Like a sore tooth I have been tonguing the problem of Teacher Leadership for about a year now. It is a worrisome thing.
It started last year when Arne Duncan launched his Teach to Lead program at the now annual Teaching and Learning Conference in Washington, D.C. (I plan to visit the education luminaries again this March 14. Hate to miss out on all the noshing but feel a bit at arm's length from this fete. Too many commercials?)
To say that I am suspicious would be to describe an essential character trait. I am pretty much always suspicious, not trusting that which is relentlessly sold. I make a bad salesman since I can even find the holes in my own arguments. Perhaps it is why journalism appealed to me as an undergrad.
So when Duncan launched the program, with little funding behind it, I thought "Well let's just see about that." Still, ever the hopeful compromiser, I accepted the invitation to receive Teach to Lead emails, visited the website, and watched from a twitter distance the three Teach to Lead Summits held to date.
This and the Teaching Ambassador Fellowship still bother me.
There are some hopeful signs that this is a serious movement: There is a long list of supporters on the Teach to Lead website, groups that have resonance with teachers.
The TAF (as the fellows refer to themselves) argue that they are being taken seriously at the DOE, though you couldn't tell it by me. The DOE's official statement surrounding the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind law has too much emphasis on testing and measuring teacher effectiveness by student test scores. If there is teacher voice in this policy, I'm not hearing it.
There are other issues that nag. The Teach to Lead ning exhorts exemplary teachers to do what they have always done: come up with new ideas on a shoestring and commit their own resources of time and energy beyond the school day to fail or succeed on their own. Some of us have done this for years and know just how wearing it can be. If anything, this is a chief driver of teacher burnout: doing what is right without the official endorsement of both time and money. Teacher as saviour once again.
But no, it's something else that is nagging me. Perhaps it has to do with how I have been both led and hope to lead with fellow teachers.
The source of my unease seems to stem from this: All of these initiatives still have the bitter taste of top-down management.
In all discussions Teacher Leaders are often referred to as elevated. The anointed ones speak of the jealousy of their peers when one teacher is lifted above the others. In all the rhetoric, it appears that Teacher Leadership is now another rung on a hierarchy which, in my opinion, is the very root of systemic problems in educating youth. The model implies that some leaders must move aside to make room for more leaders, some of whom will be Master Teachers. Oh you lucky few.
This is a mistake.
Top heaviness does not work. It creates a steady drip, drip of initiatives that rarely, if ever, create real change in instruction. That much the last decade must have proven, if nothing else. It also implies that only some teachers can be good enough--something I don't believe about teachers or students. The hierarchy itself is both fate and predestination. Fait accompli. It constricts rather than expands.
Like education itself, the spark and hunger for change must be ignited within the teacher so that transformation in thinking and subsequently transformation in instruction occurs. It may sound like magic, but there are models for this that work.
We do know how to facilitate this kind of change in both teachers and students. (See Finland, see Singapore, see soon-to-be China...)
The workplace must reflect the same model that the best teachers create in their classrooms: collaborative think tanks where sharing is encouraged and expected. Education, after all, is an inside-out process--not the other way around.
Like many of my peers, I did not learn how to ignite that spark in my students from management. I found it outside the regimented structures. All of the transformational learning that occurred in my teaching came from a single source: other teachers.
I found my first mentors alongside me at work, trusted teachers who led me to the clear refreshing water of understanding and owning my own work--all outside of the workplace. The first long drink came in the National Writing Project Summer Institute where we examined our work and thought deeply about teaching and its goals. Then I engaged in the self-study of the National Board process--then online in Nings and twitter chats and two engaging listserves: the Center for Teaching Quality list (now the CTQ Collaboratory) and the Advanced Placement English listserve. I go back to these sources over and over because continual learning with peers is invigorating, alive, and intellectually fulfilling. It continually engages me in my work.
All of these experiences have one thing in common: committed teachers are brought together to discuss practice, to share, to problem solve, always with the work of students in front of us, coupled with trusted theoretical models. The learning is deep and personal and carries the ring of truth that a school system's program du jour does not.
If we really are to both lead and own our profession, it calls for a flatter structure that encourages collaborative grouping. It is through this that teacherS (capital S) will lead the profession, not an appointed Teacher Leader who is but one more bureaucratic administrator of teaching excellence.
My unease, I think (still questioning), stems from the idea that the term Teacher Leadership has been co-opted by the current structure into an elevated position handed over by the powers that be. Those who currently sit at the top of a hierarchy see only one methodology and, I fear, will defeat teacher leadership in the end.
True collaboration is invigorating, not defeating (the way official Teacher Leaders describe the response of their former peers). Leaders LEAD by invitation, modeling the joy of discovery and the pleasure in sharing a success, and then step aside to let the process drive the change. Like teaching itself, there is an egoless component, since the true goal is to achieve that satisfying moment when students take over and the leader is no longer needed.
This is where we should be headed: a profession that takes over for itself and does not need the endorsement of the ruling class.
Consider teacher leadership, lowercase.
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arne Duncan. Show all posts
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
NEA Representative Assembly and the Death of Democracy
Earlier this month I served as a first-time delegate to the NEA representative assembly.
As a fan of democracy, it was an amazing process to behold.
Over 7,000 teachers and education support personnel filled the convention hall and were all more-or-less on equal footing: permitted to enter into debate and then vote on over 100 New Business Items (NBI).
All items arise from the membership (50 members must sign on before an NBI is considered), are discussed by the membership, and then voted on by the membership. My contribution to the five days was to shout "Aye" or "Nay" at regular intervals after huddling in caucuses to debate a stance on the upcoming items.
The annual meeting charts the funding of discretionary monies, so every item comes with a price tag. The ongoing tally is reported throughout the process so membership dues are not overspent.
I learned a lot as a first time delegate.
Democracy is complicated. There is political wrangling throughout the whole process. A strategy exists in getting items to the floor, getting time at the mike, asking questions for more information, moving items to debate or referring them to committee, forming caucuses to garner more support, debating on the floor, adjusting the wording of the NBIs so there's an easier price tag to swallow, etc. etc.
It was amazing. And fascinating. And definitely not for me--too old (it would take years to form the relationships)--too introverted--too slow in thinking. If there's one thing I'm sure of it's that I need time to process. This is a game for extroverted, fast-thinkers.
But in spite of my delight in the true democratic flavor of the whole event, my overriding impression of the NEA RA is:
This is going to kill us.
And by us, I mean teachers and the public schools we love.
Our "enemies" are not operating under the same rules.
Those allied against public education hold resources equal to those of small countries. And the holders of the resources do not need to come to consensus to get what they want. Decision making is dictatorial, or at the very least, held in the hands of an elite few. No debating. They can move fast. And the money has been buying access to decision makers for decades now. We are overwhelmed.
