The Ninety Second Evaluation

So an “enlightened” student calls out a “terrible” teacher and the nation takes notice. It doesn’t bother me so much that a “terrible” teacher, teaching by packet may finally be getting his/her comeuppance so much as the belief that a minute and thirty seconds is all that we need to make a judgment.

Does context matter?

I worry about context in my classroom regularly. When students in my class learn about Sigmund Freud and the Oedipus complex, a minute of class taken out of context could lead to serious questions about my fitness for the classroom.

Pulling situations out of context takes me back to my Fundamentalist Baptist upbringings where I learned that you would go to hell for drinking beer or growing long hair. All you’ve got to do is lift a few obscure verses from the Bible and you can support about any argument you want.

So, for the teacher haters, here’s another verse to add to your arsenal. Nevermind the hundreds of minutes in that classroom outside of the minute+ clip. Now you have proof. Teachers are lazy because most of them just sit at their desks and watch students do worksheets.

We are primed for this.

The narrative of the bad teacher has taken a foothold, so strongly that even educational leaders are willing to propagate the story even when they make little serious effort to “right the wrong” they perceive in the classroom outside of dreaming dreams about how it should be done.

I think some people want this to happen. In the nineteen-eighties, the “welfare queen” imagery changed the dialogue on public assistance. Today, even progressive educators propagate the “lazy teacher” taking advantage of the cognitive shortcut to real critical thinking as a way to promote themselves or their agenda. In a different era or culture, the immediate critique would point to the student’s lack of respect and discipline. I’m not saying that’s where we should go, but we’re creating a culture primed to find the fault in the educator.

What’s fair to judge?

Walk a mile… I teach highly motivated 11^th and 12^th graders an AP curriculum. I have a hard time thinking I’m a better teacher than my colleagues teaching younger students who aren’t inherently engaged in the activities of school. It’s hard work, and just because my students are engaged and I don’t write discipline referrals doesn’t mean I know how everyone else should do it. I can humbly offer suggestions, but too often they get bravado from the all star educator or the professional thinkers in education that have the nerve to suggest that lack of engagement is 100% a teacher problem.

I don’t teach by packet. I’ve asked students to learn on their own from time to time with paper and pencil and technology, but I recognize as the young man in the video that not everyone learns that way. If they did, I’d be irrelevant.

If every word from the kid was true, if the teacher engages the class the majority of the time in the manner we see in the video, then yes, there is a problem. Perhaps some other questions should be asked:

Is the teacher held fully accountable for student knowledge of numerous discreet facts they will have to know for a standardized test?

Does the teacher receive adequate time to plan engaging activities for the classroom?

Does the teacher receive adequate time to evaluate student learning well enough to allow it to inform instruction?

Does the school create an appropriate schedule and provide time for the teacher to collaborate with other teachers to share ideas and keep each other informed (and accountable) of what’s working and what is not in the classroom?

Is the teacher encouraged to share success and failures, to take risks, or has she learned that as long as you lay low and don’t make waves they’ll assume you’re doing a good job and overlook you?

I know this much is true. A teacher in Texas had a bad minute and a half.

If that’s an accurate representation of her professional accomplishments I hate it for the young man in the video and every student who’s suffered under her instruction.

If we saw the culmination of a strained relationship between an obstinate young man and his exhausted teacher then shame on everyone who thinks they’d do a better job.

Joel Klein Wants a "Bar Exam" for Teachers

Yesterday, The Atlantic posted an article by Joel Klein titled "The Case for a Teacher Bar Exam."

On one hand he argues that American teachers are not valued as professionals and we need to make greater efforts at doing so. But, he seems to imply that teachers are not treated as professionals because they aren't. One solution- give them a test to enter the profession. That seems to be the answer to everything in education today.

Personally, I'd say if taking a test will lead to higher pay, better benefits and more respect, bring it on. Tests don't bother me in the least. I made it through elementary school in the highest leveled classes because even though I didn't like to do work, every year I finished above the 90th percentile on those old "SRA" tests that we used to take. In middle school and high school, I didn't have to spend much time on homework and still stayed in honor's level classes because as long as I paid a little attention in class the tests were never that difficult. I only took the SATs once because I got a high enough score to get into the college of my choice.

At college, things were a little harder. Some classes were graded on multiple choice and short answer type tests. But others actually expected me to engage in discussion, right papers, and participate in activities. That nearly killed me academically. I actually had to work, learn, and apply knowledge instead of just convincing someone through a test that I was competent.

I took the National Teacher Exam early, before even enrolling in education school just to get it out of the way. I found a review book and studied for a few days and earned the passing score on my first try. GREs weren't much harder.

If you create a test for teachers I promise I'll finish in the top ten percent. But it won't have much to do with how well I teach my students.

Klein's error is the classic field of dreams. If you build it they will come. He looks to teachers of Finland who come from the top of their university classes, who enter a competitive profession. From my point of view I would argue that treating teachers more professionally- raising salary, providing autonomy, etc.,- would lead to greater professionalism. Klein believes that increasing professionalism- testing teachers, increasing accountability, etc.,- will make the teaching profession more respectable.

Both views are one dimensional and flawed. There must be a middle ground. There are areas in which teacher preparation and accountability must be raised, but adding requirements and restrictions is not the way to either encourage the "best and brightest" to join our ranks nor to encourage the competent teachers already in the classroom to stay.

Reformers, TFA and Me.

Good teachers are always in demand.  Yet it seems many good ones can't find a job.  Specifically a job where they want.    Some good ones are even losing their jobs in our current economic climate through no fault of their own.  In demand school systems are more appealing to recruits based on many factors including compensation, benefits, student populations and of course where you are from.

In that sense I am fortunate to have grown up in Albemarle and even more fortunate to have finally* been hired to teach in the system.  (* it took me 4 years to become full time) One thing true of our division is they are not wanting for a supply of talented new teachers.  With the University of Virginia's Curry school a stone's throw away a steady stream of some of the best helps us fulfill our needs for new teachers.  Other communities around this nation are not so fortunate.

Enter Teach for America.  Its stated purpose to bring high quality individuals from all over from all types of fields into the world of teaching.  I am so tired of hearing about TFA that honestly I rarely read about them and try not to think about them any more.    I recently caught an  NPR story about TFA and it got me thinking.   I went to their site for the first time in a while and saw "Teach For America is growing the movement of leaders who work to ensure that kids growing up in poverty get an excellent education."   Slow down there, that is not exactly the context I usually hear about TFA.   Many teachers aren't too fond of it. Maybe I am too hard on them.  Maybe not.  But it is worth considering TFA, hence the today's post

I've never actually worked directly with anyone from TFA.  My only real experience with "the corps" is with two amazing former students who sought a TFA recommendation.  So how can I possibly be able to judge it?  You'll just have to trust me.  My credentials as an experienced teacher are spotty and I didn't attend Yale or Harvard.   I wrestle with how I feel about TFA and acknowledge my views are not static.   I have a healthy and innate sense of insecurity common among teachers which may explain why I was defensive towards the concept of TFA from the get go.  Flawed as teachers are, good ones care less how they "look" and more how they are "seen", meaning they understand teachers do more than simply instruct.  They  know they can do a great job with that instruction and still fall short by some measurements.  Moving beyond professional resentment,  I personally am still leaning over the fence far enough to conclude that I dislike more than I like about TFA.  The marketing and closely massaged public image coupled with intensive lobbying probably contribute to that and the slick video spots leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Several former students of mine are still working as part of the "corps".   They are great kids.    I'd trust them with my own children.  This is why I am so torn.  I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people serving/ involved with TFA are good people, probably better than me even.   I have little doubt they are affecting kids in a positive way as they work with them and take their mission seriously. But beyond the ones I know,  why are the future leaders of TFA signing up and doing this? Altrusim?  Does the optimism spewing from TFA blind us to the complexity what is going on?  Are they altering the way teachers are trained and schools are staffed?   One thing that bugs me is the concept that it is OK to leave teaching after 2-3 years.  That in my view does more potential harm than good.

