Climate Change: Fact or Fiction?

"a state of dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms in which genetic, species and ecosystem diversity remain relatively stable, subject to gradual changes through natural succession"

That is the definition of "ecological balance".  Words like stability, gradual change and natural seem to carry the most weight in that sentence for me.  Metaphorically maybe that is what I loved about teaching when I first started.  Survival, just like in the nature, was no easy task.  But if nothing else my environment was stable and predictable(Though I must admit that the opposite was sometimes true of my students).  I gradually got better based on what worked and what didn't. So in reflecting on the past few years, my toughest years teaching, something seems different.  There was no radical shift or change.  But what I am now acutely aware of is the change in culture and climate in schools.  To me, climate change is very real. 

I am of course talking about the climate of reform in our schools.  The National School Climate Center explains the following:

A sustainable, positive school climate fosters youth development and learning necessary for a productive, contributing and satisfying life in a democratic society. This climate includes:

• Norms, values and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally and physically safe.
• People are engaged and respected.
• Students, families and educators work together to develop, live and contribute to a shared school vision.
• Educators model and nurture attitudes that emphasize the benefits and satisfaction gained from learning.
• Each person contributes to the operations of the school and the care of the physical environment.

Go back and read those again.  Now a third time.  It seems balanced to me.  Change is a natural part of any environment.   But as an inhabitant of a school, it seems evident to me that some efforts to improve schools for those who learn in them might be coming at the expense of those who work in them and thus to the school itself.   I would assert that any change in order to succeed, must be mutually beneficial.  

In our case as teachers, there must be buy-in and the belief that this can and will work.  As an experienced teacher the "what's best for students"  is a truism that ignores the interplay between the two primary inhabitants of schools, students and teachers.  When I am in a meeting and I hear that phrase to justify a change, I roll my eyes and sometimes it even makes my skin crawl and implies somehow that beneficial actions for students and teachers are mutually exclusive.  It seems to discount the views and insights of all the trained, highly experienced, caring professionals who work directly with students. 

I try my best to do every single day what is best for students. To imply that my actions are otherwise, perhaps motivated by self interest or apathy, is a slap in the face.  Am I perfect ?  No.  But I teach because I am a teacher, not because I need a job.(let that sink in)  Unlike the natural world where everything exists in concert, schools exist for the sole purpose of benefiting students.  But the metaphor is one which I hope remains a powerful one.  You can't have an action that benefits one group without affecting the other. 

Whether it is a conversation about technology, homework load, teacher professional development, multi-age learning spaces, grades, standardized testing or any of the thousands of things we consider as teachers, the quality educators I work with try to do what is best for the student.  Sure there are some that don't live up to that standard.  This would be true of any workplace.  But increasingly there seems to be a movement of a small group of professionals directing things that seem to be disregarding the evidence and not paying much attention to the less overt impacts of change.  The system seems set up to exclude the ground level experts in the field who see every day what is actually going on.  While that could describe the current state of affairs regarding the EPA or our federal approach to climate change, it is a reference to decision makers who don't work directly with students.  The results in both scenarios could negatively affect everyone for a very long time to come.  Climates across the globe vary dramatically and the same is true of the climates within schools across our nation.  Some are farther ahead in the change and others remain unaffected and look much as they did 20 years ago.

Peter DeWitt and Sean Slade suggest leaders reflect on the following when trying to affect positive change in a school climate.

• -How to engage students and school stakeholders.
• -How to empower staff and students and foster autonomy so people take ownership of their ideas and the learning process.
• -How to promote inclusivity and equity throughout the school.
• -How to create a welcoming, cooperative, and safe school environment that nurtures students’ social-emotional needs.

CHANGE

Change is necessary and inevitable.  Any teacher that doesn't change should retire.  But the fact is that it is impossible to be a teacher and not change.  Some change is be expected but ill-informed abrupt and harmful shifts in the way we go about things can be disruptive just as they would be in the natural world.  They throw a delicate system out of balance.  Some suggest that such disruption is a good thing, needed to bring about meaningful improvement and fix a broken system. Perhaps this is the case in some places and aggressive action is needed.  But be wary of those that ignore the very nature of a school and are instead simply applying catchy idioms to fit their well meaning ideas.  I've heard it said that change is a process and not an event.  Those affecting change would be wise to remember that mantra since even things they see as small shifts could have enormous and unforeseen consequences. Any school that doesn't change will become obsolete.  But those schools that focus on positive change and not sustainability might achieve neither.  

Certain species are often bellwethers of the health of an ecosystem.

