproduct of the lack of experience.  The unwillingness to tackle long term chronic problems that might plague schools might be another side effect.    When they do they meet skepticism from teachers concerned about what's behind such measures.  This is only natural given teacher confront too many individuals such as this who devalue their efforts.  And then there is the inability to fully comprehend all that is involved in teaching and learning and inability to provide the necessary support for students and staff.   Instead of looking around for where to help out and make things better , these folks are looking up and where they want to go. One repercussion of this is the "bad" teacher rhetoric.  A get out of accountability card by throwing problems onto teachers.  This is less likely if individuals have taught.   It is just easier to work with someone who understands your job.  Working with people who have reached higher levels because they do a good job makes a huge difference and we ned more of them, not the opposite. 

Which is why I was puzzled the Charlottesville School Board voted to amend the division requirements for becoming a principal.  Essentially they have removed the requirement that a principal have classroom experience.   The Virginia Department of Education still requires that principals have at least 3 years experience as licensed instructional personnel.  Charlottesville's requirement now reads: "The Charlottesville City School Board, upon recommendation of the superintendent, employs principals and assistant principals who hold licenses as prescribed by the Board of Education."  The state changed the wording back in 2007(?) to allow for individuals to be principals without teaching.  Not to say these folks can't accomplish anything or do good, many do both. 

So it is perhaps a stretch to say that this will really change much.  If anything it might even allow for some outstanding guidance counselors, instructional coaches or other staff to serve as principals.  I might say that if those individuals were serious about being great principals they might entertain the idea that they need classroom experience somewhere along the way.   Even so one reality is that when someone leaves the classroom to administration or some other role their view on things instantly changes.  That's OK.  Different perspectives are helpful so long as both sides can understand where they other is coming from.  In the back of most teachers heads they think "We disagree, but this person knows what it is like."   If they haven;t taught, they might think something a little less accommodating. 

I am troubled by the prospect of working with or for someone who has never been an actual teacher at some point.  I could throw out metaphors about car salesman or pyramid schemes but that would miss the point.  Principals serve in a multitude of roles.  They are educators, role models, supervisors, organizers,  problem solvers and the list goes on.  Above all they are leaders.  In the eyes of this teacher those best able to lead in education must work with teachers and those best able to do that have been teachers themselves.  

Doing Versus Thinking

Which is the more noble task? Generating the idea or carrying it out?  Action without thought is ineffective, but thought without action is useless.  The dichotomy reminds me of James' warning in the Christian Bible's New Testament.  He reminded early Christians that "faith without works is dead." For two millennia, Christians have debated the role of faith and works, but most would agree, they are not mutually exclusive expressions.

Likewise, ideas and execution-- thinking and doing-- cannot exist in isolation.  As teachers, we plan, we do, and after it's over, we think some more and evaluate so that next time we can do it better.  At least that's how it should work.

I'll admit, there are times when I don't see that I have time to think.  I simply "do."  I taught U.S. Government the first six years of my career.  It was my only consistent prep, so every year I had to prepare for a new class in addition to teaching Government.  I didn't have time to plan or think about what to teach so I relied on the previous year's material.  After six years, even I was tired of what I had to teach.  I started throwing away materials after I used them just to prevent myself from going back to them the next year.  But too often as a teacher we get so caught in the busyness of everything that needs to be done that thinking becomes a luxury that our time can't afford.

In regards to education, some people spend more time thinking than doing.  Educational structures facilitate this.  A recent article noted that with the exception of Administration, there is little room for vertical movement of teachers.  Making the choice to move upward in the world of education usually removes one from the classroom.  Many capable teachers do not seek higher level positions because of this, but do we really want to encourage good teachers out of the classroom anyway?

Administrators, guidance counselors, tech support, etc., all have their jobs to do; "Thinkers" don't include everyone that serves our schools outside of the classroom.  But from created positions in individual schools all the way up to our Secretary of Education, too many education professionals spend their day "thinking" without very much "doing."

How do we bridge this divide of "doers" who don't think enough and "thinkers" who don't do enough?

Thinking takes time.  We put quite a bit of thought and time into the Teaching Underground.  Still, we fail to match the depth of content or frequency of posting that so many others manage to handle.  The frequency and quality of the Underground is a product of how much "real" work we have to manage as teachers.  I'm sure most bloggers feel this stretch.  I've often thought "why do I do this, there is not enough time in the day and what do I really accomplish in the end? I'm simply thinking about my profession and sharing those ideas with others."

