My Adventure With A MOOC

Overstatement is never a good thing. 

...the budding revolution in global online higher education. Nothing has more potential to lift more people out of poverty — by providing them an affordable education to get a job or improve in the job they have. Nothing has more potential to unlock a billion more brains to solve the world’s biggest problems... more potential to enable us to reimagine higher education than the massive open online course, or MOOC, platforms that are being developed by the likes of Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and companies like Coursera and Udacity. --Thomas Friedman, NY Times, 1/26/13

He's talking about college professors video recording lectures, superimposing their faces over a digital whiteboard or powerpoint slides, embedding quick quizzes to check for understanding, and giving regular tests for students to demonstrate their learning. NOTHING else has more potential to lift more people out of poverty?

I recently finished my first MOOC, using the Coursera platform mentioned by Friedman in his article.  The course, Drugs and the Brain was offered through Cal Tech. I thought it might give me a little more credibility in writing about the value of MOOCs, and as a Psychology teacher I wanted to learn more about the biology behind the interactions between drugs and the brain.

Overall, I would rate my experience as quite positive.

1)I had an opportunity to learn for free from a very accomplished instructor through a prestigious University.

2) While I could have probably found most of the information shared somewhere on the internet, having an instructor narrow the focus and give it meaningful direction added an efficiency to the process that made it possible.

3) With two jobs, three children, and a terrible writing habit, finding the time to leave home for three to five hours a week to sit in on a class is not an option.  This course was accessible.

4) Related to the third, this course was for personal and professional growth. I wasn't interested in showing full mastery or the capacity to continue a course of study or move forward in a sequence. I was able to casually devote whatever time I wished to sacrifice without the "de-motivator" of no credit or a bad grade.

I accomplished my goal through this course. I can't explain much of what I learned, and truthfully, I still don't understand some of it.  But, when I teach my students about neurons in the brain and how chemicals in the body function, I can do so with a little more clarity and understanding of my own.  I am more confident with the level of material that I'm supposed to know than before I took this class.

But does it really have the potential to "unlock a billion more brains to solve the worlds problems."  My experience wasn't all that.

1) The first two weeks were so far over my head, I learned very little. I was able to take the quizzes a first time and return to the class notes with more focused study for a second or third attempt. This process of quizzing, studying, and requizzing helped me learn a bit more.  From the discussion threads, I gather that many in the course considered this cheating. I considered this, but as a consumer, I took the course with a different purpose than finding out how high I could rank among other students. But this presents a clear problem with the platform-- how will it measure student learning in a fair way considering many of the courses have thousands of students enrolled.

2) Other than accessibility and convenience, there is little difference in the instruction from a traditional college course. It involved lectures and testing. The instructor was good, but even in a room with other humans, lecture without interaction is tedious.  The topics were delivered in 5-15 minute segments, but still accounted to hours a week of lecture. By week three, I resorted to setting the playback speed to 1.5x and 2.0x by week four, slowing down for items of interest or pausing for better understanding.  Week five was the most relevant topic for my learning goals, but other commitments that week led me to skimming over the lecture slides and giving the quiz a shot without watching the lectures. I do plan to go back and watch them, but this doesn't look much different than typical behavior in a traditional setting.

3) The course instructor notes in comments on Friedman's article that they plan to award 4400 statements of completion and remarks that the online community has generated more than 5000 postings. Over a five week course that averages to 1000/week. I considered participating in this community, but the number of people and volume of posts were overwhelming. The serious difference in MOOCs, and other forms of online courses shows itself the most here. In the half-dozen or so other online courses that I've taken, I've been a part of a community of 8-30 people, expected to interact with each other.

4) Finally, I found it easier to "compensate" for what I didn't know than to put the effort into learning it.  I ignored formulas and calculations throughout the course because they involved skills that I either didn't possess or hadn't used in several decades. I knew it would take a little time to brush up and figure out how to do it, but I also knew that the cost of not learning would be minimal and I wouldn't find myself needing it in the future anyway.

I would rather end on a positive note than a negative about my MOOC experience.  The only reason I bring up the negatives is to place a little reality check on the praise.  There is a place for MOOCs in the world of education.  They provide a valuable service that cannot be provided any other way in our current world.  I am enrolled in two more courses through Coursera for this calendar year and look forward to them.