USGS- the actual "experts" say the Pika is disappearing

 Birds and amphibians reveal the danger in an environment first.  In schools I believe that has always been the experienced teacher.  In the turbulent era of change today it would seem to me that signs and feedback from those individuals is not only too often being ignored but seems unwelcome.  Instead of valuing those insights as an asset and working together, their understanding is seen as an obstacle for change.     Changes that are increasingly driven by factors and elements outside of schools or by what seems fashionable or innovative...not necessarily effective, threaten the very existence of the effective school.  Teachers know this to be true.  Some might say that is not a big deal.  They are wrong.
  
Experienced teachers are one thing but expert teachers are another.  They are what I would liken to keystone species. They are best represented by the stone at the top of an arch that supports the other stones and keeps the whole arch from falling, a species(expert teachers) on which the presence of a large number of other species(schools and students) in an ecosystem depend.  If they are removed then those dependent on it will disappear(bye bye good school).

While it demands a whole series of posts to itself, the rapid shifts in technology is I think doing real damage to our students.  No, strike that, doing damage to our society.To be in any way complicit in this is painful.  But before you dismiss my or any other teacher's concerns ask yourself this: "Why is everyone bemoaning the damaging aspects of technology addiction and yet not changing their own behaviors?"  About the only place where we can control this, is in the schools and doing what is best for students, if you ask a teacher, would often involve less technology, not more.    

Many other shifts I've witnessed I think are actually disruptive and harmful to students.  Real long term damage is done to them and the school where they learn. Potentially permanent damage.  As an example I think one thing young people have lost is the ability to sit quietly.   I asked my students in class the other day, "Where would you go if you wanted somewhere quiet where you could focus?"    They sat...no one answered.  That should be alarming.    In an effort to make things more "engaging" or accommodate those who really do have trouble being still and quiet and need different supports have we neglected things that are needed by all, like quiet?  Things pushed to favor one particular group will result in an unhealthy balance. So these shifts are often driven by groups, individuals or philosophies to help students might actually hurt them.   Developed too far from the actual places being affected to see the gradual effect, not unlike decisions in Washington that affect our nation's environmental future, these climate changes should give us pause as we wonder what their long term impact will be.  

Teachers, just like wild species,  must adapt to survive.   But they also are asked to mitigate the changes when things aren't thought out very well or don't go exactly as planned.  Just think of the impact of many invasive plant and animal species that were introduced with good intent.  That is diifficult to undo.  Teachers can only help so much on ground level and instead we have to address the source before these things are in the environment

The greenhouse gases of education.  

Nature, like a school, if left alone has a unique ability to self regulate.  Change is a constant and a norm.  The problem is that most schools are seeing a gradual but undeniable loss of control.  Whether that is something as simple as what furniture will be purchased, how much work will be assigned or what classes will and will not be taught. Loss of autonomy is a bad thing and a sign of a climate out of balance.  For certain students today enter our climate affected by factors and forces that neither we nor they fully control.  We can try to help with this, but that help has limits and we must confront that sad reality.  We should focus on what we can in fact control.

The conditions that favor one species and may be harmful for another are inextricably linked.  Students, teachers, administrators, parents, even politicians and the public inhabit schools in one form or another.  They all play a role and have an impact on the school climate.  In our efforts to help and sustain one group we must avoid tipping the balance in favor of any of them. 

Schools, like climate change can indeed be understood by scientific processes using data, surveys and other methods.  But if that information is ignored it does no good.  In both education and our environment, we should trust more in  the observations of those "in the field".  Having an honest conversation with someone who has lived on a piece of land their entire lives might reveal more about what is happening in nature than a mountain of research.  An honest two-way conversation with a teacher might indeed be more valuable than all the hand picked research in the world.  Great teaching is an art and great schools are a rarity.  And I feel these are more and more threatened both by unwise action and inaction, with each passing day.   

Truth in Advertising

I've seen this commercial so many times in the past month it is now nauseating.  What's worse is that it makes something rather complicated sound so simple.  "The role technology should play in education."  And, many people buy in based on that approach.  Provide students a shiny new device(in this case Microsoft's Surface Tablet) for "real work" and then poof...they learn better and bearded teacher with the tan vest is doing a better job.  Obviously no work can go on without this device or any other.  The description of the spot online reads "This Teacher knows change is coming, but with the new Microsoft Surface his students can do just about anything, even do their homework."   Boasting that if kids have keyboards they can go home and Skype or play games all night or find out what is due or even do homework.  They appear happy, magically more productive and obviously are better students.  Maybe so, maybe so.