Though most of the new business items were clearly student-centered (take that teacher-bashers who think the union is all about protecting teachers) a fair amount were actions in RE-action to the monied agenda.
We are going to lose that battle.
The democratic process is too slow--and tends to the moderate middle. By the time the membership has moved on an issue the target has also moved, far, far down the road.
Though some alert members have been on top of the reform agenda for years, others are slow to take alarm. It's taken three attempts for the members to agree to ask for Arne Duncan's resignation. The majority of the membership had to see the handwriting on the wall before majority ruled. The NEA decision to call for Duncan's resignation will likely be ignored.
The very democratic process we celebrate undermines our attempts to save our other democratic ideal: the common school.
The unions (AFT and NEA) take their cues by reacting to policy, not developing and proposing an alternate policy. Each NBI that requires funding to fend off an attack depletes resources, scatters the focus, puts us even farther behind, and turns off dues-paying members who do not see an organization that speaks for them. The power brokers only need to wait until we we talk and vote ourselves into bankruptcy.
It was hard to shake the feeling that we are playing into their game--a waiting game.
As a fan of democracy, it was an amazing process to behold.
Over 7,000 teachers and education support personnel filled the convention hall and were all more-or-less on equal footing: permitted to enter into debate and then vote on over 100 New Business Items (NBI).
All items arise from the membership (50 members must sign on before an NBI is considered), are discussed by the membership, and then voted on by the membership. My contribution to the five days was to shout "Aye" or "Nay" at regular intervals after huddling in caucuses to debate a stance on the upcoming items.
I learned a lot as a first time delegate.
Democracy is complicated. There is political wrangling throughout the whole process. A strategy exists in getting items to the floor, getting time at the mike, asking questions for more information, moving items to debate or referring them to committee, forming caucuses to garner more support, debating on the floor, adjusting the wording of the NBIs so there's an easier price tag to swallow, etc. etc.
It was amazing. And fascinating. And definitely not for me--too old (it would take years to form the relationships)--too introverted--too slow in thinking. If there's one thing I'm sure of it's that I need time to process. This is a game for extroverted, fast-thinkers.
But in spite of my delight in the true democratic flavor of the whole event, my overriding impression of the NEA RA is:
This is going to kill us.
And by us, I mean teachers and the public schools we love.
Our "enemies" are not operating under the same rules.
Those allied against public education hold resources equal to those of small countries. And the holders of the resources do not need to come to consensus to get what they want. Decision making is dictatorial, or at the very least, held in the hands of an elite few. No debating. They can move fast. And the money has been buying access to decision makers for decades now. We are overwhelmed.
Though most of the new business items were clearly student-centered (take that teacher-bashers who think the union is all about protecting teachers) a fair amount were actions in RE-action to the monied agenda.
We are going to lose that battle.
The democratic process is too slow--and tends to the moderate middle. By the time the membership has moved on an issue the target has also moved, far, far down the road.
Though some alert members have been on top of the reform agenda for years, others are slow to take alarm. It's taken three attempts for the members to agree to ask for Arne Duncan's resignation. The majority of the membership had to see the handwriting on the wall before majority ruled. The NEA decision to call for Duncan's resignation will likely be ignored.
The very democratic process we celebrate undermines our attempts to save our other democratic ideal: the common school.
The unions (AFT and NEA) take their cues by reacting to policy, not developing and proposing an alternate policy. Each NBI that requires funding to fend off an attack depletes resources, scatters the focus, puts us even farther behind, and turns off dues-paying members who do not see an organization that speaks for them. The power brokers only need to wait until we we talk and vote ourselves into bankruptcy.
It was hard to shake the feeling that we are playing into their game--a waiting game.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Please stop appreciating me
This sounds crass and rude, but nothing would please me more than an end to the need for a week long festival of teacher appreciation.
Let's face it. As a 58-year-old adult with twenty-five years of classroom experience, beginning in 1978, I do not need another piece of cake or pen that says "We love our teachers" to indicate that the work is important. In some ways the recognition is infantilizing. The small acknowledgements are like tips given to a favorite babysitter. We are not babysitters.
Meaningful compensation would go much further in underscoring that teacher work is a valued adult profession that benefits everyone.
We know our work is important, even if much of the country does not. The work is so important that countless hours and dollars have been invested in the improvement of practice, including a Master's Degree, National Board Certification, and endless work with colleagues in both face-to-face networks like the Northern Virginia Writing Project and virtual networks like the CTQ Collaboratory, Advanced Placement and English Teacher's Companion nings, as well as a host of twitter chats. Additionally, professional reading through magazines and books is a part of a daily reading diet. All of these activities are completed outside of expected work hours.
After having done other private sector work I have a basis of comparison. Teaching is engaging, demanding, and often physically exhausting, much different from the other roles I've played in advertising, freelance writing, and radio--there I was afforded more time to do less demanding work, more freedom to set a schedule, and far less oversight.
Teaching is also vastly underpaid, particularly here in Virginia where we rank 30th in the nation for teacher compensation. (But a mere $10,000 away from the lowest ranking state). Returning to teaching after a part-time hiatus in advertising while raising three children, I was stunned by the amount of intellectual work teachers give away every day. In advertising, we charged $70 an hour for much of the same work performed with students and parents multiple times in a day: proofreading, writing, creating powerpoint presentations and agendas, writing scripts, letters to clients...
In spite of having worked with literally thousands of students, expertise in delivering content to sometimes distracted, resistant, or struggling students is not recognized as a valuable skill.
It is. Not everyone can teach.
Nancy Flanagan, of the Education Week blog Teacher in a Strange Land, and I met ten years ago when we worked together to create the graduate course "Teacher as Change Agent" for Virginia Commonwealth University.
Recently, we teamed up again to review the past decade and the changes in education revolving around Teacher Leadership. The short answer is "not much." Teacher Leadership has become a buzz word but is far from a reality.
What would a teacher-led profession look like? A whole lot different from today.
First, recognized master teachers would be leading professional development, all teachers would work in true learning communities to examine student work, share instructional strategies, and allocate resources. Teachers would both set standards and work together to evaluate student work against those standards. Teachers would also specialize in differing roles of leadership like instructional leadership, education management, and administrative roles.
Teachers would be advisors to policy makers, create content, examine the work of other teachers, review the work of pre-service programs, all while keeping a foot firmly in the classroom. This would mean a division of teacher time with more time away from students (like the best performing nations), and a re-imagining of the educational structure.
The real plus would be in what is gained when teachers are involved in creating and evaluating the work that they do. Just as students gain the most when they are brought in on choice and evaluation, self-examination and collegial problem-solving lifts all boats. This is what is already happening in the highest performing nations.