My answer: because thinking is just as important as doing and I refuse to give up the power of ideas to drive the efforts of my work toward meaningful ends.

To the doers:  Take a break.  Think about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what you'd like to do next. Learn about what's happening around you and figure out your appropriate place within the context you live and work. If you have to leave somethings "undone" to protect your time and energy for thought, do it.  If you're too busy to stop and think, you're too busy.  You're going to harm someone if you keep going.

To the thinkers: Get your hands dirty. Not a casual drop in or guest appearance in the classroom.  Find a regular consistent way to directly impact a teacher, student or group of students.  Don't overburden the "doers" with good ideas that you can't test out yourself.  Remember that ideas don't have a life of their own, don't treasure them so much that when the doers tell you the ideas aren't working that you don't believe them.  If you don't remember what it's like to miss your lunch or postpone a much needed bathroom break because you're occupied with students, you're not connected with the place where your ideas are carried out. If that's the case, stop thinking so much and do something.  You're going to harm someone if you keep going.

To everyone who can make a difference: Give teachers the power to think and trust them to make good decisions. Provide the space and time for their experience and practice to gel into sound theory and plans for moving forward. Don't make decisions in isolation, but build systems that give teachers the ability to engage in deliberate thought about policy and practice.  Don't provide opportunities to attend after-school forums, complete surveys, or serve on another committee and consider it teacher leadership.  Consider placing certain decision-makers in the classroom more often, and give certain teachers a break from full teaching schedules in exchange for leadership roles.

Effective education requires a proper mix of thinking and doing from everyone, not a cadre of thinkers to direct the activity of the doers. This is education after all, not a beehive.

Educational Leadership: Part II

“It’s all about the kids.” That’s the rationale given by high-profile education reformers and policy leaders for decisions that largely dismiss or ignore the importance of teachers in the process.  “It’s all about the kids” is often thrown around to set up a false dichotomy that interests of teachers stand in opposition to the interests of students. 

I don’t doubt the sincerity of politicians and education leaders, but if they really want to best serve students without spending time in a school, the only way to do so is by supporting the teachers who do.

I’ve worked with several different types of student leadership groups.  When pressed to answer the question “why do you want to be a leader?” most students answer honestly.  They want to influence decision-making, have a say in matters that affect them, design projects to help others in the school and community—rarely do they reflect on the reality that leadership is about facilitating growth and maturation of those they serve, creating the best environment for others to reach their potential.  “You’ve already proven you can make something of yourself, the next step is to make something of the other guy.”  That’s one of the first lessons I use in the leadership class that I sometimes teach.   

We need more of this in educational leadership.  Adults who want to empower other adults to become better at what they do; not adults who want to exercise control or power to push their own agendas.To effectively lead in that regard, three things are needed.

1) Leadership must come from within.  A leader is a part of the system, not above or outside of the system.  Our most recent post mentioned a request from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to the School Board that they consider merit pay for teachers.  To the Board of Supervisors I would say, “thank you very much for your financial support of our schools, but you don’t know what is best for our system.”

I can see some bristling at that remark.  Isn’t it like a child telling his or her parents “why can’t you just give us money and leave us alone”?  It’s nothing like that at all.  It’s like a lawyer telling the client "I know you're paying me, but you don't get to tell me how to do my job."

Large districts increasingly turn to outsiders like Joel Klein and Cathy Black to “lead” their schools.  Other leaders like Michele Rhee and Arne Duncan are only marginally connected to classroom education through a few years of experience before moving into leadership positions often beyond the building or even district level.

One of the ugly issues of the last four years of Presidential politics came from the question of citizenship by birth.  All of our elected political leaders must be citizens, and the President, a citizen from birth.  You can’t make decisions about what’s best for America if you’re not American.  You shouldn't make uninformed decisions about what’s best for education if you’re not an educator.

2) Leadership requires competence.  Competence is demonstrated only through consistent effective performance.  Recently, my colleagues and I have discussed two principles and how they relate to education. The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability.  Most districts do not promote teachers based on competence.  The notion that rewarding teachers with pay for good performance continues to float, but rarely do systems promote teachers beyond the classroom for consistent effective performance.

Beyond the classroom, an additional degree will place an individual on the promotion ladder-- from the building level administrator (a step sometimes skipped) to division-level responsibilities involving finance, human resources, building services, and many other diverse positions.