But let us reflect on this "old fashioned" teacher in the commercial.  On a superficial level, or on the surface(excuse the pun but it was low hanging fruit and I couldn't resist) I can tell he's not actually a teacher.  How?  Well any seasoned teacher can just tell.  If he was I'd believe him but I don't.  His real name is Bobby Richards and he appears to be a very talented actor.  He plays someone who, based on his classroom decor teaches history or geography. The ad implies he has his students looking up information on Mozart. Upon closer inspection, when the bell rings it appears he teaches twelve students. Twelve!   More on that later.  Would such a device be a useful addition to such a classroom...probably.  But whether or not it is the best choice to improve things is another matter entirely.

Change Can Be Good
You might think I am motivated to discuss this ad by fear of change or because I have it out for Bill Gates.   You'd be wrong.  I embrace just about every real improvement that comes my way in education but I tire easily of the superficial panacea that are peddled by for profit entities or pushed by ill informed "reformers."  I love technology but can't stand using technology for technology's sake.  In essence pressing play on a VCR is about the same thing as posting a video on Youtube.  Working in groups with a piece of paper sometimes is preferable to a virtual meeting.  Our infatuation with computers can be all consuming.

 I only want stuff that helps my students learn, helps me teach and saves me time.  Things that make me a better teacher.  Computers have that potential but let's not oversell their ability to motivate, engage and wait for it..."teach."  That's my job.  One way to help me would be to give me 12 students and watch how much more effective I am.  Guaranteed.  Believe it or not that class might be too small, but easing my student load and giving me more teacher currency...time, would likely result in far more gain for my students than any technology.

I use technology a lot in my class but I don't keep using it if it doesn't provide what I think my students really need.  Face to face, creative, tactile and active learning never goes out of style.  Neither is the much maligned "lecture" which if done well is as engaging as anything.   Sure with new technology the first few days are pretty cool but the novelty wears off.  Some of my students have overtly expressed to me that they do not always prefer to work on computers.  Hopefully we realize that all this talk of flipping and technology integration is mostly absent one key voice, the student.  We assume it is better and they prefer computers that are invariably "needed."  Who might know best what students need in the classroom more than the teacher?  Most companies aren't thinking about kids first and their agenda is quite different.  But they can still do some good.  Microsoft's tablet might be a good thing here, or it might not be.

What's for certain is that technology like the Surface alone will not solve any of the real problems plaguing our education system.  It is just an electronic tool.  Despite what the teacher says in this commercial about the future it is not really any more revolutionary than a chalkboard or even ...wait for it... textbooks were in their time.  The advantage they have is those things have a pretty much unlimited shelf life.  They require no maintenance and in the hands of the right person, can prove just as effective

 Reading is still reading.  Right?

Meaningful change in education will come slowly and incrementally and technology will and should be a big part of that.  We should not wait for it to happen and should demand movement forward.  But, the temptation to leap ahead haphazardly for fear of falling behind can create as many problems as it solves.  Enter the flashy new gadgets marketed at schools, school boards and the public.  Does giving teachers free tablets make these devices the best use of public funds?    Do parents, politicians or administrators really give thought as to what providing every single kid a device might mean in the actual classroom or even outside of it?  Do they provide opportunities for teachers to visit schools that have taken this step?  Do they consider the long term social, economic and other less obvious impacts on students,  classrooms, budgets and schools as a whole? Do they make efforts to educate and involve parents in the adoption of technology?  In my case I think they do for the most part.  But I am lucky, but that doesn't mean the decisions made are ones I always agree with.

Having honey poured in your ear by technology sometimes results  in getting things we don't really need.  Schools are no different than other parts of our throw away consumption driven world.  We are really good at generating piles of antiquated stuff that is no longer useful.  If we buy something it should be based on a real need, not so much a want.  Separating the two is the tough part.

There is no real litmus test.   Do students need computers in schools today?  Yes.  Does having access to the internet make things better or easier.  Probably.  But lets not overlook the hidden costs.    Network  infrastructure, upgrades to software, time until replacement, repair and maintenance, training and development...it must be factored in.  Bottom line is that it will end up being the classroom teacher bearing the brunt of any implementation such as this.  One to One means we on the front line have a lot to consider.  With technology growing more and more intuitive and integrated to daily life do we really need to flood the hours of a student's day with even more?

So with a little truth in advertising, what would this spot say?   
"Hey we've got this fairly low priced tablet that can access the internet, do some light word processing and can for a fee include a keyboard.  If you, your students or your school don't have access to technology on a daily basis this might be a low cost solution.  We have a bunch of extras and if you use it we might also be able to improve our market share in education.  The Surface also has some significant limitations that many find frustrating and we hope the low price will offset those.  Maybe that's why it isn't selling too well to the public...but... ah ha ...schools.   It could be like charity and we could write it off.  Seems a good use for unsold inventory.  Maybe its not a computer and you have might have trouble joining a domain, networking with other devices, saving and keeping software up to date but that said we are confident that many schools, teachers and students will like our product and that is why we are offering a whole bunch of them to a whole lot of schools so that maybe, just maybe they'll catch on.  Give us a try ...please."

