APWATW (A picture is worth a thousand words).

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


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

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

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

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

Why Thankfulness Matters

Have you ever tried to actively nurture an attitude of Thankfulness? While dwelling on gratitude, it is difficult to keep a bitter heart. With one's mind filled with thoughts of blessing, petty complaints of life begin to separate from true concerns and hardship. I hope that throughout the year, the opinions expressed on the Teaching Underground reflect these legitimate concerns about public education and not petty complaints. Despite the many problems in our systems, the positives certainly outweigh the negative. So with a grateful heart, here's what I'm thankful for this year:

1) Student Feedback- I used to get bitter that elementary teachers get all of the gifts. Today I recognize the many gifts that students give me every year that have no monetary value or tangible uses. Just last week I found an anonymous notecard in my teacher mailbox. "You have taught me a lot this year and I really enjoy your class. Thank you for giving me a seventh period I can look forward to and where I don't want to fall asleep." If you're a student reading this post, a kind word of encouragement-- written or otherwise-- beats any gift you can give. (Unless it's like a $100 gift card to a nice restaurant or a new iPad, or something like that.)

2) A Dynamic Workplace- No two days are the same. It can be a challenge to deal with changing student moods, variable schedules, technology failures or other unforeseen disruptions, but it forces you to keep your mind active and engaged. Teaching requires a delicate balance of thorough planning and flexibility. Practicing this daily is invigorating. Today, a student brought a four-foot air cannon, decorated as a "Canon" camera to class. It was a physics project. Too large to be ignored and too enticing not to play with, I figured out a way to integrate the model into my lesson for the day on "Motivation." I don't often have air cannons in my class, but when I do, we certainly use them.

3) Excellent Colleagues- Some teachers need to go. I could name a few, but in a building with over one-hundred teachers, the balance is clearly not in their favor. If you or one of your children has suffered a year with a bad teacher this is no consolation, but most of the people I work with are great. I learn from them everyday. This year I think I've had more opportunities to interact with other teachers in my building and system than any time in the last ten years. When good teachers connect, good things happen. I'm thankful for the many great colleagues in my building, in my system, and increasingly across the country.

4) The Internet- I enjoy the idea that my ideas connect with a larger population through the Teaching Underground. When we started, I thought maybe a handful of friends and colleagues would read, but I continue to appreciate the wide reach of our blog. Through it, we've discovered numerous other educators with similar passion and motivation and in the process we've become much less "ignorant" as a result.

I've also discovered a Professional Learning Community of my own.  Usually I'm the only Psychology teacher at my school. There's only one other full-time Psychology teacher in our county and we meet to share ideas and communicate by e-mail. But this year, using Twitter, I've connected with over a dozen other Psychology teachers by participating in #psychat. I take away something new for my classroom almost weekly through the combined knowledge of other participants.

It goes without saying that I'm thankful for a short break. I hope that all of you can find the time to connect with family and friends, or perhaps just to get some time to relax and reflect. Enjoy the break and enjoy your return to work. It's still work, but there's much to be thankful for in that.

Part of the Problem or Solution

Last week we reported on the new Virginia plan for meeting federal waiver requirements from No Child Left Behind. Pass rates were set at 82, 68, 52, and 45 percent for Asians, whites, latinos, and blacks respectively. After talking to several other educators, the state's explanation-- "if we look at where these children are starting from, we're making efforts to move them forward"-- sounds somewhat reasonable.  Maybe you remember a little of your "forms of reasoning" from philosophy. If the premise is true and the logic is sound then the conclusion is true.  For example-- all birds fly, penguins are birds, therefore penguins must fly.  We could argue all we want about how sound the reasoning is, but anyone can see that penguins don't fly.  We got something wrong.

To all of my educator friends-- if you think the logic behind this plan is sound, just look at the conclusion, something is wrong.  If not the logic, then our premise. It would do our system well if instead of defending such an egregious plan we would step back and figure out how we got here because somehow good intentioned efforts at progress just resulted in some pretty serious regress.

First, the ever present statement that "teachers are the most important factors in student achievement." Most everyone who uses this line fails to add the caveat of the most important in school factor. Many out of school factors impact student achievement. Remind policy-makers and other high-ranking ed officials of this and the reply goes something like this-- "we only have the ability to control what is in our power to control"-- leading us to complacently accept the reality that no one is addressing the issues outside of school that impact our students. So yes, students are coming into our classrooms with different abilities, many times as a result of their environment.

Second, if students are coming into our schools (their starting point according to the Virginia Superintendent of Education) at such various levels of performance, why don't we try to find the reason. When colleges find that too many incoming freshmen are in need of remedial classes, don't we first look to the high schools from which they graduated as the reason. Why satisfy ourselves with the excuse of lower starting points instead of asking why these children are already underperforming by the time we get them.

I have a feeling that race may not be the answer. If it is, what does that mean? It means that there is some inherent difference in ability based on race. We know this isn't true, so what else could be the cause? George Bush is famous for saying that we need to fight the "soft bigotry of low expectations", but I don't know who added "instead of addressing the hard bigotry of  poverty." Why are we still separating these children into categories in 2012? Won't we find the greatest correlation between school performance and economics rather than race?

In the end, consider the national narrative regarding education for the last ten years. We've increasingly focused on racial differences in performance and ignored the harsh reality that economic differences have the greatest impact. Last year, when the Teaching Underground attended the NCSS national convention, we listened to Geoffrey Canada's keynote address. He shared his heuristic on decision-making in his Harlem Kids Zone-- "when in doubt, do what the rich people do."

In this ongoing debate between so-called education reformers-- the people who want to measure everything, expand test-based accountability, evaluate teachers on growth models, get unions out of the way-- and people like us at the Teaching Underground, we're often cast as a voice for the status quo.

Come by my classroom one day and look out at the brilliant black students that are taking my AP Psychology course and explain to them why it's a good idea to have a lower pass-rate for "their people." When you put it like that, status quo doesn't sound too bad.  But then again, maybe the progress we're being sold isn't really progress at all.