Take for example Colorado State Senator  Michael Johnston, former TFA member  My impression is that Johnston is a great guy.  He's done probably more good than I ever will and he is a year younger.  But  mere weeks of training and two years in the classroom can scarcely be a substitute for wisdom and knowledge built through real experience.  Like many TFA members he quickly elevated to graduate student, then law school, became a policy maker, then a principal and finally a legislator.  I know in my second year as a teacher I had little concept of what excellence in the classroom was and hadn't even begun to consider a teacher's role in larger issues affecting education.  But I didn't go to Yale.

As a result of TFA contracts with local districts did Johnston potentially take the spot of someone who might still be serving those kids in that school?  Did he really want to be a teacher or did he simply sign up for the chance to do some good during that time with those kids and see it as a rung on his way up?  Who am I to say?   But what I can say is afterwards he ascended to be named by Forbes as among the 7 most influential educators in the country(Why does Forbes even have that list?).  As I proofread it sounds like Sour Grapes but underneath what it reveals is a philosophical difference.    At best someone who is a teacher for two years can be good, at worst awful.   It would seem the antithesis of what I see a teacher should be.  Far more than simply transmitting knowledge teachers should be be loyal, dedicated, engaged and involved in community.  Not interlopers. 

As a state legislator Johnston worked to pass major teacher evaluation reform.  Half of a teacher's rating will be based on student growth.  Much of that will come from statewide tests and while this reform might do some good, it will do a lot of harm.  And most teachers agree why.   Teachers are the biggest in-school factor for a child, but much evidence supports we are not the biggest factor.  Even if we were, there are many things beyond our control that are simply seen by too many as excuses.    So Johnston and TFA's stance on poverty has directly altered the accountability placing it squarely on the teacher. Does this serve kids?  But legislators tend to see the world in terms of things they can actually control.  Since poverty or social inequity wasn't one of those it is only natural that things would gravitate towards education.

What really sticks in my craw is that TFA works hard to bring the best and brightest into the classroom, only to work equally as hard to move them out.  This is traitorous.  As if they cannot affect enough change working face to face with students inside a classroom.  If we are to continually move in a positive direction we need teachers.  Not everyone can be a "leader" as TFA sees it.   And by teachers I mean people committed to the classroom and the students in them.  We can be leaders too. I believe change needs to happen from the bottom up and not so much from the top down. 

Is it possible to separate the larger organization from the people within it?  Sure.  TFA does much good.  Specifically targeting under-performing schools they in some cases fill a need and schools that are difficult to staff.   I know they do good there.  Just as there are many great teachers serving in schools that are labelled as "failing" in so many case around the nation.  But does the fact kids are poor justify a reliance on TFA members?  Would it be OK in a more affluent community?

 I agree with much of what they stand for "poverty is not destiny" and find their abundance of infographics hypnotically appealing.  They are more successful at recruiting a more diverse teaching force than most school systems.  TFA is selective.  So the assumption is people they seek are on the whole more capable in many ways.  But smarter doesn't mean gooder when it comes to teaching and educating children(It hurt to type that).  TFA quickly points to research to the contrary maintaining their leaders outperform "regular" teachers.  But much of their sand castle is built on test scores.   Kids need and deserve more.  They deserve caring and committed professionals well versed in how to excel at their job.  Not simply banking their Peace Corps time in the trenches always looking ahead.

So effectiveness is an immediate concern.  If any other profession were to propose bringing in people with a few short weeks training and handing them the keys of a hugely important job(doctor, pilot, bus driver, machinist) there would of course be some objections, maybe more.  But anyone CAN teach right?  Wrong.   I can do the jobs of a lot of different intelligent people but know quite well they could barely function in mine.  That is not boasting.  You learn a few things about the world after being a teacher for 15 years.  In discussing TFA we are talking about what amounts to the largest teacher preparation program in the nation.  That scares me more than a bit.  Measuring the effectiveness of TFA, like a lot of education research,  remains muddy even after 20 years.  I can locate studies and research concluding TFA is good, and ones that say TFA is bad.  Who to trust?  Trust the person whose been there working for years and isn't going anywhere.  The one that doesn't want to.

Trust teachers.   Worth pointing out is that many TFA members remain as dedicated teachers and I commend and welcome them.   Maintaining great respect for the folks I know who have joined up and those that want to isn't that hard.  Yet I remain conflicted.  I don't think this is true for many non-teachers as the public image carved out by TFA is overwhelmingly positive, if ill informed.  It is not so much that I have a problem with TFA so much as what it is made out to be.   Politicians and reformers have mistakenly seen and promoted TFA as a model for change at scale.  I am resolute in my belief that what is needed in the most at risk under-performing school is not always what's best for every school.  Hiring a top notch graduate versus a novice may prove fruitful in the short term but what of comparing them to an experienced teacher?  The motivation to hire TFA members versus "regular" teachers makes you think.   One thing that struck me from the website was a comment I read from a member: "I am a teacher - not a student teacher, not a volunteer worker or a tutor - but a teacher."   No doubt with a larger support network, broader resources, and a clearer mission I might have been a vastly better teacher in my first years.  But I was always very careful about how I presented myself.  And even today I see my humility and insecurity as a strength.

TFA expends a great deal of effort and funds to present itself a certain way.  Today's press and media do little to alter their carefully crafted narrative.  That makes me both nervous and suspicious.  You learn those traits with years of teaching,  it has hardened my idealistic soul.  The promotion and marketing of such a program I believe does harm and has moved it far from its grass roots beginning to a data fed monster.     That expansion effort is more indicative of a business than a agent of change.  I'm not a big fan of Wendy Kopp.  I'll just put that out there.  Not a big fan of higher ups in the organization who see it as a cash cow funneling funds their direction.  Not a big fan of the folks who sign up, "serve their time", and kick on up the chain to assume more comfortable(and potentially lucrative) role in the ever swelling educational bureaucracy.

Good teaching is still very much a mystery.  TFA has not found a silver bullet nor an 8-fold path to learning.  Given that fact we must resolve to use something that appears lacking the higher up you go.  Good common sense.  Is it wise to bring people in, train them with great haste, and then cast them out to teach our children?  I have an opinion.  That is one thing that there is no shortage of, and it has taken far longer than a few weeks or two years to become informed.   Arrive at your own conclusions but just be sure to look before you leap.

Can we do better?