Is the surface a good tool and good addition?  I'd start by asking teachers who use it.  Seems for  the most part reviews are favorable.  But many point out the limitations and unknowns.  Get their input and don't rely on top down implementation.  Understanding what is going on in this commercial is really pretty simple. Microsoft refocused and redirected its excess inventory at schools and launched a reward system as a means to gain entry into the education market.  Not that much different than a label drive from soup cans or some other means it makes sense to get everyone involved and behind the effort to fund low cost computers/devices in schools that want them.  Will it work?  Time will tell but I suspect that the Surface will be no different than many other forms of the latest greatest thing.

"Didn''t Care what you thought then.  Still Don't"

Truth in Reform
So now a little truth in reform.   What would leaders, politicians and decision makers say, or at least what SHOULD they?
Truth is refreshing.  To hear someone say "Hey I know this isn't exactly what you want but here's why we are doing it " would mean a lot.  I broke it down into sound bites to cover some of the major points.



"Hey...we know it isn't really the teacher's fault but someone has to be held accountable for these low scores."
"True, we haven't really given much thought to how to use the computers for instruction, but clearly we have to use them if we are going to keep up with all the affluent districts."
"Online learning might be great for motivated learners...but its not a viable option for all learners...we know that...but fact is it is a heck of a lot cheaper than hiring teachers. "
"I blame you...since no one else can be held accountable."
"It is not the type of learning we care about if you can't show us the data."
"I don't care about what you think, I care about what I think and I think I know better."

I could at this for hours...maybe in the comments section some of you could share what you wish reformers would say since it is what they mean.

Maybe some of that is too strong?  But the Appearance over Substance Paternalistic Movement for the Sake of Movement style of leadership that is rampant in this nation is wearing me thin.  It may not be any more responsible for problems than bad teaching, but it can certainly infect and interfere with quality teaching on a much greater scale.  As a part of this, buy the wrong devices or software and deploy them in poor manner and you have caused a lot of undue stress.  That is not good for students, not good for parents... and definitely not good for teachers.  Believe me, I know.


Technology in Education 
So back to the panacea of technology.  Big time movers and shakers are often far too cozy with computer, software and technology folks and do not pick up on the limitations.  They might get enticed with their own free version then commit and represent the tool as indispensable.  Forgetting the ever important mantra of K.I.S.S.     Having an out of the box access point for kids is in most cases a good thing.  But does the included Office software offer only a trial version?  Will the school division have to re-license applications and programs in a few years?  What happens if the device might break down(if you weren't aware...kids are hard on stuff)?  How long before this device is no longer useful.  Does a kid want to stare at 8" screen 7 hours or more a day?

"Someone adopt me ...please"

I know I wouldn't have to look too hard to find storage closets full of old I-touches, unsupported computers or other fancy items destined for the Island of Misfit Tools.  That place is just as sad as the one in the Christmas classic.  Bottom line is most of this stuff represent budget busting Big Ticket Items.  As a teacher I see it as a means to divert more funding, energy and attention away from the classroom.  (<----Read that sentence again)   A narrow view perhaps, but one built on long experience.  The more we spend away from students, classroom, and actual learning instead on indirect support of the learning can mean we get less return on our investment.

I instead would focus on hiring good people.  Giving them what they need and a few things they want.  And, working very hard to make them feel supported and valued.  In today's world that means yes, technology should play a vital role.  But we must never forget what motivates and interests Microsoft, Apple, or any other for profit firm when they enter the realm of education.  Rest assured it is not what motivates those who can make a real difference in the lives of young people.   If we simply throw technology at our problems in an effort to improve, we won't even get past the surface(sorry...did it again).  Would I take some Surface tablets?  Why not?  But I don't feel I need them and I most definitely would not stand in front of a camera and blindly share my thoughts like this Timothy Busfield "teacher" did in this commercial.  But the tan vest...nice.

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

Real World and Real People

Real World and the Real World

When I was about 6 years old, I remember watching a show on TV called “Real People.” Byron Allen, Sarah Purcell and Fred Willard would make me and my family laugh and I still remember some of the colorful characters from all across America they showed to us. The supposed “Real People” where the show took it's name.   This show also was the first time America heard from Richard Simmons, that’s just trivia by the way. The show dealt with nothing in particular that was influential or meaningful, but it says something that a 6 year old remembers those names some 20 years later(OK more than 20).

 I begin with that diversion since today’s scramble to revolutionize education with technology, which the TU posts have touched on, looks right past the people in it. I don’t remember the names from my youth because they were associated with TV, I remember these people because of who they were and how they affected me. So imagine if you will a redesign of education discounts the significance of real people working in the field.