But, they aren't going to save the world.  Maybe they'll make a boot shaped dent that's better than nothing, but they won't replace education as we know it.  And if we think they will, and try to make it happen sooner rather than later by not supporting public preK through college education appropriately, we might find that our adventure in MOOCs could have the opposite of the rosy effect Mr. Friedman predicts.

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. 

 

Has Teaching Gone Out of Style

On Wednesday nights, I teach a group of youth at our church.  This week, at the end of our session, a seventh grader whipped out a handful of balloons and a pump and started making balloon animals, much to the delight of all the other middle schoolers in the room.  It was actually quite amazing to watch him work.

One of his friends asked excitedly, "How'd you learn to do that?"

"I learned it on YouTube."

That sentence stopped me in my tracks.  My brain immediately started thinking, "Have I become unnecessary?"

I shared the thought with a parent who arrived to pick up his child.  "Yeah, you can learn anything you want on the internet nowadays."

And I replied, "you're right, if something breaks or I want to find out something that's the first place I go."

Have I become unnecessary?  I even admit to myself, if I want to learn something, I go to the internet and find out.  How to fix my car, why the pilot light on my gas logs burn so high, what was the name of that guitar player from Extreme, is John Tyler's grandson really still alive, and on and on.  If I want to find something out, I go online.

But sometimes, I don't know what I want.  Sometimes I find myself unprepared because of something I don't know.  Sometimes I need more than knowledge and find it helpful to see the example of a person who can lead me, guide me, or maybe even inspire me.

The internet has so fueled our desire for "disruptive change" we move at such breakneck speed that sometimes we end up, well, metaphorically with broken necks.  In the past few weeks, I've prematurely mourned the deaths of Morgan Freeman and Carlton from the Fresh Prince of BelAir because of incorrect Facebook and Twitter posts.  This year we've seen major errors in one time trustworthy news media outlets reporting on the Supreme Court health care decision and the Colorado theater shooting.  And I'm sure that the television show Mythbusters could manage two or three more seasons just debunking all of the false information that spreads as truth online. (Remember the cellphone popcorn popper?)

Maybe I'm not so unnecessary after all.  Despite these problems, the internet has brought about quite a positive revolution in both availability and quality of learning, and this I appreciate.  But until all students become completely self motivated to learn; until learning takes place in isolation rather than community; until we stop relying on each other to expose us to new and interesting ideas...

Until then, I am necessary and relevant.  Even if I can't teach a twelve year old how to make a balloon monkey.

The Week that Was

It has been a busy week.  The UVa situation has continued to spin and one parallel that haunts the future of K-12 Education is how decision makers and those affected by those decisions often see the world through a different lens.  The disconnect too often leads to frustration, confusion, even anger from both groups of people.  Maybe the higher ed folks could benefit and learn from a look down into the same schools that provide them with most of their clientele.  We are more often forced to bridge that gap and work together.  As we all travel forward and reshape education of the future we must remember that we are all actually here for the same thing. 

What should and often does unite everyone in K-12 is the mission of serving all our children.  This road usually gets bumpy and some people even get run over.  But we are in it together and we forget this at our own peril.  Our sometimes conflicting views should be a source of strength.  One difference that does exist is that division wide employees usually work 12 months and teachers 10.  Consequently decision makers might focus on ideas and developing long term improvement goals but doing so in a degree of isolation.  While most teachers spend summer throttled down recovering from the past year allowing time to energize for the one that is approaching.    Many teachers use this time to retool and better equip themselves as professionals.  Some take classes, some plan units and I have spent the past the three days at a division-wide conference.  Curriculum Assessment and Instruction(CAI) brings county teachers from all levels and schools together and tasks them make long term visions a reality.