Here's some additional resources:
Teach for America Site
http://www.teachforamerica.org/

National Education Policy Center
http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2010/06/teach-america-false-promise

Living in Dialogue(an great site)
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/12/huntsvilles_research-based_com.html

Education Week
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/03/after_20_years_diverse_opinion.html

Numerically Speaking, Who is the Best?

It is actually a stupid question.  Most say it is Michael Jordan.  But there are a number of ways to determine the best basketball player of all time.  For some it depends on which number you look at.  Where a player ranks in terms of a particular statistical category is the usual measure.  Scoring, rebounding, assists, simple wins and losses, game winning shots or even number of championship rings.  Some move past this and direct focus on who could change a game or wanted the ball in their hands at the end of the game. 

Kobe, James, Jordan, Russell, Chamberlain and many others enter the conversation at various points.  Experts weigh whether it is even fair to judge players from different eras against each other.  The game changed.  For that matter whether it is even fair to compare players who play different positions as their roles are different.  Guards, centers all perform different jobs.  If a guard leads your team in rebounding, you've probably got issues.   

Student and even teacher excuses  can be more plentiful

Personally while I love college basketball, I've never really enjoyed the NBA and get a bit more into the NFL.  With the advent of Fantasy Football these conversations have taken on a new dimension.  Fantasy teams mean players are valued not for talent, heart or value to the team... but for how they stack up on the tally sheet.   Numbers can mislead you and as you stare at charts of player data.  Participants in fantasy leagues neglect the big picture and only look at stats.   Yards, points per game, supersede all else in a data driven world.  They can make you think a player is good when they are not and vice versa.  Like many the Underground has found enjoyment in this diversion.  We have become especially fond of pointing out the ineptitude of other basement member's fantasy squads.    This is a big week as we play each other.  No worries, I've got him covered. Not sure that's true but what is for certain is that fantasy sports have changed the way we watch the game and how we find enjoyment in sports.  The argument is less about who is the best and more about who had the best fantasy day.  Let's jump from athletics to education. 

As you are likely aware there are significant efforts to place a metric on the effectiveness of teachers.  The "game" has changed.   We worry less about who can teach and instead who has the best scores.  Politicians and reforms are using the obvious impact of teachers have on student performance as a reason to try and rate them using data.   Unable to affect change with what studies say is among the biggest factor, poverty ,they then go to teacher quality by default.   Out of their mouths flow phrases like "every child deserves to have great teachers" and that turns into some bastardized form of accountability.  The next step is to make some metric the measure of whether or not a teacher is effective.   Too often this is connected to some sort of test.   Having a score or number then somehow legitimizes your ability and skill as a teacher.  It quantifies your impact.  For me and the rest of Virginia's teachers, forty percent of my evaluation as a professional is taken from student growth.  I am fortunate it is not directly tied to a statewide test score as this approach seems to be incentivized by Race to the Top Funds,.... yet.  It is that way now.  But I foresee the day when that is not something I will be able to say.   While I've been wrong before concrete numbers matter.

To date, I have created my student goals and begun to plan on how to implement them but I am still not quite certain what or how I will use this to show growth without being too subjective.  I am choosing one measure of student growth related to our lifelong learner standards and their ability to write.  But because I grade this work it is invariably subjective.  Which leads us to the more objective method.  Standardized tests.  Sparing readers the indignity of why they are flawed as a true measure and far from ideal when it comes to telling whether or not someone can teach, I'll just say they are as misleading as fantasy points.   In fantasy football a player's team can build a big lead and that could actually hurt their point total.  Teachers are the most significant in-school piece to student learning and success but they are not the only piece and there is much out of and in school that plays a role. There's the motivational of students, desire to learn, attendance, class size, social incentives, socio-economic level, and school size all of which top a list that researchers constantly study and debate.  

These guys have taught me a lot

Teachers matter.  I know they matter a lot.  But other things matter too.  To attempt to objectively measure why one teacher might be better than another has the potential to prove as fruitful as an argument about who is the best NBA or NFL player.  And conceivably more pointless.  How much authentic learning goes unappreciated or is even replaced with narrow result oriented instruction?  The end result of this effort and energy does little to help me improve as a teacher and frankly I feel less supported.   Am I more inclined to narrow my approach to serve my goal(s)?  I hope not.   But the best way to measure me as a teacher is to be in the room with me while I teach.  Not once, but a lot. Still... improving teachers and learning by measures such as this is just that, a fantasy.  Thus it does little to improve the quality of education for students.  Maybe we should instead focus our attention on working to support all teachers and devote resources in their service, not to figuring out who is the "best".

First Year Stories

Today was a good day, to quote the title of a previous post and quite an excellent piece of music by Ice Cube.  It was the first day of school.  My seventeenth first day of school as a teacher.  People asked all week "are you ready?"  I replied honestly to some that while I looked forward to a new school year, I wasn't looking forward to the first day at all.  First days can be so awkward.

We meet between 120-160 new people in the first two days of school and spend eighty minute blocks of time with them in groups of 20-25.  It's pretty miserable for an introvert like me.  But this year was very different.  Maybe it's the experience.  Or maybe my first first day was such a disaster that it has taken over a decade to recover.  Only now do I feel confident enough to divulge my first day experience to the public.

August 1996, twenty-two years old.  That seemed like adulthood at the time, but today that age doesn't seem to far from high school.  I'd completed my student teaching assignment and taken a job at the same school.  I showed up dressed better than I've ever dressed since, all planned out and ready to change the world.  We taught on a six period A/B block schedule, so classes were One Hundred minutes long.  My planning was first period.  Of course I couldn't show up on my first day unprepared, so I arrived at school with nothing to do but sit in the office and be nervous for nearly two-hours.  My classroom was occupied by another teacher, so  I alternated between sitting on the couch and pacing the floor in our social studies office. (This office has since been given away, but that's another long, sad story)

The bell rang, it was showtime, and I was as ready as I could be.  Days of planning, hours of practice, and the hour plus of final preparation behind me, I set out for the classroom.  The tardy bell rang and I quickly finished taking attendance and began the lesson for the day.  It was a good lesson and the students responded well.  But nearing the end of what I'd prepared, I noticed the clock.  It was still only 11:30.  The class was scheduled to end at 12:40.  I stalled and talked and tried to pry questions out of the class.  They were seniors and it appeared that no one told them that summer was over.  They sat, quiet and disengaged.  I strung it out as long as I could.  Finally, around 11:45 I threw in the towel.

"O.K. class.  I'm really sorry, but that's all I've got.  I don't have anything else for us to do today." I didn't have enough skill or experience to wing it, and I didn't know the course well enough to move ahead.  So we sat.  Did I mention my introversion?  I tried to make small talk.  Engage them in conversation about their summer, sports, family, anything.  Finally I gave up on even that and no one said a word for the final forty-five minutes of class.  Awkward silence and wasted time.

I really was a terrible teacher my first year.  Thankfully I got another chance.  Thankfully, today I'm able to smile for an entire period and get mostly the same in return from my students until the bell rings and we have to interrupt what we're doing so they can switch classes.  Thankfully, as hard as this job can be, with good colleagues and the right support and training, we get better every year on the job.