My awakening came in the Intensive Summer Institute of the National Writing Project where we were invited to make our own work the subject of inquiry. This is where I learned, through the modeling of the institute, how to invite students into their own learning process. It is also where the sharing of practice helped other teachers learn and grow, just as I learned from them. It was electrifying and has kept me energized and involved in my work ever since.
The National Writing Project has found that 98% of the teachers who have gone through the Institute have stayed in education throughout their careers. Stability in the workforce is another (cost-reducing) plus when teachers are valued for their hard won expertise in marrying theory with effective practices among students in real classrooms. This savings would be passed on in the form of increased compensation--low pay being another reason good teachers flee the classroom.
We cannot ask every teacher to relinquish time with family and rejuvenating rest and recreation to achieve the knowledge and skills needed to be highly effective. Currently, the outliers in effective practice have gained their knowledge by building their own professional networks--going solo and working hard outside of compensated time.
We already know the conditions which create effective practice and these conditions should be job-embedded. That means re-allocating resources so teachers have what they need most: time and access to good practices.
And that means a fight, because those who are already getting the resources will not willingly hand them over.
Personally, I would start by repurposing the three-year, $110 million contract with Pearson by the state of Virginia.
I would gladly hand over all my free tote bags and coffee mugs for a chance at that challenge.
Let's face it. As a 58-year-old adult with twenty-five years of classroom experience, beginning in 1978, I do not need another piece of cake or pen that says "We love our teachers" to indicate that the work is important. In some ways the recognition is infantilizing. The small acknowledgements are like tips given to a favorite babysitter. We are not babysitters.
Meaningful compensation would go much further in underscoring that teacher work is a valued adult profession that benefits everyone.
We know our work is important, even if much of the country does not. The work is so important that countless hours and dollars have been invested in the improvement of practice, including a Master's Degree, National Board Certification, and endless work with colleagues in both face-to-face networks like the Northern Virginia Writing Project and virtual networks like the CTQ Collaboratory, Advanced Placement and English Teacher's Companion nings, as well as a host of twitter chats. Additionally, professional reading through magazines and books is a part of a daily reading diet. All of these activities are completed outside of expected work hours.
After having done other private sector work I have a basis of comparison. Teaching is engaging, demanding, and often physically exhausting, much different from the other roles I've played in advertising, freelance writing, and radio--there I was afforded more time to do less demanding work, more freedom to set a schedule, and far less oversight.
Teaching is also vastly underpaid, particularly here in Virginia where we rank 30th in the nation for teacher compensation. (But a mere $10,000 away from the lowest ranking state). Returning to teaching after a part-time hiatus in advertising while raising three children, I was stunned by the amount of intellectual work teachers give away every day. In advertising, we charged $70 an hour for much of the same work performed with students and parents multiple times in a day: proofreading, writing, creating powerpoint presentations and agendas, writing scripts, letters to clients...
In spite of having worked with literally thousands of students, expertise in delivering content to sometimes distracted, resistant, or struggling students is not recognized as a valuable skill.
It is. Not everyone can teach.
Nancy Flanagan, of the Education Week blog Teacher in a Strange Land, and I met ten years ago when we worked together to create the graduate course "Teacher as Change Agent" for Virginia Commonwealth University.
Recently, we teamed up again to review the past decade and the changes in education revolving around Teacher Leadership. The short answer is "not much." Teacher Leadership has become a buzz word but is far from a reality.
What would a teacher-led profession look like? A whole lot different from today.
First, recognized master teachers would be leading professional development, all teachers would work in true learning communities to examine student work, share instructional strategies, and allocate resources. Teachers would both set standards and work together to evaluate student work against those standards. Teachers would also specialize in differing roles of leadership like instructional leadership, education management, and administrative roles.
Teachers would be advisors to policy makers, create content, examine the work of other teachers, review the work of pre-service programs, all while keeping a foot firmly in the classroom. This would mean a division of teacher time with more time away from students (like the best performing nations), and a re-imagining of the educational structure.
The real plus would be in what is gained when teachers are involved in creating and evaluating the work that they do. Just as students gain the most when they are brought in on choice and evaluation, self-examination and collegial problem-solving lifts all boats. This is what is already happening in the highest performing nations.
My awakening came in the Intensive Summer Institute of the National Writing Project where we were invited to make our own work the subject of inquiry. This is where I learned, through the modeling of the institute, how to invite students into their own learning process. It is also where the sharing of practice helped other teachers learn and grow, just as I learned from them. It was electrifying and has kept me energized and involved in my work ever since.
The National Writing Project has found that 98% of the teachers who have gone through the Institute have stayed in education throughout their careers. Stability in the workforce is another (cost-reducing) plus when teachers are valued for their hard won expertise in marrying theory with effective practices among students in real classrooms. This savings would be passed on in the form of increased compensation--low pay being another reason good teachers flee the classroom.
We cannot ask every teacher to relinquish time with family and rejuvenating rest and recreation to achieve the knowledge and skills needed to be highly effective. Currently, the outliers in effective practice have gained their knowledge by building their own professional networks--going solo and working hard outside of compensated time.
We already know the conditions which create effective practice and these conditions should be job-embedded. That means re-allocating resources so teachers have what they need most: time and access to good practices.
And that means a fight, because those who are already getting the resources will not willingly hand them over.
Personally, I would start by repurposing the three-year, $110 million contract with Pearson by the state of Virginia.
I would gladly hand over all my free tote bags and coffee mugs for a chance at that challenge.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Stepping on Toes or Time to get Rude
My husband tells me I'm cynical. Maybe so.
But I can't help the feeling that Arne Duncan's speech to the Teaching and Learning Conference on Friday, March 14 (after the press corps has packed up and gone home for the weekend) was designed to mollify a group of increasingly loud teachers.
He called, in effect, for a meeting where teacher leadership would be discussed. (There. That should keep them happy for awhile as we continue with down the road in our mission that already has wheels and full gas tank.)
And he promised money for the meetings. (For airfare? Snacks?)
It reminded me of my first hopeful foray into teacher leadership way back in 2001.
I sat in Richmond, along with other Nationally Board Certified teachers and teachers-of-the-year and teachers-of-the-building, district, state along with other fresh-faced-Milken-gosh-we-just-love-our-underpaid-teacher-prize winners to hear an alternative career plan for successful teachers.
On the last day a statewide education committee which reported to the DOE said they had been meeting for ten years to decide what a teacher does that can be named. They decided that there was no way to identify accomplished teaching so they had determined to......wait for it.......have some more meetings.
What?! More meetings? Hadn't the National Board for Professional Standards already defined the standards and evaluated teachers? What is the next meeting for?
At the end of an exciting weekend of discussion about changes to the teaching profession, I got a sinking feeling. Oh. I get it. Delay on a politically sticky wicket. There's a lot of pushback from somewhere. After that meeting, no more movement statewide. It's been thirteen years.