 Often in education circles power players and decision makers preach about preparing students with nebulous things like “life skills” and "digital citizenship." As fuzzy as these words are, most people have at least have an idea of what the terms mean. Defining and measuring them is the hard part. But to the skilled and experienced educator you just kind of know when a student goes out into the “real world” whether or not they are ready and whether or not they will be OK.

Years of reading wedding announcements and the court report in the newspaper have mostly supported my predictions about the fate of students.   To me and most other teachers our job is about more than data, lessons or content is people.  What has occurred with alarming frequency over the past few years is the arrival of the snake oil salesman in educators lives. These are characters(there is no better word for them) arrive from out there in the supposed real world and have leveraged their technical or business skill and savvy into a position within the education establishment.  Unlike those of us here already, they don't seem to care much about people.




Their first step is to talk about re-designing everything in schools for the real world. This is where a good teacher pauses and says things like, “What?” You see, we ARE in the real world. Too often their efforts to improve our educational world instead disrupt what is a carefully crafted environment.   I end up no longer doing my best and instead doing the best I can as a result of some additional burden or unhelpful shift.  They usually push some brand of pseudo-real world scientific approach.  Science instead of art in the classroom.  An approach I do not favor.

 Sure, they can bring in an idea that makes things better and sometimes do. I and everyone else welcomes such reform. But more common is their ability to alienate, demoralize and undermine talented and devoted educators. What I have seen first hand is the ability of these outsiders to group-think in isolation. They also tend to promote their ideas using the digital landscape.  They fail to gather or even value the insights of people who deal with students. That is unfortunate because those are the Real People in education. The same Real People that have been preparing students for the real world for years.

 Not all of these characters are bad.  Not all are good.  In that sense they are like teachers.  But they differ in the most critical of ways.  They don't think like a teacher.  They don't have the experience of working with students and lack the practical knowledge to understand how ideas translate to action and play out in a school.  They don't actually carry out any of these plans, they just constantly come up with more.  And most importantly they are not directly accountable to students, their parents or any sort of evaluation.  If things don't work out they just move on to the next town....I mean school system.

Appearance of movement over substance.  That sums it up.  Sacrificing deep relevant positive change for quick flash in the pan actionable shifts that appeal to the popular trends.  They aren't real people and that isn't real change.   Just a carefully crafted facsimile.  Some promote ideas, others products while others simply seek to gain access and tap into the last stream of public funding to succumb to privatization and for profit motives.  To them these are just untapped marketplaces for their new product, program, fad or idea.  Nevermind the impact it has on real people, there's money to be made and fame to be had.  Their efforts can divert critical resources away from classrooms and kids and the adverse effects are indeed real. 

Carl Jung said "Children are educated by what the grown up is, not what he says" and at the end of the day what makes real difference in education is real people.  The idea vendors will shove their wares down the throat of districts convincing them that it will yield immediate improvement.  If, or more often when, that doesn't happen, they disappear into night heading out to raid the next division coffers.  Leaving behind the Real People to continue their efforts to make a lasting and real difference.  If we want real and consequential change to be the cornerstone of the future of education it must indeed be centered around Real People. 

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.  

VASS offers a Double Standard?

A buddy sent me a link to the reaction of the Virginia Association of School Superintendents(VASS)

to the State of Virginia's plan to move to an A-F grading scale for school divisions.  It was noteworthy for many reasons not the least of which being it is far more complicated than it seems.  Like many recent reforms it is hard to argue against such logic until you stop and think about what it means.  It is trickier than a room full of ninjas.   Everyone gets on board and until it is in place it is hard to anticipate the unexpected consequences.  VASS Executive Director Steven Staples commented “We know that the achievement gap walks in the door the first day of kindergarten...Some districts have to work harder to make up for experiences outside of school."   So the VASS opposes at least some parts of the plan claiming it unfairly holds districts accountable.  Districts?   I don't remember districts facing and interacting with students each day.   But someone does and they are now measured on a similar metric in Virginia.
 
There are all kinds of flaws with this system the VASS opposes but the public tends to support such efforts a transparency.  The formula for the grades originated with the reforms of Jeb Bush and the state of Florida.  Sound like trouble(maybe we can reform our election system to follow Florida's example too)?  It is.   Unfortunately he is a far batter lobbyist and salesman of reform than he is positive reformer and we can thank the sunshine's test heavy approach for frenzied change that no sane or rational or person can actually explain.  This gift and model planted in Florida has sprouted across much of the nation including Virgina.  These questionable measures put in place for political at best flimsy educational reasons have spilled out and infected states at an alarming rate despite a constant chorus of objections from educators.

"Must Teach Better!"