I doubt my story sounds nearly as traumatic to the reader as it was for me.  I'm sure there are much better first day horror stories than mine.  If you have a good one to share, post it in the comments below.  Maybe you will bring a smile to someone's face, or encourage a first year teacher who just experienced a terrible first day.  They might appreciate knowing how many of us have been there too.

Friday Afternoon Inspiration

You made it!  Another week down.  Twelve to fifteen to go?  Depending on where you work.  I'm usually drained on a Friday afternoon, maybe you feel the same, but it's the good kind of exhausted.  Sometimes you get burned out, sometimes you give too much, sometimes you just want to quit.  But I hope that at least today, you know that you've given all that you've got and all that you've given will be taken by your students, carried out into the world, and multiplied as they take their lessons from the classroom into life.

In college, a friend of mine argued that "Levar Burton is the most influential man in America."

"What!?  The guy from Star Trek with the cool glasses?"

"Yes, but no.  The same guy, but not because of Star Trek.  It's Reading Rainbow."

"It's a kids show."

"Exactly.  Levar Burton has the attention of so many kids every day when they get home from school.  If he wants to make a difference, he's in a greater position than anyone else in America to do it.  He influences the minds of a generation of youth."

Maybe not exactly an "expert opinion", but the conversation has stuck with me for over twenty years.  Every day I influence the minds of a generation of youth.  Probably more than 100 kids a year care more about what I say than the President.  Decisions that I make every day will impact the quality of life for over 100 kids more directly than legislative decisions.  One hundred children-citizens of my county will learn from me whether they can name the members of our school board or not.  Lot's of people can claim that they are "in it for the children" but I'm in it so deep that my contribution can be measured.

So while I will hope that this Friday night will allow me to slip into the "comfy clothes" at an early hour and find the bed before ten.  I also appreciate the fatigue.

This weekend I will not rest from the exhaustion of last week.  I will rest to prepare for the next.

Happy Friday from the Teaching Underground.

Hey Virginia Teachers-- Great Job!

Growth Model evaluations, loss of continuing contracts, budgetary woes getting you down?  Never fear teachers of Virginia, the Teaching Underground is ready to give you a pat on the back.  You’re doing great!  Keep up the good work and don’t let the political rhetoric and imposter reform movement ruin your day.  Here’s a short list of Virginia's achievements in the past year.

Reported by CNBC, Virginia ranks as America’s number one state for business.  Among the reasons for this ranking:

This year, Virginia powers back to the top spot with the best overall score in the history of our study — 1,660 out of 2,500 points. Texas slips back to number two with a respectable 1,578 points.  In Education, Virginia jumps seven points to rank sixth, reflecting an effort begun in 2009 to reduce class sizes.

First of all, it’s nice to see that someone realizes that class size matters, but it’s also nice to see an acknowledgement that in Virginia, education isn’t to blame for our shortcomings.  What is you ask?

Not all is rosy in Virginia. The state fell eight spots to number 26 in Quality of Life, which, among other things, measures healthcare. The number of uninsured residents in Virginia has risen steadily in recent years.

What else are we getting right in our Virginia schools? 

Oh, yes, Education Week rated Virginia schools fourth overall in the nation this year.  Across five categories, Virginia scored an overall grade of 82.6 compared to the national average of 76.5.  Guess what categories reflect the most room for growth.

One of our three lowest scores came in Spending- 71.1 percent.  Accountability was 93.3.  The argument used to be that we expected money without accountability.  I guess one out of two isn’t bad.  Speaking of one out of two, our lowest score was a 50 percent in college readiness, but…

… according to College Board’s “Connection” web newsletter: “In an encouraging national trend, all but four states showed that an increasing number of public school graduates participated in the AP Program. Maryland again led the nation with the highest percentage of its graduates (27.9 percent) participating in AP and scoring a 3 or higher on an AP Exam. Following Maryland in the top 10 were New York (26.5 percent), Virginia (25.6 percent)…

So Virginia ranks third in the College Board’s ranking of the percentage of graduates scoring a three or higher on AP exams, positioning themselves to earn college credit in high school.

We hear a lot of talk nationally about the importance of STEM, so Virginia schools' performance in the area of Science education is important.  According to the Science and Engineering Readiness index-- developed by Susan Wite from the Statistical Research Center at the American Institute of Physics and physicist Paul Cottle of Florida State University-- Virginia ranks 6^th with a score of 3.73, above average.

The SERI score is a scale of 1 to 5 reflecting how well states perform and allow opportunities for success in physics and math education and teacher qualifications.

According to The Fordham Institute report, The State of State Science Standards 2012, Virginia is one of only five states scoring a grade of A- or better.

Virginia didn’t do well on one ranking system.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—which heavily influences the legislative agenda in Virginia— ranks Virginia schools 26^th, by using the sole measurement of NAEP test results for low income fourth and eight graders.  Worse, they give Virginia a grade of C- because of Education Policy in the areas of Standards, Charter Schools, Home School regulations, Private School Choice Programs, Teacher Quality and Policies, and Virtual Schooling.  This report is supposed to provide a road map for legislators to follow to bring about educational excellence in their state.

Based on Governor McDonnell’s education proposals for 2012 it would appear that Virginia is following that road map.  So instead of recognizing the quality of public education in Virginia by congratulating teachers, principals, and superintendents on a job well done, we get empty words of gratitude and a policy plan that reflects the empty assumption that Virginia schools are failing.

It may not be worth much, but to the public educators of Virginia, The Teaching Underground says, "Keep up the good work.  You've achieved much and we're sure you know that as educators we always seek improvement.  Be proud of your efforts, continue to appreciate your students, their families, and communities, and despite policy-makers and pundits who seem bent on proving differently-- Know that your hard work, expertise, and experience makes a positive difference to the Commonwealth."









Stop reading.  That's it, really.  I know that statements like that  always have a "but" following that essentially negates every positive comment.  Not here.  Good job.  Knuckle Bump. That's the end of the story.

An Unappreciated Metaphor for Education

I might fall from a tall building,

I might roll a brand new car.

'Cause I'm the unknown stuntman that made Redford such a star.

Steve Austin probably ended up a CEO.

That's how Lee Majors opened his show "The Fall Guy" in the early 1980s.    His role as the "unknown stuntman" was not as well known as when he played The Six Million Dollar Man, but the TU agreed at lunch the other day The Fall Guy was among his finest works. Majors played Colt Seavers on the show and the theme song has earned him a place as an honorary TU member.  Why you ask?  Because he seems to share the unappreciated feeling all too common among today's teachers.   You may have read Teacher Underground: A Metaphor for Education where we used H.R. PufnStuf to explain the players in the spectacle that is education.  Thinking a bit about The Fall Guy might also lend some clarity and insights to the current state of our profession. 

Colt Seavers, Can it get more American?

We all have a little Colt in us where we feel like we do all the work and and no one sees or appreciates those efforts.  Teachers seem to be an easy mark for reformers and politicians intent on the appearance of movement.  Teachers have become the fall guy for all the problems we face.  They seem intent on laying any blame for the shortfalls of education and students on the teachers.  If you spend time following national, state and even local policy you know that bashing teachers and their level of professionalism seems to be all the rage.  Removing bad teachers is a key element to many strategic plans to improve education. There doesn't seem to be much thought as to how that determination is made or what else affects outcomes.  Bottom line is that type of negative rhetoric is unwelcome to most educators and does little to help motivate or inspire.  A leader that can change that would go a long way.   