The last time I attended CAI 4? years ago these conversations were cenetered around talk of SOLs and AYP in an effort to define quality instruction.   SOL talk was noticeably absent this year and we were developing different things.  The goal this summer was to create and polish Performance Assessents to measure a range of the county's "Lifelong Learning Standards. "  These then provide additional and more balanced ways to see where kids are with skills and content and how they are progressing, beyond objective quarterly assessments and the SOLs.
That was where our efforts were focused for three days and I had the privilege of spending time  working closely with teachers and leaders from other schools, something that is rarely afforded during the busy school year.   There we all were trying to turn theoretical ideas into tangible things.  At times it was frustrating, confusing, difficult but also rewarding,worthwhile and even funny.  We  voiced differences and concerns and navigated in a positive direction.   Some of the products no doubt will exceed expectations and other may fall short. But for 3 days there was a unity often lacking in the us vs them world. 

Make a large donation, name a building.

This bring us back to the situation at UVa where us vs them might not go far enough in describing the polemical debate taking place over Teresa Sullivan's ouster.  We touched on the money and online education trail that are potential aspects and this week also saw major UVa donor Paul Tudor Jones weigh in supporting her removal.  Then the interim President stated he does not support the boards removal of Sullivan This was followed by a lengthy and long overdue public response by Board of Visitors rector Helen Dragas that included the Pseudo apology "we did the right thing, the wrong way.  For this, I sincerely apologize."  Bloggers were quick to link this to a PR firm now working with Dragas and the Board have been working with.  Meanwhile no sign of stabilizing of the states portion of funding which is now around a meager 5-6%.  So what is really at the core of any disagreements?

 And now news that the Board will be meeting on Tuesday to potentially "reconsider" its decision and re-instate Sullivan, assuming she would accept.  Like I said, busy week. 

These are not so much symptoms of change or a failure of leadership.  They are side effects of the tensions among the players that shape the world of education.  What appears to be missing t UVa and often across our nation is common and collegial conversations about what is good for students and then moving forward.  Those lower down can suffer from short sightedness from focus on the real work of education.  Those higher up often farther removed and lack understanding of what things mean on the ground.  In defense of teachers and those lower down any missteps there are far less disruptive and damaging.

The CAI conference closed with some reflection on and discussion of leadership, charges as we move start the year,  door prizes(thanks!) and even some dancing.  We now break for the summer before moving the challenge will be moving everyone that did not attend forward.  I will steal a quote from the closing presentation at the conference which I think is fitting.  In the meantime we'll keep an eye as things across town continue to unfold.

"I could tout my degrees, grade-point averages and certifications, but if I didn't have a genuine love for students, I would be nothing in the classroom."   

Jennifer Walker 2008 Ohio Teacher of the Year.

Apples to Apples?

K12 Inc., the country's largest provider of online k-12 education has come under fire from several sources recently for it's attempts to turn a profit by drawing students away from traditional public education classrooms.  Just last week, the New York Times ran an article subtitled Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in the Classroom.  Sounds like a pretty bold claim, but we've argued before, with the dot.com decline and housing market bubble burst, education may be the last safe refuge for Wall Street in the 21st century.

Ron Packard, CEO of K12 Inc, issued a reply to this article yesterday in the Fordam Education Institute's Flypaper.  I'm not completely opposed to Virtual Education.  I believe that responsible virtual education within the framework of existing educational structures is vital for 21st century learning.  I do have reservations about a complete package of online education outsourced to a distant and nebulous institution whose primary purpose is maximizing profit.  This description may not fairly characterize K12 Inc., but Packard's defense of the company in response to the NY Times articles is less than convincing.  Of the several arguments presented by Ron Packard, I found number one most lacking.  I've pasted the text of his argument below:

Academic performance of virtual schools: K12 data shows that a large and growing number of students coming into virtual schools are below grade level. The high growth rate of virtual schools means that a large portion of students taking the state tests are in their first year. This makes static test scores poor measures of a school’s overall performance because students perform better on state tests the longer they are enrolled. To measure academic growth, K12 administers third party norm-referenced tests.  Data from these tests show students are making positive academic gains relative to national norms.

 This is not the first time that I've heard this argument to defend poor results of online learning or even charter schools.  So, let's look closely at this argument.  First, Mr. Packard argues that students coming into his schools are below grade level.  It stands to reason that their performance will fall below that of on-grade level students.  Does that mean it's the student's fault and not the school?  I'm o.k. with that as long as we let our "traditional" public schools put forth the same argument.  Do students matter or not?  We have to be careful not to allow student ability or circumstances to provide an excuse for poor service.  If online schools and charters are given a pass because of the population they're dealing with then let's not apply a different standard to public schools dealing with the same students in order to label them as failing.