There are many effective and competent leaders in education beyond the classroom.  I’m lucky enough to work with many of them.  But, while conventional wisdom likes to point out how “bad teachers” are killing education I would argue that we’re more likely to find competence in the classroom than outside.  Teachers work up to their level of competence.  Once they reach it, they continue to perform in the classroom. 

3) Leadership requires self-awareness.  A second idea we’ve talked about lately is the “Dunning-Kruger Effect.”  Through a series of studies at Cornell University, Dunning and Kruger demonstrate that incompetent people typically don’t recognize their incompetence and fail to recognize competence in others.  It’s analogous to the student who thinks he’s prepared for the test until he starts to study.  Only then does he recognize how little he truly knows on the subject.  Furthermore, subjects who display competence are more likely to show less confidence in their abilities.

This idea is dangerous for education when highly confident individuals, unaware of their incompetence push reforms and policies without understanding the impact.  The inability to recognize competence explains why so many merit-based plans or other evaluation systems are flawed.

Subjects recognized the severity of their incompetence when exposed to appropriate training for the skill.  Higher levels of educational leadership become more isolated from this exposure.  In the classroom, my incompetence results in immediate exposure through confused students, inappropriate behaviors, complaints from parents, etc.

At higher levels, from where can this exposure come?  Unfortunately, when an administrator, superintendent, state official (keep moving up the chain) makes an incompetent or bad decision, the only way they will find out is from a subordinate.  Two problems here: 1) for a superintendent to stand up to a state official, a principal to a superintendent, a teacher to a principal—takes a lot of nerve and risk. 2) If the subordinate has the nerve to question a policy from a superior often it is dismissed as a complaint. (remember, incompetence doesn’t recognize competence in others)

What does this mean for teachers?

1) Embrace and support effective leaders. Do everything in your power to make sure they understand how necessary they are. 

2) Remember your primary client- the student.  Sometimes you have to jump through hoops, but you’re in the classroom with your clients every day.  Use your good judgment and do the right thing.

3) Build credibility and legitimacy by showing competence in your job.  Parents and students will become evidence of your ability giving greater weight to your voice beyond the classroom.

4) Stay informed. Pay attention to legislative actions, express your opinion, and educate the public through your network of friends and colleagues. (Or just refer them to The Teaching Underground if that’s too hard).

5) Remember that even when you feel like others see you as a cog in the wheel, that everyday YOU exercise the true power of leadership: You have the power to create the environment that allows each person you interact with to become the best person they can.

Education Leadership

Educational Leadership- Part I

RUAN-EDUKSHUNUHL LEDUR?

That’s not German…It’s phonetic for a question more people should ask themselves.  If you couldn't figure it out, you probably shouldn't be in charge.

What could we, the TU, know about Educational Leadership?  Truth be told we know a thing or two.  This post is an adaptation of a presentation the Underground was privileged enough to conduct with members of the student body while they attended a school leadership retreat. It is relevant because the void of true leadership from anyone in a high enough position to make a difference is starting to hurt.   The only thing worse than no leadership is bad leadership.  And that is exectly what the Feds and state legislatures have been giving us the past few years.  In fact I am beginning to think the term Educational Leader is actually an oxymoron. As we grow accustomed to gridlock in DC, the only thing clear is we are lacking enough leaders willing or capable to lead us to a better place. This might also be true in education.

Above the building level what we need systemically is great leadership. Not common in a profession where upward mobility is rather non-existent.   School divisions find leadership even harder to come by because promotion from the classroom is often an escape for some.  Still others see the classroom as a necessary chore to enter educational leadership. It is increasingly easy to hop online and pick their Ed.L.D. with little or no teaching experience and whamo...they are making decisions for us all.  It's not that outsiders shouldn't contribute but Corporate style leadership in education is not too popular with many people in education. 

Many good teachers don't want to leave the kids thus restricting their influence. But they aren't too fond of seagulls either.  New leadership hires usually come with a dizzying list of degrees but potentially absent the insights and experience most needed. When you look even higher, the void is so pronounced that few people in the upper echelons have any connection as to what is actually happening and what is actually needed on the student level.   How frequent and in what context was the word education used in the recent Presidential debate?  That says a lot about where education fits into the public consciousness. Is that an indictment of current education policy makers nationally…yeah…I guess it is.  But they are not all purposefully disconnected.  Some are victims of time and distance from the classroom. 