Some people and groups have always devalued the importance of teachers.  But those who do so today are all too common.  They criticize the teaching workforce by pointing out where we graduated, the rigor of the training prior to employment and also teachers themselves for gaining employment in a field deemed not that competitive.  By far the biggest target is tenure.  They say annual contracts are all that teachers deserve.   Need to tighten the budget, fire some teachers.  Basically those that want to help have decided saying teachers aren't good enough is the way to make things get better.  If that is their goal I don't think they are doing a very good job of making our field very attractive to the higher caliber individuals they seek to recruit.  Come work for low pay, little job security where efforts seem unrecognized.  Apply within.

Cousin Howie, Colt Seavers and Jodi

Meanwhile the teachers of America do what they do.  Like the character Seavers, we grind away at our jobs and stand by while others talk about it under the spotlight.  That doesn't bother us, we signed up for that.  We are fine with that and even take pride in it.  But having someone then stand up and say we are doing a crappy job hurts.  Much like the bumps and bruises common in stuntman work.  Colt no doubt had to swallow his pride and watch some major stars take all the credit, knowing that stuntmen were an afterthought and seen as expendable.    We know how Colt must feel when we hear a leader stand and spend more time trumpeting a program like TFA, where members are trained in weeks, often temporary, and enrolled for different reasons and less time on lifelong teachers.

What A-Team van?

Another parallel with The Fall Guy, he found himself in financial hard times(remember the early 1980s recession?) and had to supplement his income by becoming a bounty hunter.  He turned to riding around and jumping his GMC Sierra Grande over stuff to apprehend bail jumpers with his cousin(Douglas Barr) and fellow stunt person Jodi(Heather Thomas).  He found a way to make ends meet.  His job was perhaps more exciting but teaching is no less unpredictable.  Financial challenges are often not unfamiliar to teachers and many are forced to seek additional employment to make ends meet.  We didn't take the job for the money but it is a job and we expect to get paid.  Whether film-making or education, any system where people who work the hardest seem to get paid the least is pretty backward.  Oh well Colt never whined about it.    

Major's sang "I've died for a living in the movies and TV" and I think he's saying he has a passion for what he does.  The good teachers I know share that trait in working with their students.  We learned we need to have thick skin to endure.  For the stuntman this is true in a literal sense and for the teacher it means you have to be willing to give of yourself when at times no one, not even your students, seem to appreciate your efforts.   There will be some nights when you question whether you're going to make it.  But like Seavers, you'll show up the next day and give your all.  We love what we do.  When the credits roll at the end of a film or when the names are read at graduation, we take some pride in a job well done.   We are used to feeling unappreciated but let's not take that too far...OK?

Lee, next time you or some unappreciated teachers are in town, swing by and join us for lunch. 

Economists Prove Teachers Matter

The headline reads "Did You Have  Good Teacher? Expect to earn More as an Adult."

This conclusion was drawn from a research study conducted by three Harvard and Columbia economists that definitively connect career earnings to a student's access to a good teacher in grades 4-8.  So they have essentially proven something common sense says is true.  Teachers matter. 

Of course they do. There are good ones, and then there are some not so good.   Just as there are good ways to use research and some not so good.  The basic problem I have with this research is they define a good teacher by using student test scores alone.    If the same was done in my or any other school I am 100% certain that data would be misleading. We don't all teach the same level and thus not all the same kids with the same learning needs.  They might not have the same goal in mind.  By such logic it could be argued that to some degree, the students we teach define us as teachers.  So what remains unclear despite this study is how to best measure quality. 

Such an approach using testing to identify "good" teachers assumes cause and effect.  It is then parlayed into the dreaded Value Added Measurement of teacher effectiveness.   Nevermind all the other factors affecting kids during their incredibly complex development and education.   Consider if it is possible that students who already do better on tests are more likely to find success in school, get into a better college and eventually get a higher paying job.  Does evidence suggest students from higher socioeconomic levels do better on tests, thus better in school, thus generally earn more money than their peers?  Do the student goals differ?  College admission is a goal.  But who do we hold accountable when goals are not met? 

The TU asks why it is that economists have all this time to study education?  Might they be better served to study something closer matching their background...say, our struggling economy?  Maybe some educators should spend some time studying our economy and drawing some equally obvious conclusions and then suggest some changes.  Maybe they could even prove economists matter...?

The problem is not necessarily with the research itself, it is how it will probably be used.    I can foresee this evidence used as rationale or justification for an increased emphasis on the validity of Value-Added Teacher Evaluations.  And those teacher evaluations will rely disproportionately on student data from testing.    Decision makers and politicians beholden to the appearance of taking action and doing something in our perceived education crisis will likely fail to make reasonable changes from such research and instead use it to justify a call for kneejerk and potentially harmful changes. They do not mean harm they just lack sufficient understanding of all that is involved in education. 

Numerous videos are  included along with the New York Times article and they do much to reinforce the notion that our schools are failing.  I am increasingly frustrated by media and their lack of objectivity on education.  Instead of presenting a balanced view of reality, they(and NBC)  fall prey to the gloom and doom model to attract attention and readers.  This undermines public confidence in our schools and has become a self fulfilling prophecy.  The video at one point references the low grades the public assigned when asked to grade our public schools to illustrate this point.  

If using such data driven decisions were a sound approach then we should follow suit with other public institutions.  Shall we start with our political ones and remake them all in a flurry of reform?  I suspect that course would meet greater and more organized resistance and be deemed unwise.  The video continues on and mentions that among teachers  “there's growing frustration that those skills can't be measured by a test. standardized tests are an accurate reflection of a student's achievement. 60% say those tests determine what they teach.”   Subjective(using real people) as a component in measuring things isn't flawed enough to justify swinging the pendulum too far the other way.  Teachers know that.  If they didn't they'd make course recommendations solely based on how kids score on a test or only assign grades based on tests. 

The increasing role of data in teacher hiring, retention and evaluation does something that few other human endeavors do.  Rely on data more than people.  The problems with VAM(Value Added Models) in such a process is described as either smart or dumb by  Bruce Baker (a guy way smarter than anyone at TU)who said there were 3 main flaws with this approach.  You don't even need to understand what he's saying to figure out he seems to suggest flaws with VAM.

• The first error is a deterministic view of a complex and uncertain process. 
• The second common error becomes apparent once the need arises to concretely measure quality
• The third error is a belief that important traits are fixed rather than changeable 

Here are some things to consider which help put this study in proper perspective.