So Duncan has called for more meetings. A delay. Sticky wickets (lots of $$ around the current system of evaluation and punishment.)
And then he left the Teaching and Learning meeting to urge state education leaders not to back away from testing and fudged on a question about assessing teachers by using the, still questionable, scores from the current blizzard of tests as evidence of teacher effectiveness.
But Duncan did make a comment that makes sense by acknowledging that Congress is dead in the water: change will come from outside Washington. States will have to make the reforms needed (and he says, to support the untested experiment in the Common Core that is currently underway.)
So, only one thing left to do my teacher friends. Waken the Sleeping Giant and be the change you want to see in the world.
No way around it. It is time to get rude, get some sharp elbows and start making sure that accomplished, successful educators are leading the charge in your district and your state.
Don't sit down for yet ANOTHER meeting.
Stand up for what you believe in and make sure every policy maker knows that what is being done in the name of reform will ultimately improve teaching and learning for every child in the United States.
Demand:
But I can't help the feeling that Arne Duncan's speech to the Teaching and Learning Conference on Friday, March 14 (after the press corps has packed up and gone home for the weekend) was designed to mollify a group of increasingly loud teachers.
He called, in effect, for a meeting where teacher leadership would be discussed. (There. That should keep them happy for awhile as we continue with down the road in our mission that already has wheels and full gas tank.)
And he promised money for the meetings. (For airfare? Snacks?)
It reminded me of my first hopeful foray into teacher leadership way back in 2001.
I sat in Richmond, along with other Nationally Board Certified teachers and teachers-of-the-year and teachers-of-the-building, district, state along with other fresh-faced-Milken-gosh-we-just-love-our-underpaid-teacher-prize winners to hear an alternative career plan for successful teachers.
On the last day a statewide education committee which reported to the DOE said they had been meeting for ten years to decide what a teacher does that can be named. They decided that there was no way to identify accomplished teaching so they had determined to......wait for it.......have some more meetings.
What?! More meetings? Hadn't the National Board for Professional Standards already defined the standards and evaluated teachers? What is the next meeting for?
At the end of an exciting weekend of discussion about changes to the teaching profession, I got a sinking feeling. Oh. I get it. Delay on a politically sticky wicket. There's a lot of pushback from somewhere. After that meeting, no more movement statewide. It's been thirteen years.
So Duncan has called for more meetings. A delay. Sticky wickets (lots of $$ around the current system of evaluation and punishment.)
And then he left the Teaching and Learning meeting to urge state education leaders not to back away from testing and fudged on a question about assessing teachers by using the, still questionable, scores from the current blizzard of tests as evidence of teacher effectiveness.
But Duncan did make a comment that makes sense by acknowledging that Congress is dead in the water: change will come from outside Washington. States will have to make the reforms needed (and he says, to support the untested experiment in the Common Core that is currently underway.)
So, only one thing left to do my teacher friends. Waken the Sleeping Giant and be the change you want to see in the world.
No way around it. It is time to get rude, get some sharp elbows and start making sure that accomplished, successful educators are leading the charge in your district and your state.
Don't sit down for yet ANOTHER meeting.
Stand up for what you believe in and make sure every policy maker knows that what is being done in the name of reform will ultimately improve teaching and learning for every child in the United States.
Demand:
- Universal preschool
- Support for underserved students in the form of nutrition and health care
- A new school day where teacher development and collaborative learning is built into the day
- New pre-service models that involve a clinical phase
- Identification of teacher leaders accompanied by responsibilities and income to match
- Teachers on EVERY task force from the district to the national level
- A transformation of teacher unions to self-regulating enterprises with the goal of improved student learning
Would you sit back and let your own child suffer through these nationwide experiments?
Monday, March 17, 2014
And now from Arne Duncan....at the T&L
On Friday afternoon of the Teaching & Learning 2014 conference, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressed the teachers before a nearly full room.
As part of his commentary he announced a new partnership with NBPTS. Here is what Duncan foresees as his plan:
We will convene a group of teachers, principals, state Chiefs, teachers' groups and district leaders, among others. This group will take the steps necessary.....to foster real-world commitments on teacher leadership. This group will announce significant commitments from districts, teachers' groups, and others who want to be part of the solution to make teacher leadership real at scale.Duncan mentioned other items which indicate that he has at least been cribbing from all of our online and face-to-face conversations, and he knows the complaints. Many of his comments seemed designed to elicit nods from those who have been working toward a teacher-led profession for years. Our own words parroted back.
He acknowledged the flood of departures by effective teachers who have given up in despair after battling damaging reforms.
He highlighted places where teacher leadership has made a real difference. And he gave lip service to the growing debate over the Common Core--but claimed that where teachers had the chance to work with the standards they were loving it.
He also reminded us that teaching can be a rewarding profession. If, as I was told once by a supervisor, a strong teacher finds a way to do what's right for kids in spite of policy.
This is how teacher leadership has played out in most situations--a ballsy teacher taking all the risks of innovation--working outside of the lines. Duncan gave anecdotal instances where teachers had created real success for kids. Now, if only THIS--elevating effective practice--were the policy instead of the exception.
Some heads were nodding. But many had assumed the wary, arms-folded posture of the once-hopeful teacher who has been duped one too many times into sitting on a committee where their presence was a token nod so the real "deciders" could claim that teachers were a part of the decision making.
Fool me once.....
The only enthusiastic applause in the speech occurred after Duncan indicated that funding would follow the announcement. We at least know that words without dollars are just that: words.
For the most part, we remained polite. (Just like my school weary students. Gotta love 'em. They are at least polite to the teachers who have been boring them out of their minds to reach pass rates...)
A panel of teachers were invited to question Duncan after his remarks.
The cheer-inducing question came from Maddie Fennell who asked Duncan how he could envision a collaborative workplace in the face of the highly competitive levers already in place--like (she did not say, but I improvise) public VAM scores, graded schools and systems, high-stakes tests, and a races for funding that pit districts and states against each other. How can you ask teachers to be innovative when the stakes are so high?
For most of the questions, including this one, Duncan pulled out the old politician canard of relating anecdotes of individual successes, as in "See? It's already happening." (But only by those ballsy teachers mentioned above. If they succeed, we'll make a movie out of it and rally round a teacher hero. If they fail, new profession.)
On the VAM scores Duncan denied ever endorsing VAM as a measure of effectiveness and found the publishing of scores unacceptable. (Time to go to the tapes?)
For my own part, I was alert when I heard him say "We're meeting next week to figure out how to do this."
So, announce first, figure it out later. Hmmm...doesn't sound like a lesson plan to me. I count myself among the wary arm folders.
Disclaimer: I had forehand knowledge of what Duncan planned to announce: a partnership between NBPTS and DOE around teacher leadership. Duncan was, and has been, pulling from the report I helped author as a member of the NEA Commission of Effective Teachers and Teaching. Maddie Fennell chaired that Commission.