Second, it looks like the tests are getting blamed.  In the world of public education, again this argument doesn't fly.  The tests are the tests and if you can't perform then you're not performing.  Have you noticed any of the value-added or growth model laws passing across the nation?  It doesn't matter whether students are transferring, adding, dropping, repeating, or not even in your class in some states.  If the test scores aren't good enough, you're not good enough.  That applies to schools and increasingly to teachers as well.  If the tests aren't good enough to judge online education and charters then why do we assume they're good enough to judge traditional public schools.

I suppose if you can be identified by initials and your stock is publicly traded a different set of standards apply.  That shouldn't be a surprise, we've known for a while that Wall Street standards don't apply to the rest of us.

Are Teachers Anti-Technology?

Are teachers anti-technology?  I don't think so.  One of the primary responsibilities of teaching is to relate to students in your classroom.  If you think those earbuds in your student's ear are plugged into a magic little box that creates music out of the ether, well, you might not make it as a teacher.  My four year-old demonstrated the other day that he knows enough about computers to exit the Word document that I've failed to save in order to find his favorite games website for a little "Uphill Rush" in the afternoon.

My point is that a teacher who doesn't get technology is akin to the teacher who lets ink stain his or her shirt pocket, the one who still says "that's the bomb" when they want kids to think they're "hip", the male teacher who still wears mid-thigh shorts in the summer time.  Teachers must understand the world their students live in.  This doesn't mean yielding to every fad or fashion of the day, but if we are not at least involved enough to understand what influences our youth, we're likely not concerned enough about them to teach them well.

Still, we aren't the trendsetters.  Kids aren't taking their fashion cues from us.  Several years ago, students started prefacing every statement with the phrase "not gonna lie."  It was the new "like."  I thought it would be cool to start my own trend so I started saying things like "NGL, this is going to be the hardest quiz you'll ever take" and "you've got a low B right now, but NGL, if you get a good grade on this test it might bring you up to an A-."  I think they made fun of me for that.  I tried to tell them that everyone was saying it now because "not gonna lie" just took too long to get out.  They didn't believe me.

What does this have to do with anything you say?  Well, as a teacher, I must be immersed in the culture of technology as much, nearly as much, or maybe slightly more than my students.  If I'm too far ahead of the curve, most of them aren't going to follow.  A few months ago, I laughed with a colleague over the fact that when we were in high school, shorthand was still a class.  Our last post mentioned the Apple IIe from the 1980s.  Most adults, even as young as twenty years old, can look back with a little humor at how far we've come with technology since their high school days. 

So are teachers, anti-technology?  I don't think so.  I think most teachers are very willing to engage learners in new ways, taking risks from time to time for the sake of better teaching.  I think we're a little put out when our leaders promote the myth that technology will save money and solve so many of our problems in education.  We get tired of seeing that money is always available for new technology, but scarce in other areas.  We don't jump to use technology that just does what we've always done, except maybe a little faster or fancier.

Teacher/blogger, Larry Ferlazzo wrote a piece for Education Week earlier this week suggesting a checklist of sorts for whether he would consider using a particular technology in his classroom.

1) Does it take me less than one minute to learn the basics on how to use it?

2) Will it take less than one minute -- with guidance -- for my students to learn to also learn the basics on how to use it?

3) Does it provide a value-added benefit to student learning over a similar activity using basic classroom tools?

4) Is it a tool that I believe can be used regularly in class?

 

5) And, lastly, though being able to answer yes to the previous four questions usually outweighs a negative response to this one -- Can it make my life a little easier?

I like it.

How to Make Us All Great

Greatness is a relative term and there is a growing effort focused on making the teachers we have across this country better. But there's a simple solution. Hire more crappy teachers and voila. That will effectively increase the relative quality of those currently employed. Obviously that was a joke but so are some of the suggestions currently gaining favor.

