High Anxiety Schooling vs. Its Polar Opposite

Yesterday I attended a local viewing of two education documentaries - The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman and The Finland Phenomenon.  (Disclaimer: I provided the copy of The Inconvenient Truth.)

The differences in the films are stark.

The first film was created by teachers who currently are working in the New York Public Schools and fighting from a grassroots perspective against the Mayor-Bloomberg-run public schooling system.  The filmmakers do a decent job of connecting the dots between the private monied interests and school reform. The private charters co-opt public funds for private profits and the results (or lack of them) are unfairly judged.

The public schools are routinely held accountable while charters are given a sweet deal with none of the accountability public schools face.  For instance, charters are allowed to "co-locate" with public schools. That means they get the physical resources of public schools while literally pushing the public school children into the basement.  In addition, charters can remove students from their rolls, thus forcing them back on the public schools.  This has resulted in test scores that look great over time.  Charter scores rise as the student population decreases. Generally the high-poverty or disabled are forced out.

The tenor of the film is explosive.  There is documentation of public meetings where parents and students are screaming at public officials to take their concerns seriously and to promise an equitable education for all rather than turning citizens against each other in lotteries where a student's future is left to chance.  That is followed by lots of evidence that the charters are not what they appear to be and that many of the celebrated results come from cooking the books.

The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman is anxiety producing in the extreme.

After that we watched the film on Finland.

The mood and tone of this film is calm and inspiring -- as is the Finnish system of schooling.

Following the film every adult in attendance wanted to know: How do we get that in our country?

Here is what was learned from the Finnish school system:

• In the 70's the country recognized that human capital was their chief resource, and they needed to ensure that all children were educated well.
• The nation determined the purpose of schooling (see above) and dedicated resources toward that end.
• They set a national curriculum which is simple but clear and allows localities to meet the standards in a locally-situated context.
• Teacher preparation was studied and reformed.  Applicants must meet rigorous standards before entering the schools of ed.  All teachers have undergraduate degrees in their subject area and are at the top of their class before pursuing the two-year Masters program in teaching.  Now, after 25 years, there are routinely more applicants than can be accommodated in the programs.
• Once in, the novices watch master teachers, meet in collaborative groups to debrief lessons, share their lessons prior to teaching them, tinker with them in collaborative groups following the lessons, are given time to collaborate and plan, and then work hard to make sure that lessons are focused on giving students adequate time to discover their learning through projects and other student-centered activities.
• Once employed, these well-trained teachers are trusted to do their work.  There are no "accountability" systems.
• Teachers spend a little over half the time in front of students than American teachers.  (600 hours versus our 1100).
• Teachers stay in their careers throughout their lifetime.  The profession is honored and highly sought after.  Compensation, once the teacher has gone through a probationary period, is equivalent to other professions.

There were other surprises:

• Students don't start formal schooling until the age of 7. (There is a one-year preschool, state sponsored.)
• There is very little homework.
• Students are in school fewer hours than American students. (But schools are for learning only and there are no distractions like sporting events and so forth.)
• There is minimal emphasis on testing.  There is a graduation examination.  Any other testing is used to inform instruction.
• All students are taught together - no tracking of ability.
• Teachers expend lots of time on planning lessons which ensure that students feel calm - not stressed.
• In high school (grades 10-12), students can choose between an academic or vocational track.  Both are equally valued and honored (and supported in the above manner).  Unlike the German schooling system there are no placement tests for this.  Students are not forced into either track.
• If a student changes his or her mind mid-way through, the shift from vocational to academic or vice-versa is equally accommodated, with no stigma either way.
• Students can opt to do some programs in two, three, or four years - their choice.  Again, no stigma to these choices.  (Students spoke about the programs and why some might choose one over another, and it was clear the students saw a logical rationale in why a child might make different choices.)
• Finland spends less per child than we do.  (Please note above: teachers are paid well, but the stability of the teaching force results is spending less, not more.  We spend LOTS of money on recruiting and training and testing and testing and testing....only to do it all over again in just a few years...)
• Facilities are equal in terms of equipment.  (They appeared bright and clean...and calm.)
• Everything a student needs during the school day is provided.  That includes meals and snacks.
• Class sizes are kept small.