I still stand by that report as having the potential to help create a real profession since the observations in it were drawn from the current landscape in the profession, from teachers own hopes for our future, and from proven effective teacher induction and teacher-led reform. It spoke to all the stakeholders, including the NEA which was encouraged to assume a voice in the quality of instruction and the preparation of teachers nationwide.
Duncan has pulled from that report before when announcing the R.E.S.P.E.C.T. program.
The what? Yeah, he said that--in February of 2012.
The conversations around gaining respect were held--I held one with teachers in my district--and a RESPECT vision was produced. The document is "a discussion document for use in conversations with teachers and principals about the teaching profession."
i.e.: Rhetoric.
However, I may part with some of my colleagues in my hopes for the future of the teaching profession.
In 2001 when I began working on policy in earnest, Teacher Leadership was never discussed by policy makers. I was told by a union activist that she "had a lot of problems with that." Now there are a consortium of organizations working toward this vision and Duncan has made Teacher Leadership part of his official platform, in words anyway.
It is up to us to make sure it shows up in deeds as well.
Leaders lead.
Though I still have my arms folded in scepticism from decades of being the token teacher, I still believe in the power of conversation and argument to win the day, and that it is naive to think that one side will say "Yeah, you're right" and capitulate. It will be an ongoing struggle to get things right. And we are going to have to be rude.
The online conversations must persist. Our parents need to be informed about the damage that has already been done in the past decade. We all have to take responsibility for making the change, for insisting on change as a moral imperative. I sense a tipping point coming. We have to be alert.
I return to my image of yesterday's posting. There are two rivers converging. Both were represented at the T&L Conference. John Holland, friend and colleague of the CTQ, feels it too.
By far, for the attendees, the spokespersons who married reality with research had our ear. We loved Doris Kearns Goodwin (the only standing ovation). We loved Tony Wagner, and Linda Darling-Hammond, and Pedro Noguera, and Pashi Salzburg.
We loved our own teacher-practitioners who brought effective lessons and shared. The rooms where this was happening were packed. Teachers are getting the work done in spite of, not because of, current reforms.
But the money people were in the room too and the attendees went and listened. We know how to model democracy.
We need to make sure that the flood of commentary rises on our side of the river and an effective education system for all of our children is the end result of all the rhetoric.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Planting a S.E.E.D. for Literacy
Yesterday was the annual Bernadette Mulholland Glaze* Language and Learning Conference at George Mason University. This annual convergence of teaching professionals celebrates all that is good about effective practice in language classrooms.
The annual rite features a leading voice in the world of writing and reading. The keynoter spends the afternoon with K-12 teachers after a morning of presentations by the Teacher Consultants of the Northern Virginia Writing Project.
The philosophy of the project is on display: teachers leading teachers and offering choice in professional development to thinking practitioners.
The assumption is that practicing teachers know what they need to know (choice) and are best at translating theory into effective classroom practice (demonstration lessons).
The presentations are hands on. Teachers try their hand at using writing as a tool for learning, writing creatively, thinking in writing, sharing, discussing. In other words: making meaning for themselves through coached inquiry.
This year was no different, and the keynoter was a Writing Project Teacher Consultant writ large: Donalyn Miller, a sixth grade teacher from Texas who is known to most classroom teachers by her nickname and self titled book, The Book Whisperer.
She drew in over 350 teachers who voluntarily spent a Saturday honing their skills.
In her presentation Donalyn was warm, humorous, and student-centered--just what one would expect from a teacher of excellence. She used pictures of her sixth graders throughout her description of research-supported classroom practices.
Her classroom is real. She pointed out where not everyone was on-task every minute--just in case the audience might assume her kids "weren't like everyone else's." Her students appear happy in a book-stuffed room as they zoom through self-selected books.
In her budget-reduced, student-swollen classrooms (all of her classes are over 30 students each) her students read anywhere from a low of 19 books to a high of over 70 last year. (Have you read 70 books this year? Have you read 19?) All without brow-beating, threats, grade deductions, public humiliation....
The Writing Project, long the gold-standard for professional development--and so frequently used as an exemplar in national reports when indicating the standard for collegial, intellectual, transformative, and sustained teacher development that it is almost cliche--lost its funding from Congress last year.
Luckily, robust local sites like the NVWP housed at George Mason University have been able to maintain services while planning for an uncertain future.
Earlier this month, some of that funding was restored. The National Writing Project was awarded an 11.3 million grant, roughly less than half of the $24 million lost in last year's Congress. The money came through Title II's Supporting Effective Educators Development (S.E.E.D. - the DOE is big on acronyms) program.
Yay for the Writing Project. This is money well spent because the dividends reaped in building effective teachers has proven to have a rippling influence within schools and across districts.
The SEED money is awarded through a competitive application--yet another "race" proposed by the office of our basketball-player-in-chief Arne Duncan.
Others who benefited from this round in the competition: TFA and the the New Teacher Center in Santa Cruz.
The Absolute Priorities were Number One: Teacher and principal recruitment, selection and preparation -- especially in areas that serve high-needs students. That would cover TFA and TNTP, though I would argue against the effectiveness of TFA practices where student achievement is concerned. TFA received $8.3 million - on top of the $50 million awarded in yet another competition last year. The New Teacher Center received 4.98 million for work in Hillsborough County.
Priority two includes "Professional development enhancement of teachers of English Language Arts with a specific focus on writing." That would be the NWP, an organization that has proven itself time and again in its ability to improve instruction in writing and in building teacher leadership.
Apparently the SEED money ran out before those who met Absolute Priority Three were awarded funds: Programs that result in Advanced Credentialing. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards did not receive funding. I cannot put into words the irony of funding TFA over the NBPTS.
The Obama Administration wants to beef up the funding for the SEED program in the current budget cycle. (Good luck.)
For this early spring, at least one worthwhile SEED has been planted in my backyard.
Donalyn Miller's visit was rejuvenating. Here is a teacher who lives the project philosophy:
The annual rite features a leading voice in the world of writing and reading. The keynoter spends the afternoon with K-12 teachers after a morning of presentations by the Teacher Consultants of the Northern Virginia Writing Project.
The philosophy of the project is on display: teachers leading teachers and offering choice in professional development to thinking practitioners.
The assumption is that practicing teachers know what they need to know (choice) and are best at translating theory into effective classroom practice (demonstration lessons).
The presentations are hands on. Teachers try their hand at using writing as a tool for learning, writing creatively, thinking in writing, sharing, discussing. In other words: making meaning for themselves through coached inquiry.
This year was no different, and the keynoter was a Writing Project Teacher Consultant writ large: Donalyn Miller, a sixth grade teacher from Texas who is known to most classroom teachers by her nickname and self titled book, The Book Whisperer.