But the article is notable for what it does not mention.  As of July 1st 2012 Virginia teacher's are evaluated according to the seven criteria of the the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria.  Teachers(as well as principals and superintendents) were placed on common statewide evaluation system and given a rating of 1-4.  That didn't make the front page in most papers.  Six measures count 10% each for a total of 60% and the remaining 40% is derived from "Student Academic Progress" which is fortunately determined by multiple measures not just tests.  This system was developed with a great deal of input but time will tell whether it is an effective and a positive step.  I can say that my end of the year review this year consumes what I felt was far too much of my time and energy at the end of the school year.   Other than the self reflection it didn't really provide a mechanism for making me a better teacher.   More concerning to me is the state model Performance-Pay Incentives Initiative.  Which some might call merit pay.   Sound familiar?

Yet I was given a rating.  Not a grade per se but a number to rate my effectiveness. I along with all other teachers in the state working in divisions on board have been given this number.  Where was the VASS to cry foul on my behalf?  Seems a bit of a double standard to me.  Here is what their policy agenda had to say as the new state law for rating teachers was being developed.   On Page 14 of their Blueprint for Education Reform in Virgina it reads:

Objective 2: Improve teacher, administrator, and classified staff performance.
Strategy 2A: Recommend that Board of Education/Department of Education provide assistance during implementation of a fair and uniform evaluation system that provides for timely reporting of student achievement data and other performance indicators to be used as the basis for teacher and administrator evaluation.

The Virginia Teacher Evaluation Work Group which was loaded up with Division Superintendents provided the State Board of Education guidance as the state attempted to encapsulate what it means to be an effective or good teacher.  This statewide uniformity might be a good thing to some but it also might have produced a subjective and potentially inaccurate system.  Reformers can't or won't acknowledge that there really is no way to easily assess what constitutes good teaching.  Further they seem oblivious to the fact that good teaching does not automatically solve everything in education.  My evaluation didn't mention student motivation, parental support, poverty, absenteeism, snow days, discipline issues or other factors representing any of the things that might impact Student Academic Progress.  But the VASS is "concerned" about measuring divisions in ways that might not be fair. 

So the VASS opposes measuring districts on an A-F rating claiming that it is unfair it also  supports rating teachers(and administrators) by a 1-4 scale using somewhat similar measures?   There is no mention or accommodations for these other factors in our division's Performance Appraisal.   Some of this change will no doubt be good but when push comes to shove I am given a number on on  my ability to teach.   That to me takes the complexity and nuances of our incredibly complex profession and reduces them to a number to satisfy the thirst for reform.  I'll say it again.  Teaching is an art not a science.  Giving it a grade is an injustice.  Maybe the same could be said for doing the same to divisions?  But it appears in our state that no longer matters.

6 Smart and the Dumb Things They Say(and why that matters)

The setting was Education Nation 2.0 2011 at Stanford University.  Yeah it has been two years,  but this still very much applies today.  So as we look back, think of today. 


"Master interviewer and PBS host Charlie Rose and a distinguished panel of luminaries tackle the tough questions of how to improve our troubled school system and provide a better future for our nation's greatest resource, our kids."

If by "distinguished panel of luminaries" they mean people at least 2x as smart as me, own nice suits and probably read a lot more books, they they are right.  But I am confident I know as much as any of them about the state of education and what will and won't work.  Too bad no members of the TU have ever been described as a "luminaries".  Because we are remarkably average in many ways.But that would make this post too long.  :)




So let's talk participants for a moment.
 

Charlie Rose-"master interviewer"(Charlie is my man...but Chuck appears to have had some Kool Aid somewhere, maybe in the Green Room or on the plane out West.  He all too readily accepts just about everything that is said.  I give him an F for this one.  Too bad no one representing the average teacher was invited.  Maybe they were.  But if they were I suspect they were too busy actually teaching students to show up.


Salman Khan-from the Khan Academy.  I love this guy.  But he is way too smart for average people.  I think he's been in "the bubble" near Gates too long and lost touch.  We've mentioned him before and are not wary what he does, instead by how it can be misunderstood and misrepresented by politicians.  Still, of all the participants, he seems to be the only one to have really tried to help... and has done some work instead of only talking, telling others what to do or writing a book about working. 

Corey A. Booker-Two time Mayor of Newark, NJ who's made plenty of news lately.  He never met a camera he didn't like and is a classic politician from humble roots.  Not faulting him there.  Better man than me.  Seems like a heck of a guy.  But also one who's ideas always trump those of everyone else.  Booker  is very into doing stuff.  Action for the sake of action.  There's a lot of that going around in education. Much of what he says either outrages me or makes me feel better.  He's a wild card.   Like Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

John L. Hennessy- Stanford University's 10th president and inaugural holder of the Bing Presidential Professorship-(what is that?). As President of Stanford he gets to be on all round tables automatically-at least that makes sense anyway?  What exactly does he know about the average public school classroom in America? 