Certainly all this touchy-feely stuff couldn't result in real learning?!  Where's the nose-to-the-grindstone effort needed for success?

Finland routinely beats out all other nations in performance by their students.  By comparison the US has been ranking around 17th when stacked up against other industrialized nations-- though individual school systems pulled out can routinely out-perform all nations -- and our ranking has been falling.

My colleagues sometimes argue that our high level of poverty is more of a deterrent to learning than teaching conditions and argue that Finland does not face the levels of poverty we have.  And with that I would agree.  Nearly 1 in 4 students in the US live in poverty and that level of stress is never conducive to learning.  Finland's poverty rate is around 4% (rather than our 22%).

But we have done nothing in the past ten years but compound the stress our students and teachers face.  And we have the lack of results to show for it.

If facilities were equal... If teachers were well-trained, trusted, and honored...  If class sizes were small...  If the emphasis were on learning rather than testing... If students felt that moving at a more individualized pace were acceptable...  If the choice between vocational vs. academic learning were encouraged...

If, if, if.  

Surely we would do better--poverty and all.

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.

Why teachers need to own their profession

Friday was a fun day in the classroom for me.  I was doing the one thing that continues to keep me energized after all these years: trying out a new idea.

It worked pretty well.  I think the students agreed.  We will be working together to fine tune this new lesson model, and I will rely on the students' feedback and behaviors to make additional changes.

To make short work of a long story, here is the history of what led me to the new discussion model we tried this week:

1. During the work on my National Board Portfolio (in 2000), I film myself leading a whole class discussion.  Whole group discussion is a requirement.  The portfolio requires reflection on the lesson noting what works, what doesn't.  I decide I'm doing a pretty poor job of leading a discussion.  I'm insecure in my questioning.  The student answers are perfunctory.  Only a few students are involved.  It looks like all the whole-group discussions I had when I was a student.
2. I ask for help.  A colleague agrees to help me begin using Socratic Seminars.  I'd had a workshop on this but felt too unsure of the methods to try it on my own.  (The kids do all the work?! No way.) With her coaching I start using this method, first in one class before expanding it to others.
3. Several of my goals are met: the students are taking responsibility for the reading and thinking.  They are learning to devise their own questions.  The seminars engage most of the students.  All students are coming to class prepared.  Sometimes there is actually excitement in the room, and I often hear the comment "I love seminar day..."  I'm sold and begin using this as a regular feature.

All good, right?  Not quite.  I still have lingering issues.  I am unable to engage the shyest of the students.  After a discussion their follow-up writing reveals these students often have powerful ideas which are never brought to the group.  A shame.  We need their ideas too.  I tinker with a few things.  Still no movement on the shy students.

It also bothers me that even though the students are bringing up valid and well-supported points ( a goal for seminar), too frequently the points go unchallenged.  Topics are introduced and then dropped as students try to 'score points' by leaping to their own views without absorbing or considering new views.  Now that's not really a discussion, is it?  It's more like a series of short lectures.

What to do?

As part of an Advanced Placement List serve I had read numerous posts where teachers mention training in the Harkness Discussion model.  I keep wondering how that differs from what I am currently doing. Finally, with enough dissatisfaction built up I expend many hours over the holiday to follow and absorb a link to Jodi Rice's superb google site (Thank you Jodi) and begin to explore how this model differs from the socratic seminar model.

Turns out the major difference is in the assessment of the discussions.  Harkness places emphasis on the group's behavior by issuing a group grade, one that even the students' themselves can assess by looking at a diagram of their work.  Cool.

There's more to Harkness of course, and I have to think and plan well in advance so we can all clearly understand the multiple goals of our class discussions ( which are many: I hope they will learn annotation, inquiry, speaking, listening, supporting comments with evidence, critical thinking, and understanding the literature and author's craft) but the simple change from an individual grade to a group grade has already made a huge difference in the quality of discussion.   (Please note, everyone, just how much assessment affects behavior--especially as you devise your Teacher Evaluation plans and standardized testing.)