She drew in over 350 teachers who voluntarily spent a Saturday honing their skills.
In her presentation Donalyn was warm, humorous, and student-centered--just what one would expect from a teacher of excellence. She used pictures of her sixth graders throughout her description of research-supported classroom practices.
Her classroom is real. She pointed out where not everyone was on-task every minute--just in case the audience might assume her kids "weren't like everyone else's." Her students appear happy in a book-stuffed room as they zoom through self-selected books.
In her budget-reduced, student-swollen classrooms (all of her classes are over 30 students each) her students read anywhere from a low of 19 books to a high of over 70 last year. (Have you read 70 books this year? Have you read 19?) All without brow-beating, threats, grade deductions, public humiliation....
The Writing Project, long the gold-standard for professional development--and so frequently used as an exemplar in national reports when indicating the standard for collegial, intellectual, transformative, and sustained teacher development that it is almost cliche--lost its funding from Congress last year.
Luckily, robust local sites like the NVWP housed at George Mason University have been able to maintain services while planning for an uncertain future.
Earlier this month, some of that funding was restored. The National Writing Project was awarded an 11.3 million grant, roughly less than half of the $24 million lost in last year's Congress. The money came through Title II's Supporting Effective Educators Development (S.E.E.D. - the DOE is big on acronyms) program.
Yay for the Writing Project. This is money well spent because the dividends reaped in building effective teachers has proven to have a rippling influence within schools and across districts.
The SEED money is awarded through a competitive application--yet another "race" proposed by the office of our basketball-player-in-chief Arne Duncan.
Others who benefited from this round in the competition: TFA and the the New Teacher Center in Santa Cruz.
The Absolute Priorities were Number One: Teacher and principal recruitment, selection and preparation -- especially in areas that serve high-needs students. That would cover TFA and TNTP, though I would argue against the effectiveness of TFA practices where student achievement is concerned. TFA received $8.3 million - on top of the $50 million awarded in yet another competition last year. The New Teacher Center received 4.98 million for work in Hillsborough County.
Priority two includes "Professional development enhancement of teachers of English Language Arts with a specific focus on writing." That would be the NWP, an organization that has proven itself time and again in its ability to improve instruction in writing and in building teacher leadership.
Apparently the SEED money ran out before those who met Absolute Priority Three were awarded funds: Programs that result in Advanced Credentialing. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards did not receive funding. I cannot put into words the irony of funding TFA over the NBPTS.
The Obama Administration wants to beef up the funding for the SEED program in the current budget cycle. (Good luck.)
For this early spring, at least one worthwhile SEED has been planted in my backyard.
Donalyn Miller's visit was rejuvenating. Here is a teacher who lives the project philosophy:
- Teachers who read and write for and in front of their students are better teachers. (Only as an aside did she point out that all of her students pass "the tests." She devoted exactly that much of her two-hour commentary to standardized testing, demonstrating the lack of faith accomplished teachers have in these measurements of student achievement.)
- Teachers who have investigated their practice in a Summer Institute carry this habit of mind into their classrooms and continue to revise practice. Donalyn peppered her talk with ongoing decision-making and student-watching that is part of her daily mindfulness. She openly testified that she would not have written a book if she had not gained confidence in writing through the Summer Institute.
- Teachers who have confidence in their abilities influence their peers (a best selling book? an auditorium of over 350 teachers? a blog? Need I say more? This was federal money that has reaped far more than was sown. Other popular Professional Development books have been penned by NWP Teacher Consultants, including Tim Gillespie, Kelly Gallagher, Sheridan Blau, Linda Christensen, Harvey Daniels and on and on.)
- Teachers who use writing as a tool for learning grow critical thinkers who make meaning rather than memorize facts.
- Teachers who teach teachers model professional demeanors and habits. See all of the above.
Thanks for a rich day of celebration.
*Bernadette Mulholland Glaze, Bernie to those of us who worked with her, was a long-time member of the NVWP who influenced legions of teachers and students through her roles as teacher, instructional coordinator at Fairfax County Schools, and as a Co-Director of the project. She devised the Language and Learning Conference and sadly left us when she succumbed to cancer. We still miss her energy and vision.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Coming to a computer near you: A National Conversation on Teaching
Secretary Arne Duncan announced a new initiative Wednesday--and a new acronym: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. (Kinda makes you want to sing, doesn't it?)
RESPECT stands for Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence and Collaborative Teaching.
He wants to "spark a dialogue that results in strong policy and a sustainable transformation to the teaching profession."
If we can get some, (respect, that is) I'm all for it. It has been a brutal two years to be a classroom teacher. And "joy comes well in such a needy time."
Duncan and Obama have entered a $5 billion grant program in the current budget proposal to "support states and districts that commit to bold reforms at every stage of the teaching profession." In his remarks, Duncan commented on the need to include teacher voices in policymaking, the need to compensate, train, and support teachers as professionals, the need to fix a dysfunctional system.
As a member of the Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching, I was invited to be in the room when the announcement was made. Duncan said all the right things about the need to elevate teaching as a profession, as far as I was concerned, because--as he himself stated--"we did just copy your report" Transforming Teaching: Connecting Professional Responsibility with Student Learning.
So why has it taken me four days to compose a blog?
Duncan made his remarks Wednesday. On Thursday he appeared on The Daily Show and slipped back into the same rhetoric of his Race to the Top program and barely a peep was made about transforming teaching into the profession it needs to be in order to reform every classroom in America. His RttT program has worked amazingly well. Schools and districts all over the nation are currently revamping programs to evaluate teaching in order to qualify for the grants under this program. But the emphasis has been on measuring tools tied to testing.
In terms of getting people to make sweeping changes RttT has worked. But is it good for kids?
Not if teacher evaluation rests on a program where students are repeatedly tested in order to determine how well a teacher is doing. This is precisely the wrong direction. And it is a direction he did not back off of in his remarks to Jon Stewart.
It was a big low after the high of Wednesday's meeting.
And what about the $5 billion in potential grants?
In the past, when grant dollars are offered they can inspire much change (just look at RttT). But as soon as the next guy rolls into office, programs fall apart and teachers are left holding the shreds of the "change dujour," a familiar landscape for veteran teachers--one unsustainable initiative follows another.
This is why the entire system needs to be revamped. Change needs to be sustainable and ongoing and at the classroom level. And it will be, when continual learning and peer evaluation is embedded in the job of the classroom teacher.
Still, I find much to celebrate in this announcement.
Ten years ago no one was advocating for a teaching profession. A state union representative once told me that "there's a lot of problems" with that model.
That isn't happening now. All concerned education groups are arriving at the same conclusion: teaching needs to be elevated. And now we have a national leader taking up the language. What form that action takes remains to be seen.
So, what to do?