Kim Smith- CEO of Bellweather Education Partners and one of the original of TFA(yuck) founders.  I am ignoring what she says simply because of that.  Well not all of it actually but I still am programmed for skepticism after a decade and a half of teaching.  My bad. I'm sure she is a great person.

Claude M. Steele-Despite his awesome name, the Dean of Stanford’s School of Education, he is simply way too bright for me to understand fully without visual aids.  I think I rarely beat up on academics for being academics.  But I feel like I want to in this case.   I'll take Remington Steele instead.

Reed Hastings-co-founder and CEO of Netflix.  OK, not sure why he is even there unless someone with actual merit regarding education canceled last minute. Maybe the CEO of Blockbuster backed out?   Netflix?  I mean come on, they want 40% original programming?....even I know that's probably a dumb idea.  But again, why is he there?  Maybe his presence would have been a good chance to suggest they kindly put the stuff online that I like watching.


So some of what they said:
"Frame for us the issues"-Hmmm, so basically tell us what you think is wrong.  Not everyone think r sees things the same and that is good.  But when one group imposes its version as the way it is, not so good.  Ask any teacher to frame the issues  and odds are you'll get a somewhat different response. 
----
"Redefine education before it redefines us."  Wow that is so catchy.  Makes me want to run out and design a school on a CAD program somewhere.  Then throw a bunch of kids inside and walk away. 
----
America's schools are in trouble. Twenty-five percent of American kids drop out of high school. Those that do graduate often are ill prepared for either college or a job. The U.S. Secretary of Education has even mandated: "we have to deal with the brutal truth."
Is the problem money? School administrators? Teachers unions? Parents? There's plenty of blame to go around, yet all agree it's a problem we must address. If we wait, the U.S. will lose its competitive edge, more young Americans will end up in dead-end jobs, and the U.S will drop to second-tier status. -  There is a lot here to break down.  I don't have time.  Some in trouble yes.  If the Secretary of Education says it, it must be true.  no way politics or anything like that would affect judgment. 
----

Designing an education that builds the necessary skills for today's diverse student population is not easy. But there is hope: innovations and innovators that challenge the status quo; research to help us understand how to make the changes; and reformers experimenting with new ways to teach, learn, and run our public schools.
The questions that need answering are complex:

• How do we attract and retain good teachers, especially in math and science?
• What is the best way to hold schools accountable and promote effective instruction?
• What should the role of unions be?
• How do charter schools fit into the overall solution?

-All of that makes sense but ignores the fact that education and schools are full of people.  Many of them innovators.  To imply, overtly or tacitly that innovation has to come from outside is not only foolish but dangerous. Especially when those innovators stand to make large sums of money from gaining access, influence and  and control.

----
Get rid of elected schooboards.-  Yes absolutely, let's remove democratic principles and put for profit or non profit entities in charge of all things...our children.  One cannot be selective in the application of democracy  You are either with us, or waving a red flag and playing soccer with your Che shirt on.   I know the West coast tends to lean left but the fact no one called him on this is worrisome.  To me this is proof that those inside the bubble not only won't get it, but can't. 
----

At the 9:10 mark Corey Booker discusses the "Silence and inaction of the majority of Americans."  he views this as a failure to respond to current conditions.  That is a great point and perhaps he is correct.  He certainly would be in many districts across the nation.  But is this true everywhere?  Are all districts and schools the same?
----

Once again I am left scratching my head at the lack of honest and open discourse and inclusion of others views which may very well be the only chance for successful and meaningful reform. I guess it makes for good TV though. 

It matters because here you have some clearly intelligent and well meaning people whose proximity to the actual classroom and actual students minimizes their awareness.  Yet it is they and others like them who have been entrusted to steer the boat.  They are not sure how it works, how much it can take or how exactly it works.

The TU would like to create a Education Renovation 3.0 , 2013.  It is faster, better and has more memory than the 2.0 version.  The panel here consists of not luminaries but people who work with kids. We probably can't afford a nice stage or TV cameras or a webcast.  But it would though generate local innovation and momentum for positive change, hopefully free of the pitfalls plaguing current reform efforts.    There would be a panel with one or more educational leaders,  concerned parents,  building level administrators, counselors, community members, business people, and policy experts.  But if there was anyone on the stage, the largest number of seats would go to experienced teachers.  The people who face the realities of education firsthand.  These teachers would represent a broad spectrum of communities.  Rich and Poor. Urban and Rural.  And not to be forgotten we would find some way to involve students.  

This is Progress?