• •  The difference cited in a lifetime amounts to $4,600.  Over 20 years that's about $225 a year, $19 a month, $4.75 a week, or less than a dollar a day.   What if a student had a great teacher but chose a more service oriented profession with less potential for earnings...hmmm?  Let's take for example...maybe a job like...TEACHING!  Economists would be the ones to qualify worth solely by income.  Hearts of stone those folks. 
  • Kids with good teachers have a .5% greater chance of going to college.  So if a bad teacher taught 200 kids and an good teacher taught 200 kids, the good teacher would send 1 more on to college. 
  • A classroom with $266,000 increase in career earnings.  If I taught a class of 30 kids who worked for 30 years that'd be about $295 difference for each of them. 
  • Robert H. Meyer of the Value-Added Research Center  is quoted as saying “That test scores help you get more education, and that more education has an earnings effect — that makes sense to a lot of people.”  The problem with that is clear to an educator.  A system that relies too heavily on testing in determining the fate of our kids.  Most of the nations(Finland for example) that outperform the United States on international tests do not share this test heavy approach. 
  • The link between teacher performance and student test scores while statistically proven, is not ironclad.  Using this data in such a way has the potential to undermine the collegial and supportive professional environment among teachers and disrupt and discourage peer support.  The effect would hurt all students and counteract any gains, real or perceived.  In short it won't matter who you hire, it will undermine our profession.
  • “The message is to fire people sooner rather than later,” Professor Friedman said.  WTF?  So a new teacher with less experience who needs time to develop as a professional and master their craft should be fired?  What about the teacher who is asked to teach a different curriculum each year?  One who is stricken with illness for a lengthy period of time health problems?  That seems like sound reasoning... huh?  The way to strengthen education is to fire people.  Did you hear that message?  In other words...blame the teachers. 
  • Is it possible as suggested by someone who questions the validity of such research that value added is simply the only financially practical way to tell the difference between teachers?  "Observations or videotapes of classroom practice, teacher interviews, and artifacts such as lesson plans, assignments, and samples of student work" are all financially prohibitive as they'd take too much time and money to effectively implement.  To me it is simple...you know a good teacher when you walk in their room...and yes that is a subjective measure.  But so is measuring learning.  Standardized tests are more objective but we'd be foolish to place any more weight on them than we do already.
  • There is another group who has growing influence on education policy I am wary of, Pyschometricians. They contend that a test is only valid if it actually measures what they are supposed to.  I haven’t seen a test, nor would I want to, that can measure how good a teacher someone is. 
  • Whether it is John Keynes or Adam Smith, economics is a "dismal science" that essentially amounts to theory.  Kinda like education theory. I read some of the comments on the article and they seemed more soundly based on the real world.
  • Are similar data heavy measures applied to similar things?  Like:  Our curriculum, online classes, charter schools, would they be welcome in private schools since education is education ...public or private?  Or could the same conclusion be drawn from how far back a kid sits in a classroom, how fast they finish a test, or whether or not they're a student-athlete? 
  • "But controlling for numerous factors, including students’ backgrounds, the researchers found that the value-added scores consistently identified some teachers as better than others, even if individual teachers’ value-added scores varied from year to year."  Anyone bother asking why it varied?  

  
  The study simply confirms what we already knew.  The question before us is how or if that is useful.  Let me be the 10,000th person to tell you that over-representing the value(pun intended) of Value Added is unwise.  We have begun to employ this approach across the nation in a sweeping tide that shows little sign of turning back.  We've seen the damage such a tide can do when it advances too far unchecked. What is even more frustrating is we seem to be spending more time, money and resources to develop, justify and advance  these methods all for what at can at best be described as a minimal return.   Thus pushing the tide even farther and doing untold damage.

  
  

  So the study found out that teachers matter.   Teachers matter a lot and all this data shouldn't.  Perhaps a study showing parents matter would be equally useful.  Allow me to briefly respond to the research after what has grown into a lengthy post.  "Well ...Duh!"  I'll restate what I find the most fault with about all of this, it is that data driven reform attempts to replace what throughout history has been the skilled art of teaching with some sort of exact science.  In our effort to continually educate and develop the human mind we are forgetting we still dealing with people and we cannot do the job alone.  Funny thing about people and their behavior is that more often than not they find ways to defy scientific explanation.  

  
  

  Value-added is an oxymoron if ever there was one. 

Fixing Education

“Either fix our schools or get used to failure”

News stands across the country will feature that statement top and center on the November 14 edition of Time magazine this week. To accompany the piece, its author, Fareed Zakaria, hosted a CNN GPS special “Fixing Education” on Sunday evening. In a sick economy, I suppose that another attack on education sells magazines and draws ratings at least, and lessens the economic downturn for someone. Of course in this case, that might be just fine. It turns out that the author has found the magic bullet for building an excellent system of education and turning the American economy around. Quite profound actually, here is the solution:

“work harder and get better teachers”

Why didn’t anyone think of that already? Well, according to the author the answer is very clear. Half of American teachers graduated in the bottom third of their college class. I guess there aren’t enough smart people in education to figure out the “work hard and get better teachers” formula. Mr. Zakaria arrived at this articulate solution to the education problem by looking overseas toward nations that seem to get education right.

He first points to South Korea. American school children spend less time in school than in South Korea (and many other Asian nations.) He uses the 10,000 hour rule described by Malcolm Gladwell in his book “Outliers” as proof-- 10,000 hours engaged in a task for one's skill set to reach 'expert' status. In a stroke of genius, he suggests that if American students just spent more time in school, we would see dramatic improvements in the system.

The second “global lesson” comes from Finland. These sneaky Scandinavians managed to stay under our radar while they built an education empire by selectively hiring the best and brightest as teachers. On top of that, they pay them well and treat them with the same professional respect as doctors and lawyers. They emphasize creative work and shun tests for most of the year according to Zakaria. That’s the second variable in our formula for excellent schools—find better teachers.

This article is so ground-breaking, its impact could spark a revolution. Why stop at education. Imagine the possibilities if this model were applied to other professions. The NFL- if we just find the best coaches and make them practice longer with the team we’ll win the super bowl every year. Investments- if we just find the best and smartest portfolio managers and make them work long hours we’ll get the best returns. Retail- if we just hire the best salespeople and have them put in lots of hours, our profits will skyrocket. Or what about industry- if we just hire the most productive workers and increase their hours, our profits will hit the roof. Maybe our government could even function better if we would just elect the best officials and make them spend more time in session.

I doubt I’ve been too successful in my attempt at humor, but honestly, this article had quite the opposite effect of making me laugh.

Further Reading on the burden
of schooling many children face.



Let’s look first at time. Most American school children spend thirteen years in school, one-hundred eighty days a year, at least six hours a day. Over 14,000 hours in class (not counting homework). This far surpasses the 10,000 hour rule. Personally, my children are involved in athletics that probably account for between 3-5 hours per week averaged over the year. My middle school son just began a weekly commitment to Destination Imagination and I’m sure that as he and my elementary aged daughter get older, their athletic and extra-curricular involvement will increase. They also have church related commitments that equal 3-5 hours a week. My family values each of these commitments as much as education and I don’t expect my children’s “earning potential” to suffer because they don’t spend enough time in school. I would actually think that my children would suffer from requirements that they spend additional time in school beyond what is currently required.

Then what about these “exceptional teachers.” In other contexts, just take sports for example, an exceptional athlete may never reach their potential until placed in the proper situation. Teaching doesn’t take place in a bubble. Current systems for measuring teacher quality focus almost entirely on how well they affect student achievement on standardized tests. Looking to Finland without addressing the fact that children in Finland are taken care of in a near socialist fashion fails to recognize that the highly qualified teachers of the nation are dealing with students who are highly prepared for school by a government system that fully addresses issues of poverty, health care, and safety that are left to the schools to deal with in the United States. In the United States, we’re labeling effective teachers by student test scores. In Finland, they are labeling effective teachers by their training and efforts.