I have chosen to embrace, and then follow closely, this new language. As has been seen with RttT, the grant money does put a fire under some. If it enjoins teacher leaders in reshaping the profession, then the vision will have been moved to another level.
But it is easy to give lip-service to a new, bold idea--especially on the cusp of an important election.
It is quite another to follow lip-service with policy. But loud groups can make this happen (Yes, We Can.)
Teachers--you have a job to do. If ever there were a need for the Sleeping Giant to awaken it is now.
We need to simultaneously work toward a teacher-led, teacher-controlled profession while we continue to point out the narrow constraints of defining our work through more and more student assessments.
The window is opening just a crack. Climb through and bring your friends. Sit on committees where teacher evaluation is being discussed and help create documents that engage teachers in the work of improvement--and away from student testing. Talk with your representatives. Explain your position to parents. Share the realities of your job and the impact of policy on student learning with the public. Engage your peers.
And when the call comes for the National Conversation, pick up the phone and speak your mind.
ADDENDUM: Here is a document where you can send your view of the teacher RESPECT program. Within the document is a link to the ED's RESPECT Narrative.
RESPECT stands for Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence and Collaborative Teaching.
He wants to "spark a dialogue that results in strong policy and a sustainable transformation to the teaching profession."
If we can get some, (respect, that is) I'm all for it. It has been a brutal two years to be a classroom teacher. And "joy comes well in such a needy time."
Duncan and Obama have entered a $5 billion grant program in the current budget proposal to "support states and districts that commit to bold reforms at every stage of the teaching profession." In his remarks, Duncan commented on the need to include teacher voices in policymaking, the need to compensate, train, and support teachers as professionals, the need to fix a dysfunctional system.
As a member of the Commission on Effective Teachers and Teaching, I was invited to be in the room when the announcement was made. Duncan said all the right things about the need to elevate teaching as a profession, as far as I was concerned, because--as he himself stated--"we did just copy your report" Transforming Teaching: Connecting Professional Responsibility with Student Learning.
So why has it taken me four days to compose a blog?
Duncan made his remarks Wednesday. On Thursday he appeared on The Daily Show and slipped back into the same rhetoric of his Race to the Top program and barely a peep was made about transforming teaching into the profession it needs to be in order to reform every classroom in America. His RttT program has worked amazingly well. Schools and districts all over the nation are currently revamping programs to evaluate teaching in order to qualify for the grants under this program. But the emphasis has been on measuring tools tied to testing.
In terms of getting people to make sweeping changes RttT has worked. But is it good for kids?
Not if teacher evaluation rests on a program where students are repeatedly tested in order to determine how well a teacher is doing. This is precisely the wrong direction. And it is a direction he did not back off of in his remarks to Jon Stewart.
It was a big low after the high of Wednesday's meeting.
And what about the $5 billion in potential grants?
In the past, when grant dollars are offered they can inspire much change (just look at RttT). But as soon as the next guy rolls into office, programs fall apart and teachers are left holding the shreds of the "change dujour," a familiar landscape for veteran teachers--one unsustainable initiative follows another.
This is why the entire system needs to be revamped. Change needs to be sustainable and ongoing and at the classroom level. And it will be, when continual learning and peer evaluation is embedded in the job of the classroom teacher.
Still, I find much to celebrate in this announcement.
Ten years ago no one was advocating for a teaching profession. A state union representative once told me that "there's a lot of problems" with that model.
That isn't happening now. All concerned education groups are arriving at the same conclusion: teaching needs to be elevated. And now we have a national leader taking up the language. What form that action takes remains to be seen.
So, what to do?
I have chosen to embrace, and then follow closely, this new language. As has been seen with RttT, the grant money does put a fire under some. If it enjoins teacher leaders in reshaping the profession, then the vision will have been moved to another level.
But it is easy to give lip-service to a new, bold idea--especially on the cusp of an important election.
It is quite another to follow lip-service with policy. But loud groups can make this happen (Yes, We Can.)
Teachers--you have a job to do. If ever there were a need for the Sleeping Giant to awaken it is now.
We need to simultaneously work toward a teacher-led, teacher-controlled profession while we continue to point out the narrow constraints of defining our work through more and more student assessments.
The window is opening just a crack. Climb through and bring your friends. Sit on committees where teacher evaluation is being discussed and help create documents that engage teachers in the work of improvement--and away from student testing. Talk with your representatives. Explain your position to parents. Share the realities of your job and the impact of policy on student learning with the public. Engage your peers.
And when the call comes for the National Conversation, pick up the phone and speak your mind.
ADDENDUM: Here is a document where you can send your view of the teacher RESPECT program. Within the document is a link to the ED's RESPECT Narrative.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
SOS March: Finally a voice
I did not cry during Matt Damon's impassioned speech to the teachers just before we stepped off for the march around the White House, although it was touching to see a son speak on behalf of his mother and the teachers who shaped him.
But it was overwhelming to hear, after a year of relentless teacher bashing in the media, that "millions of people have your back" and "We love you. We support you."
I will say I almost cried.
The emotion rose not from grief but from relief. It was kind of like hearing a doctor say "You're not crazy. The symptoms you are describing have a real cause."
If you need this boost now, click over and watch Matt's speech for yourself. It will recharge you for the hard work to come in behalf of children in the ensuing year. Damon has frequently credited his public school teachers for his successes.
Yesterday's rally on the ellipse was hot, not only from the temperature but from the speakers.
Probably the biggest rouser of emotion came from John Kuhn, the superintendent of Perrin-Whitt Consolidated Independent School District. He told the crowd to wear their badge of "failure" with dignity and pride because it meant that we were teaching the children nobody else wanted.
Jonothan Kozol also spoke with passion as he lamented the destruction of Martin Luther King's dream to provide opportunity, not test scores, to all our children--and to see them learning, working, and living in the world side-by-side. The past decade of NCLB has done more to segregate schools and kids than Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Those who feel the march is just a call to maintain the status-quo needed to be there to hear the real frustrations in living through a reform which has shifted education farther and farther from good teaching and a rich curriculum for student learning.
We do not want the status-quo.
We want reform that happens in classrooms with real children every day.
Gaining a voice in the process is the first step. A first step that was taken yesterday.
During the actual march it was empowering to walk with teachers who were speaking with one voice.
Here are chants repeated on the march around the White House. I was embedded in a delegation of Wisconsin teachers who have learned peaceful protest the hard way this winter. They modeled for the rest of us:
Show me what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like.
Bankers got bailed out. Schools got sold out.
Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Arne Duncan has got to go.
Save our Schools.
Whose schools? Our Schools.
Whose house? Our house! (when we were in front of Lafayette Park and the White House)
At least we knew we were heard for one day in the nation's capitol.
The march is just a start. Please find your voice.