It has been a busy past week for sure.  But the lead story of our local paper on Monday  1/14/13 read as follows:

"UVa set to launch global classrooms"

Now there has to be something remarkable in this article to warrant putting education as the lead right?   Wrong.  

It is arguable that the University of Virginia is behind the times a bit in launching its digital presence and many theorize that contributed to the failed ouster of Teresa Sullivan this past summer by the Board of Visitors lead by Helen Dragas.  The efforts to improve in this area led to a partnership between Coursera and UVa as they offer MOOCs(Massive Online Open Courses).  This particular article features World History teacher Phillip Zelikow and his efforts to provide a World History Course using this approach.  

Zelikow and the author laud the new approach of flipping the classroom.  New huh?  

There is nothing new about much of this.  It is merely a reflection of the shifting political winds.  For starters the wondrous fascination with online education and technology leads to a false sense that technology infused education is automatically better.  They are blinded to the fact that it may simply be a lecture on a computer rather than in person.  The idea that the campus walls are being knocked down is intoxicating.  But UVa doesn't stand out for this type of this nor am I thinking it should try.  Certainly the access by the masses to skills and knowledge is a piece very attractive to many.

But so is Google. Can the result of a MOOC on the participant be described as "an education?"  Is this effort more valuable for UVa to go global or for the participants?   

I have taken several MOOCs and some were good, some were not.  One was even through UVa.  What usually made the difference was if I was able to interact with the instructor.  If you do not have access to an actual person to enrich your learning, what does that say about quality?  My feeling is that a real education starts when you are born and mostly comes from interactions with real life people.  There is a whole lot more going on that just the conveyance of information or content.  Learning  is a two way street despite what the commercials at the University of Phoenix would have you believe.  The MOOCs I've taken helped me but only to the degree necessary.   They did their job.  There are many shortfalls with  MOOCs not the least of which is the way they are pushed and marketed.  


The intoxication with flipping is even worse.  Nevermind "flipping" a classroom to those of us in the basement meant sneaking into a classroom and literally turning all the desks upside down.  This oft repeated  buzzword seems to seduce reformers and they immediately conclude this is the "panacea".  The magic bullet.   I can't escape the irony that this "flipping" (and the paper uses quotes too) is all too normal.  It usually amounts to a taped lecture and then making the students do what would have previously been homework in class.   In some cases that is an improvement and the teacher who can be replaced by a computer deserves to be.   It is one of many best practices.  But we must not forget that a good education involves a teacher, a student and an rich variety of methods.  None that are worthwhile should be sacrificed for expediency or cost.  There are trade offs with flipping.   In high schools for instance having 8 teachers "flip" on you might mean you are now saddled with a hours of instructional videos amounting to more homework.  The door may be open to individual attention in class and more student centered strategies but at what cost to the student?  The fluid nature of piecing together information replaced with uniform and robotic information. 

It seems in our rush to improve the status quo in education we are willing to look beyond the flaws of any given approach and promote it simply because of the novelty or the price.  Zelikow and UVa are doing a good thing. But anyone who believes this will amount to some increase in quality or experience for most enrolled is probably mistaken.  The real benefit is the ability of Zelikow to then do more small group discussion during the actual class.  As we change the face of education we must not overlook the fact that it still needs to resemble a face. After reading his piece it would seem to me that Douglass Rucskoff of CNN would agree that we should not make distance learning, MOOCs or similar reform into it something they are not.  

I remember 15 or so years ago doing my student teaching and supervising a latin class where the students learned via satellite network.  They watched broadcast lessons,  submitted their papers by mail and waited weeks for feedback.  Their boredom and frustration was painfully obvious.  Not so much with the delay but with the isolated feel and absence of a relationship with a knowledgeable teacher.  They were stuck with me.  Devoid spontaneity their learning suffered.   This and their multi-tasking meant there was no way they learned as much as the students present with the teacher.  But they did have the chance to take Latin which counts for something.  

So Progress has been made I suppose.  And in the years since we have traded satellite feeds for high speed internet.  The change is noticeably unremarkable.  Unwilling to accept the realities of the human mind and learning we continue to search for "better" ways to learn.  The result is an over-willingness to see such measures as headline worthy.  When in fact they are just worthy.  I commend UVa and Zellikow for their efforts.  But I stop short of buying this approach as anything but less than what students in his current class might experience. 

Flipping and MOOCs and what they are.  Not headlines.  And not real progress. 

 

APWATW (A picture is worth a thousand words).

Add your own insightful or humorous caption for the image in the comments section.


"Little Barry already stood out among his peers by the 1st grade"

The kindergartners, angered at more standardized testing,  staged an impromptu sit in.

"This administration is determined to leave No Child Behind, except those already sitting behind me."

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.