Putting the two together, Zakaria interviewed Bill Gates for the article and news special. Gates and others assert that experience doesn’t have an impact on teacher quality. It would seem that if Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule was so strict, a teacher would have to practice for ten years before making it to “expert” status.

Mr. Zakaria, I appreciate that you are concerned about the public education system in the United States, but I worry that articles and news broadcasts such as yours do more damage than good. You have limited exposure to the reality of day-to-day education in the United States and your simplistic view of what we can do to fix it reveals the danger of the “arm-chair” administrator to our system.

I teach in a school district with average SAT scores of 556/554/544 (Reading/Math/Verbal). Eighty-Three percent of our graduates pursue higher education. Ninety-three percent of our students graduate on time. The College Board recently recognized us for efforts at increasing access to the AP curriculum while increasing the percentage of students scoring a three or higher on the exams. (81%) Of those, I taught AP to nearly 150 students last year with 90% scoring a three or higher. As an individual teacher and a district, we're doing pretty well.  We also recognize that status quo is not an option and consistently work to improve our effort on behalf of students.

The constant fixation on aggregate numbers paired with stories of great success and great failure at the expense of the commonplace paints an entirely unrealistic picture of what goes on in our nation’s schools every day. It also creates an unnecessary urgency for uniform dramatic change that will kill the success of systems such as mine while attempting to fix the problem of underperforming urban districts. The tagline on the cover of Time—fix our schools or get used to failure—unfairly labels a school such as mine, already demonstrating success and consistently moving toward improvement, as a problem. Instead of recognizing our efforts, we’re scapegoated as the primary obstacle to our nation’s recovery from an economic crisis.

Thanks for the quick fix, we’ll get started on it tomorrow and tell you how it goes. Unless of course you’d like to open real dialogue and acknowledge the diversity of the education systems in the United States and figure out how we target the areas that are failing, develop innovative solutions to consistent problems, and sustain and nurture the systems and teachers who continue to effectively prepare the next generation for a productive life in a global society.

Easy Targets

Answer quickly, do more Americans die each year from homicide or suicide?

Which city has a higher crime rate, New York, NY or Aurora, IL?

Most of you would say homicide and NYC.  Most of you would be wrong.  Some things just stick in our brains more vividly than others and affect our judgment for the worse.  Often, these vivid cases are not just easier to remember, but perpetuated through our conversations, personal experiences, and the media.  I'm sure all of the news reports on murders and crime shows set in NYC affected your judgment on these questions as well.

Education suffers from the same problem.  The images and memories of those terrible teachers stick out in our brains.  So-called reformers find a vast resource of collective memory to evoke in the public to spur initiatives to disrupt a supposed broken system.  Ignored are the consistent images of caring teachers engaging students in the day-to-day business of learning.  Nothing as inspiring as Mr. Keating or Mr. Escalante, but certainly not the caricature of Ferris Beuler's Econ teacher. 

The "bad, boring, dull" teacher trapped in a "monotonous, dull, rigid" system is quite overrepresented in our collective imagination of what education is.  Because of this over-representation, teachers and public education in general finds itself on the receiving end of quite a bit of unfair and caricatured criticism.

Alfie Kohn recently wrote an article for Education Week titled "Corridor Wit: Talking Back to our Teachers."  Usually I find Kohn quite on target.  His arguments against homework are thoughtful, and while I don't completely agree with him I appreciate the thought that he provokes.  I greatly appreciate his understanding of standardized testing's impact on education.  His recent post humorously quotes some of what he considers "the overused and underthought pronouncements that reflect truly reactionary views of education and children."  Following each quote he proposes the witty response he wishes he'd been able to deliver in retort as a student.

Here is a sampling:

I need all eyes on me, please!


Mrs. __________, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that your periodic requests to look at you are really about what you need. Obviously it isn’t necessary to look at you in order to hear what you’re saying. More important, neither looking nor listening is the same as learning. In fact, real learning is more likely to happen when we students are doing most of the talking. But, hey, if your need for attention is so pressing, I’d be glad to stare at you some more.

Eyes on your own paper! I want to see what you can do, not what your neighbor can do!


In other words, you want to see what happens when I’m deprived of the resources and social support that characterize most well-functioning real-world environments, rather than seeing how much more my “neighbors” and I could accomplish together? Why?

Take everything off your desks except a pencil.


Wait a minute. If you’re giving us a test, but forcing us to put away our books and notes, then you’d mostly be assessing rote recall. Surely you’re more interested in knowing our capacity for thinking than how much stuff we’ve crammed into short-term memory, aren’t you?

I admit, it's funny, but on some level I find it offensive.  Here's why:
 
1) There are times when I do need all eyes on me.  I do bear some responsibility in your learning and with twenty to thirty of you surrounding me in a classroom, eye contact is the best short-term method for me to monitor your understanding.  I know that real learning happens when you start talking, but not if you're just talking about the game last night.  Students need some direction (ever read Lord of the Flies).

2) As a teacher, I get lots of support from my peers.  Then I go into a classroom and conduct lessons on my own.  If I want to buy a computer, I talk to friends and do some research, then I evaluate the options and make my own decision.  Here's another point-- Is the population of Argentina greater or less than 2 million?  Go ahead and make a guess about the population.  Do you believe that your answer would have been significantly higher if my first question said 200 million instead of 2?  Sometimes I do want to know what my students think and know.  I want to minimize the effect of outside factors and distractors.  I want them to learn how to participate in a "well-functioning real-world environment" by learning to think on their own and then bringing their collective knowledge to the table with informed understanding and openness.

3) Is short-term memory a bad thing?  Sure it isn't everything, but it is a cognitive skill that requires practice.  And enough practice will lead to long-term recall.  No, it isn't the only thing that I'm going for in class, but when my students find themselves in a real-world situation, they certainly won't have the textbook and if they can't use the right search words the internet might not help either.  So every so often, yes, take everything off of your desk except for a pencil.

I agree with most of the other criticisms in Mr. Kohn's post.  Commenting to a tardy student "how nice of you to join us" is a simple attempt to shame or guilt a student into better behavior.  But this out of hand criticism takes the hard work of teaching every day and reduces it to a caricature.  To assume that teachers don't reflect on their homework policies, class procedures, and grading policies demeans the individual educator on whom the structure of our public school system is built.  It unfairly demeans the system by oversimplifying the cause of some of it's biggest flaws.

I don't think that Mr. Kohn meant any harm, in fact, I sincerely believe that his work supports the movement toward quality education and away from corporate-driven reform efforts.  But, I do think that teachers have become too easy of a target and caricatured posts like this further pigeonhole the lot of us as unthinking, standardized, slave drivers wedded to the status quo of mediocrity.  The reality of day-to-day life in the public school classroom is far different than this.

Best and Brightest

My colleague and I write a lot about education reform here on the TU.  It may seem like we oppose much of the current reform. We do.  Not because we are obstructionists.  In fact it is obvious that our nation's education system needs continual improvement and we welcome positive changes.  Less obvious is which if any of these reforms have merit.  The one size fits all systemic changes that are being pushed by major players will do little to affect positive change in the average classroom.  They may in fact do the opposite.  What is certain is that the focus of many of the ideas and measures is the quality of the teacher.   Many profess that an influx of the nations “Best and Brightest” to the teaching profession will do much to fix all that is wrong.
 