Here's a serious one, actually pay educators for what they do. One way to do that would be to pay higher ups less. Keep the money in the schools with the people who work with kids in them, nowhere else. Don't allow yourself to be naive to the degree that you fail to recognize how influential companies are slowly leeching money away from actual instruction in schools and into management and testing. Let's use that money to do what was suggested in a bad 2008 Time Article reward teachers so that "the most competent, caring and compelling—remain in a profession known for low pay, low status and soul-crushing bureaucracy". If you use student scores and similar measures to rank us some of us are going to be bad. If you must tie this information in use it appropriately and rate, do not rank. Similarly be very careful about how you choose to reward educators. It is pretty important. Why not increase teacher pay across the board?

Great teachers know their subject, they communicate well, they inspire and connect with young people, they motivate, they understand kids and their emotional needs, they have the intangibles, they are creative, dependable, organized, work hard, are patient and resilient(My English teacher would run out of red ink on that sentence). Good luck getting all that from everyone. As some yolk the momentum for change in campaign season the finger can get pointed at teacher preparation. In other professions it seems what you did in college matters, but it seems OK to have graduated and underperformed before you got a job. Each year you work what you did and learned before you were hired matters less. Not so in education. Truth is the best preparation for teaching is actually teaching, the other stuff helps but learning about teaching and actually teaching are very different. Why does this even get pointed out as a big reason our students under-perform? Many kids I know only excel when their performance affects others, when it really maters. Teachers can be much the same. Imagine 25 faces staring back at you wondering what is about to happen when you don't know either. That would suck huh? Thus it'd be great to stop implying what you learned in college makes you a great teacher.

My favorite analogy came from Katy Farber who wrote Why Great Teachers Quit: And How We Might Stop the Exodus . She said that teaching is like treading water and then being handed more and more bricks. I feel that way almost daily. The more bricks we are handed, the less great we are. To offset the increasing demands some propose raising pay but that won't make the day any longer.

Many efforts to increase pay require that increase be tied to student performance on standardized tests(see previous post). Some are calling for experience to play a reduced role compensation or even be removed all together. Would that approach make sense for doctors, pilots, police officers, or any other job? News flash: EXPERIENCE MATTERS IN TEACHING. Tenure allows teachers to take risks and improve. To have piece of mind that they will have a job and focus on developing their craft free of the burdens of probationary supervision. Opponents of tenure argue it serves to keep bad teachers around but there are far more pros to cons.

Other ways to make us all great are to allow and protect the time teachers need for effective and meaningful collaboration. Squeezing it in the schedule here and there with a shoehorn doesn't cut it. That will allow for relevant sharing of resources and ideas along with professional development among peers so they can actually support each other. This enables them to successfully navigate the maelstrom of public education. Collaboration instead of competition.

Force everyone who wants input on educational decisions to sub in schools so they'll gain understanding on how tough this job can be when working with unmotivated or disrespectful kids.

Actually go back to where the kid was the one being held accountable. The are you working to engage johnny and what have you done to reach this kid stuff goes away when a kid acts like an idiot.

Respect the profession of teaching. Foster more autonomy and individual control, allow for advancement and leadership without leaving teaching. Excellence suffers when pressures from efficiency and output are applied to the classroom.

Simplify things. Teachers need time built into the day to settle the chaos. That would allow them to model a much calmer nature and be more understanding. Schedules need to be constructed in a way to allow this. Having full time subs would be a classic example of ways to help teachers be great with simplicity.

Recognize the limitations on digital and online learning, use it to supplement instruction, not just replace it. It has a growing and important role but has limits. Just as virtual human exchanges are useful but fall short of sitting down face to face. One of the lessons of John Henry is that technology is not always better. So much of what teachers do are those more subtle things or actions that have a formative impact of kids. Online classes should maintain similar student teacher ratios to brick and mortar learning. Kids can learn content from a book or a computer but the dynamic between a teacher and student can never be replicated virtually, period.

Keep teaching authentic not out of the box top down. Let teachers use their passion to instruct and do not extinguish that trait with minutia of pupil management.

Understand that teaching is a struggle. Every day is different and presents its own unique challenges. Support teachers accordingly.

Alleviate the student load to a level that allows more one on one attention and focus. This goes for all educators, teachers, counselors on down the list.

Just do what Jeb suggests...I mean he is obviously an education expert.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110401/EDIT05/304019996/1021/EDIT No don't...the seismic shift referenced on that link will be good teachers leaving the job.