As Diane Ravitch has repeated over and over as she has moved across the nation to engage teachers to rise up against the corporate "billionaire boys' club:"
"We are many. They are few."
Begin to follow #sosmovement on your twitter. Get active. Speak out.
The tide is turning.
But it was overwhelming to hear, after a year of relentless teacher bashing in the media, that "millions of people have your back" and "We love you. We support you."
I will say I almost cried.
The emotion rose not from grief but from relief. It was kind of like hearing a doctor say "You're not crazy. The symptoms you are describing have a real cause."
If you need this boost now, click over and watch Matt's speech for yourself. It will recharge you for the hard work to come in behalf of children in the ensuing year. Damon has frequently credited his public school teachers for his successes.
Yesterday's rally on the ellipse was hot, not only from the temperature but from the speakers.
Probably the biggest rouser of emotion came from John Kuhn, the superintendent of Perrin-Whitt Consolidated Independent School District. He told the crowd to wear their badge of "failure" with dignity and pride because it meant that we were teaching the children nobody else wanted.
Jonothan Kozol also spoke with passion as he lamented the destruction of Martin Luther King's dream to provide opportunity, not test scores, to all our children--and to see them learning, working, and living in the world side-by-side. The past decade of NCLB has done more to segregate schools and kids than Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Those who feel the march is just a call to maintain the status-quo needed to be there to hear the real frustrations in living through a reform which has shifted education farther and farther from good teaching and a rich curriculum for student learning.
We do not want the status-quo.
We want reform that happens in classrooms with real children every day.
Gaining a voice in the process is the first step. A first step that was taken yesterday.
During the actual march it was empowering to walk with teachers who were speaking with one voice.
Here are chants repeated on the march around the White House. I was embedded in a delegation of Wisconsin teachers who have learned peaceful protest the hard way this winter. They modeled for the rest of us:
Show me what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like.
Bankers got bailed out. Schools got sold out.
Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Arne Duncan has got to go.
Save our Schools.
Whose schools? Our Schools.
Whose house? Our house! (when we were in front of Lafayette Park and the White House)
At least we knew we were heard for one day in the nation's capitol.
The march is just a start. Please find your voice.
As Diane Ravitch has repeated over and over as she has moved across the nation to engage teachers to rise up against the corporate "billionaire boys' club:"
"We are many. They are few."
Begin to follow #sosmovement on your twitter. Get active. Speak out.
The tide is turning.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Taking off the gloves...
Sometimes you just have to pay attention to your gut. When you think you have been played, maybe you have.
Read this compilation of moves by Arne Duncan and the DOE to avoid actual listening and learning while he is on his Listening and Learning Tour.
The "conversation" described by Stephen Krashen and the NCTE could have been the exact same one I joined through NBPTS for NBCTs interested in sharing concerns about the Blueprint. No opportunity to talk, an interactive webinar with no interaction, questions selected from a big pile by the speaker Judy Wortzel. Adherence to a strict 30 minutes where 15 minutes is taken up covering ground that the well-informed listeners are already familiar with. Blah, blah.
Time to step over the DOE and go straight to Congress otherwise we are going to get even more of the worst of the worst.
The secretive nature of the activities of the DOE sound a lot like Dick Cheney's "energy talks." Talking with who knows who about who knows what behind closed doors.
Please get informed and get vocal. If you don't know what to do, get on Teachers' Letters to Obama. Big noise is the only way to get attention.
There's three million of us. We could make a really big noise.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Ya Gotta Love the Numbers!
Bernie Madoff was once a respected businessman.
In fact, he was once the chair of Nasdaq.
It was his earlier reputation which shielded him from the kind of scrutiny that would have quickly exposed his scandalous Ponzi scheme where he duped his investors into believing that money was being made when, in fact, nothing had been invested at all.
In his defense, Madoff claims that the pressure to show quarterly gains led him to fake the billions he assured his clients they were earning.
A lame excuse, but at least it acknowledges how human behavior can be manipulated by the rules.
I see parallels in our current emphasis on proving student growth by distilling learning to sets of numbers. Though we like to think that numbers don't lie, when personal fortune rises and falls with the numbers, it is a sure bet that some of those numbers will lead the public into a false sense of security that "Our children is learning."
Here's an example:
The math scores in one building were not showing gains. The solution: at the halfway mark of the year, take all the students who are not showing learning gains (i.e. they are failing) out of the course. Create a new course that repeats the first semester. By renaming the course, these students do not have to sit for the spring state tests until much later.
Result: Big jump in scores that year because only students who are adequately prepared take the test.
Well, you say, what is wrong with that? The students who aren't ready are given the opportunity to relearn the material, aren't they? The scores jump. The school is no longer 'failing.' Our children IS learning!
Here's where I take issue with scores as a representation of true progress and gains in student learning.
Like Inigo Montoya says to the Sicilian genius Vizzini in Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. ['Inconceivable' for Vizzini. 'Learning' for the rest of us.] I do not think it means what you think it means."
Scores did jump, but it was a deception played on the public. Nothing was essentially changed except slowing the pace of instruction for some students. As a result, many who struggle with math are doomed to repeat the same material presented in the same manner, or are subjected to mind-numbing drills designed to prepare them to pass the test.
True reform would exhibit itself in helping teachers locate new ways to engage students who struggle. And there ARE new strategies out there. But it would take time for teachers to re-think, re-learn, re-tool an entire course. No time and resources were part of the scenario described above.
It would mean spending money on professional development for teachers, helping them help students find a way into and through the math puzzle. No money for that.
But enormous pressure, along with piles of money spent on the bubble tests, must show immediate progress or heads are going to roll. Desperate people do desperate things.
YOU do the math.
So, what happens to students who must sit through math again?
I envision my recurring nightmare: I have missed a course in high school and they drag me out of my current life, back to my old school to take the WHOLE YEAR OVER AGAIN. In the dream I am panicked and disheartened. My whole life is disrupted and, on top of all that, it's boring me to death because I know I can do the work in a week! But they won't let me! I would drop out, but I know it would be the death of all my hopes. The whole dream is bathed in an overwhelming feeling of asphyxiation. I can barely breathe and wake up in a sweat.
Well... Some of our kids do drop out, anxious to get on with some kind of life outside of school. Who can blame them?
Our current love of data extends beyond those we consider left behind. Students in upper-level courses are distracted by numbers represented in SAT scores and fall into a single-minded obsession with high grades in order to compete for colleges. It perverts their thinking. And -guess what?- sometimes they cheat.
Just like Bernie Madoff.
Should we hold teachers (well, the whole system, really) accountable? You betcha.
How can we do it in a way that honors both teaching and learning?
Some teachers have made suggestions. Check out this plan formulated by the teachers in the workforce and a part of the Teacher Leaders Network.
Let's get honest about what we are hoping to do and be sure that everything is being measured - including our support for true learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)