Defining leadership is simple…defining good leadership…not as easy. Defining Good Educational Leadership even more so.  In its most basic form leadership is the capacity or ability to lead. To lead is to either get in front to show people the way or to go along with them, maybe even push from behind. One thing that becomes immediately clear is those who are the leaders can’t always show the way directly.  

Jobs within education are very different and quite stratified.  So the "lead by Example" motto falls by the wayside. It's hard to provide the example when you have no experience in a specific area from which to draw.  There are currently so many levels of leadership in what some call the bloated education bureaucracy.

We’ve said before that anyone referred to as an "educator" should be required to teach a class.  Just to keep their feet on the ground and their heads out of their rumps. More importantly would be the fact that they would get to deal with kids each day.  A leader takes an active role in making something happen with others. Teachers do this all the time.  The “others” are referred to as followers, so I guess I am a leader and a follower(hey by the way are you an official follower of the TU…if not you can do so on the menu at the right).  Kids are the constant in education and people who wall themselves off from that figuratively or literally impede their ability to lead effectively. 

In reality leaders in education are not only outside of the classroom, they are in it. Principals, Superintendents, and School Board Members all play a key role in the chain of leadership and direction of policy. But the anchor points of that chain are the teachers and the parents. They are both the ones with the most understanding but also often the most disconnected the point of influence.   This disconnect from leadership and students causes or results in an over-reliance on data and numbers.

Too often they operate with suspect understanding and a predetermined outcome devoid of feedback or empathy to those affected. They are too often asked to make decisions absent key information.  Leading by mandate handed down from above alienates followers and often loses sight of the real needs of students. 

The skills of leadership are elusive and fluid.  They take practice.  Some aspects of leadership can be learned and developed and this makes perfect sense.   What is often missing in educational leaders is that they work with people that don't see they have to earn the position. That relationship has grown even more complicated as education has become politicized. The educational, economic and political considerations now seem to overshadow an individual’s ability to make a difference. That is after all what good or bad leadership eventually does…make a difference.

Give some thought to a several important questions. What is the Goal of Educational Leadership? A better way to think about this might be to ask what do good educational leaders do? Think about their impact, their influence on other people, how they spend their time. Why they became a leader in the first place? 

A brief answer would be good leaders make things better. They make it easier and better for kids, teachers, parents…everyone.   Educational leadership should improve our schools thus ultimately the future for our kids.   Such positions should not and cannot be used for personal advancement, promotion or for any other reason but to make things better.  While at the top level this may show as pushing hard for a change to gain a desired national outcome to put a feather in the cap, at my level it would be empowering people to create, develop and improve things all the while forging relationships that move us all forward.  That isn't a lot to ask is it?

We may write a bit more on this topic but in the meantime take a few moments to view this video and see if you can think of how it might apply to educational leadership.

The Resolution

Imagine you're in the middle of a difficult task.  You've exhausted all of your options, finally found a course of action that moves you in the right direction, and someone comes into the picture with a fresh idea.  If you haven't thought of it before you might be grateful for their insight.  But too often they simply suggest something you've already tried or thought of.

It's no problem if they shrug their shoulders and move on, but, you know the type, some people will just stand over your shoulder and criticize your efforts and tell you how they would do it until you finally break and give in.  You try it their way (again, because you already did it once), they observe how difficult the task really is, and move on.  Still, sometimes they insist that you're missing something and perhaps try to get their hands in on the task in another effort.  Finally, they give up, and you start all over, unless you give up and leave them to figure out on their own what you've already figured out... before you had to start all over.

Do I need to make the connection to everyone pushing the test-based accountability movement?

So far, I see no significant mainstream political or media push-back against the building momentum of excessive testing in public education.  The push back exists, and in large numbers, but it hasn't gained enough traction to translate into policy.  Perhaps there is hope.  Texas has generated a great deal of publicity with the 300+ school districts that have passed a resolution opposing the prominent place that high-stakes testing have taken in public education.  Now, 'Time out for Testing' has created a national resolution modeled after the Texas resolution and so far over 3000 individuals have signed on and over 150 organizations.

Read the resolution and decide whether you agree with the ideas presented.  If so, add your name to the list of signatories and encourage others to join you in adding a voice to the movement to restore sanity to public education by placing standardized testing in its proper place. 

National Resolution on High Stakes Testing