Try building teachers up instead of tearing the profession down. It is a human endeavor and the human spirit can accomplish some pretty amazing things when it is cut loose and kept healthy. Ask what they need and work to get it to them. Don't give them stuff then convince them to use it.

Whatever paths chosen locally, statewide and federally to encourage greatness among teachers they should be carefully chosen and well thought out to help us be great, or at least allow us to show that we are when allowed to be.
Just don't hand me more bricks.

What does School Reform mean to me?

"What does good school reform mean to me the teacher?" Hard to cover fully on a short blog. Forget all the glittering generalities uttered by the movers and shakers. How will things be different/better in the classroom? Teachers are increasingly taking blame for all the ills that everyone claims are present in our education system. In some cases the overt targets of organized forces with questionable motivations. (I am waiting for a guy in front of a microphone to claim he has a list of 205 teachers responsible like they were 1940's Communists).

There is a growing chorus of "experts" that seem to point the finger squarely at me, the classroom teacher.This upsets me. First comes the open ended statements about our schools failing...followed by a ranking...usually a list of how the U.S. ranks against some other nation in something. Next comes talk of how unions are protecting the bad teachers who are responsible(maybe so...I'm in a state without one so I can't say for sure, I doubt it is as dramatic as made out to be). But what doesn't come up is my question and it is important. How will proposed changes make things better? (assuming the system still relies mainly on teachers and classroom)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so I'll point some fingers of my own. To start, what I don't want from a teacher's point of view. I don't like politicians coming up with ideas on education. I don't like when people twist numbers about performance or use research alone to draw conclusions. I don't like private for profit business running our school systems(whether in charter schools, resource management, consulting, selling testing software or influencing decisions with their money). Why not you ask? Because I have seen what this can mean in the classroom. And it scares me. Sometimes makes my job harder.

Under NCLB my kids(and I) are judged solely by a statewide test and I don't need to rehash the flaws with this approach...(you know how to use google) but basically its rewards teaching to the test to get scores up. This approach places less weight on my professional more global measure of their performance(I call it a letter grade). Not to demonize them but I picture a big conference nowhere near a school made up of people far from the classroom who have written books or edupreneurs seeking to peddle their ideas and gain access(thus money...don't believe me?...check out the speakers at the VA Educate Innovate agenda from Oct 27 ... It appears one whole live classroom teacher spoke). They are smart but I really can't stand how many of them seem to dismiss my feelings, knowledge and experience and those of my colleagues whenever we speak up against their ideas. We are smart too. Again...this lack of civility just doesn't seem too American. But they have the pulpit and it seems some people are so polemical on these issues they refuse to even listen to my perspective.

Maybe that's a little harsh. Some of these folks bring new ideas or resources that help and actually make learning and teaching easier and better. I know tons of great administrators who keep the classroom in mind. Heck I know a ton of awesome private schools. But I am skeptical because these gatherings tend to put wheels in motion in public schools where ideas, information and resources become proprietary...owned by companies. Thus not willingly shared. To me this is just not consistent with the idea of "public" education. When I do finally get a say the wheels have frequently turned too far to be rolled back. When will people listen when I say things aren't good ideas? There are exceptions, but they are too rare.

I am getting off message. My focus has been on one of the problems I see with reform. My question about the classroom leads me to more questions. What specifically is not working and how do we fix it? How do we measure successes? What do we do with kids where education isn't their priority and might be disruptive? How do we keep teachers(me) from bailing out? What can we do better for kids that need more from our schools without messing up what is working well for others? How do we measure charter schools against traditional schools (should we even do that)? How are colleges fitting into this push? How much should we rely on technology? What role are parents playing in all of this? When/where do we stop and look at the impact of change and reassess?

There has always been and will always be education reform. But as a classroom teacher I appreciate the license to continue doing what I find works. I'm quickly tiring of the newest professional trend in the name of reform without knowing where it'll take me(nor do I want to stay cemented in the past). Not too many of my "clients" (parents and students) complain but sure I agree we need to improve. I'd suggest good school reform is generated "in the schools" and not elsewhere. From there I think we can all work together to develop some ways to help respond to the growing number of questions concerning our schools.