Of course there are bad teachers out there and a growing number of initiatives seem focused on identifying and then purging them from the profession.  I have no problem when bad teachers leave.  I have a problem when good teachers leave.  That is happening with greater frequency.  I also have a problem with how these efforts to root out bad teachers affect what I do in the classroom.  Some cite the lack of teacher dismissals as evidence that bad teachers are protected by tenure and that it seems anyone can keep a teaching job. But they forget that many self select and quit. They also underestimate the complexity of judging quality teaching.  It is true anyone CAN teach under ideal conditions.  But there is much facing schools and done by today’s students in those classrooms to prevent such ideal conditions from materializing.  When people realize how hard it can be many there including these Best and Brightest will say in effect “I’m out”, and head for the door.  Knocking many of us regular teachers over as they rush past. But people teaching for the right reasons stick it out.  That should matter.   They find ways to improve or ask for help.  They do a lot more for kids than what happens between the bells. To me it is far more important WHO a teacher is as opposed to WHAT they are. 


As the focus shifts to those actually doing the instruction efforts are made to ensure all students have access to quality teachers.  How could anyone oppose such a thing?  But these efforts to identify bad teachers and standardize curriculum hurt me in a variety of ways.   Couple that with the promotion of common techniques from the edgurus or edupreneurs of the day and you’ve got a tangle of adverse affects. These hurt quality teachers.  Those that have control over what I do see teaching as a science.  Where a variable can be altered and it will reproduce a desired outcome. Those who teach know it is an art.  This disjoint lies at the heart of many issues and is in part a reason why we created this Teaching Underground.  Those who have survived the first few purgatory like years that weed out people in teaching for the wrong reasons or those who do not possess the necessary skills know there are no shortcuts and there are no easy years.

Those promoting B and B talk miss many key points.  Chief among them is the fact you can have all the degrees in the world and still suck.  Drop a Harvard law grad or Wall Street CEO in some of the classes I’ve taught and the kids will sniff them out and eat them for breakfast. Educational success is not a guarantee of success in life.  Especially not the life of a teacher.  I’m proof of the opposite since I am still working despite my unimpressive academic record.    A review of this might lead one to conclude I am unfit for every job. But there is no substitute for experience.  I learned much from mine.  Lessons I will not soon forget.  Lessons that I use daily.  One of those is that even smart people can be dumb and lazy.  Nothing against smart folks joining up, just cautioning that they do so for the right reasons.  That they understand there is no playbook or model for what happens every day.  They better be child-centered and not self-centered or they won’t make it.   Three years does not an expert make.  And to think they’ll remedy everything might be short sighted. 

So take for example Mr. Mortimer Zuckerman.  A bright fella who says in part “America has to rethink how to attract, employ, retain, and reward outstanding teaching talent.”   What Mr. Zuckerman forgets while he pounds away in one of his 4 houses or his 100+ ft yacht, is that teaching at Harvard and Yale and publishing magazines differs a great deal from teaching in a public school.      Teaching is a human endeavor.   What people say does in fact matter.  Calling for more Best and Brightest hurts.   A  Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind continue to have unintended consequences. Throughout, one constant is that we are not all motivated to work harder and longer solely by money.

What else he does in the article does is tougher to discern.  I’m surprised I even picked up on it given I am just a teacher.  He starts with pointing out the “Educational Crisis”…then moves on to criticize tenure and I think the overall nature of our educational workforce lowering the crosshairs directly on teachers. (Allow me to return fire)  Catch phrases like digital learning and concepts like having kids learn by watching DVDs of top teachers reveal that the view from the top is not what I see everyday.   Will it work?  Maybe with a small percentage of our kids who are self motivated.  “In fact, the new methods could reduce the longer-term need for mass teaching manpower”  Really?   Over-reliance on technology is dangerous.  It shouldn't replace teachers, it should empower them.   As good as it sounds having a kid in California watch a teacher from North Carolina using technology ain’t exactly gonna work for a lot of kids, and it doesn’t work for teachers either.  You can’t simply watch a good teacher and then repeat what they do.  Authentic assessment is what many of us do every day.   Intentional or not Zuckerman’s ideas further erode understanding of what good teaching really is and how valuable those people are.  It is not teaching to the test, it is teaching the kid.   There's no rubric for good teaching. 

This simplistic approach to educational issues reveals the divide between those that teach and those that “know” about teaching. Among the most asinine of ideas are many coming from  “reputable” educational researchers who hide behind mountains of data.  Too many of whom inexcusably fail to even talk to teachers in any of what they do.  The Best and Brightest should follow the same path to the profession as the rest of us, not get short tracked.   I frown upon alternative licensure not because I am threatened by it but because it makes a mockery of the requirements and processes in place as part of preparation to become a teacher. Not the least of which is the professional semester or student teaching.  Forgo it and you have no idea what the job is really like.    Kinda like many writing on education reform.

Those who seek to break down some of these regulations and “judge” teachers objectively put all of us who care about quality teaching in peril. Would we do the same for doctors and pilots?  They often blend anti-union and anti-tenure ideas and propose annual contracts.  Remember the origins of tenure.  Without tenure I might be less likely to take risks, take on a student teacher, share ideas, be innovative or take on some of our more challenged kids.  You cannot on one hand stress the importance and impact a great teachers then totally discount everything they say.  We do not choose our “clients” and we are subject to a slow erosion of our autonomy within our workplace  But still many teachers endure.

Best and Brightest talk does much to demean those of us who labor every day to help kids learn.   I know many great teachers whose SAT scores eliminated them from the most prestigious learning institutions.  But they know their craft well and in front of kids they transform into the most brilliant professional you’ll ever see. These three simple words subtlety imply we who are teaching are not smart  Sure I was just happy to get into college and I work with some of the folks who taught me when I was in High School.    I can only imagine what they think of me and purposefully avoid asking what I was like in High School.  But I do ask them how I can do better on occasion.   I am not the best at much of anything and I am smart enough to know I am far from bright.  Still I know a good teacher when I see one.

I’ll even admit I might be counted among the bad teachers by some measures.   Some of what I say here may sound a bit "holier than thou" but it is only meant to awaken the common sense among us.  I don't give much advise on investing or campaign strategy.  But I’d advise people who don’t face 14 year olds each day listen none the less.  Let’s not get hypnotized by the sheepskin shingle on someone’s wall and instead measure WHO people are as much as WHAT they are.  Listen to the professionals in the job when they say things are bad ideas.  Absolutely look for the best teachers we can but do not exclude those who can excel at the job because they didn't end up at an Ivy League.  Let’s remember that these efforts here to identify and remove those who are not good teachers do much to impede and frustrate good teachers.   As a result I have seen too many join those exiting on their way out the door.  In part since they can no longer excel and enjoy the profession and teach the kids the as they once did.  Ultimately this Best and Brightest approach might leave us worse off than we were are now.   Making the job of those of us who are crazy enough to endure for the right reasons harder.  Whatever the case it doesn’t help us teach the kids we’ve got much.