So now we have a new method, and the students and I will continue to determine how well this meets all of our needs (see parenthetical list above).

So, how could professionalizing teaching help?

Look at what it takes to improve--i.e. reform practice--in substantive ways:

Observation (of self and others)
Reflection (revisiting the work and evaluating it)
Diagnosis of problems (clinical research)
Search for solutions (research)
Collaboration with peers (sometimes in person, sometimes in electronic forums)
Prescription (application of new methodology)
Adjustment based on evidence (which changes year to year, class to class)
Lather, rinse, repeat.

These are the skills, knowledge and practices it takes to continue to improve.  The up side to such a self-study is that the answers are owned by the teacher--just as the discoveries in an invigorating discussion are owned by the students.  These moves mirror those by other professions and should be job embedded.  During the 11-year journey outlined above, none of the moves made were supported or encouraged in the work day through the current model of managing teacher work.

They could be.

State of the [teacher's] Union

Obama addressed the nation on Tuesday night in his annual State of the Union remarks to both houses of Congress.  


Of course, when education is referenced in these speeches, (as it always is-without fail) I perk up and listen.  In general the remarks are hollow rah-rahs for the need for stronger schools. Often, the pablum is packaged in red, white, and blue and little of substance is offered.


So far, I have yet to hear a politician say anything but supportive statements about the need for a strong education system.  The devil is in the details. 


For those who may have missed it, here is the portion of the State of the Union address where Obama referenced our floundering goals in education:

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance.  Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference. Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

His remarks are shorthand for those who follow education issues and reflect most of what has gone on in the past year.  Here's the translation.


First of all, layoffs are looming.  Most localities will run out of stimulus money this year and will have to increase classroom sizes as they lay off teachers.


Then he references the recent report published in the New York Times on how effective teachers improve a child's earning power.  This report has dubious goals and questionable conclusions about using Value Added Measures which rely on test scores to rate a teacher's effectiveness, so the remark about what "we know" is not exactly all that quantifiable.  It is clear though that effective teachers who are well supported can make a difference. A large part of a teacher's ability to be effective hinges on the system he/she labors within.  Clearly the current system under NCLB has done much to stagnate student achievement in the past decade.  And equal access to a strong educational foundation has widened rather than narrowed.  Teachers argue that their ability to remain effective has been stripped from them.


Obama's line about saving poor children through education is seen by some as a cop-out for the rest of the nation.  Laying the cure for poverty at the feet of the teaching force absolves the rest of us from making changes to a tax code that dooms whole swaths of our electorate to a lifelong struggle for economic stability. Student achievement will benefit when households are not under continual strain.


The "bashing" line comes from the media onslaught starting with Waiting for Superman last fall and continuing in the NBC Education Nation where teachers and their unions have been routinely vilified and sidelined so that billionaires and corporatists can gain credibility in their argument that the cure for public education is a weakened teacher's union and tighter, more frequent measures of teacher effectiveness--i.e. testing, testing, testing, to produce data, data, data. 


The last bit--"let's offer schools a deal" refers to Obama's language in his actual "blueprint" (why is everything a blueprint these days?).  The blueprint was released after the speech and contains the following language in reference to a plan for education:

Attract, prepare, support, and reward great teachers to help students learn: 

Teaching is a profession and should be treated like one. The latest research says a great teacher could increase the lifetime income of an entire classroom by hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The President is fighting to protect our schools from being hurt by the recession by providing states and communities with funds to prevent teacher layoffs, and avoid increases to class sizes or decreases in the number of school days. 

The President is also asking for a new competitive program that will challenge states and districts to work with their teachers and unions to comprehensively reform the teaching profession by:
o Reforming colleges of education and making these schools more selective;o Creating new career ladders for teachers to become more effective, and ensuring that
earnings are tied more closely to performance;o Establishing more leadership roles and responsibilities for teachers in running
schools; improving professional development and time for collaboration among teachers; and providing greater individual and collective autonomy in the classroom in exchange for greater accountability;
o Creating evaluation systems based on multiple measures, rather than just test scores; o Re-shaping tenure to raise the bar, protect good teachers, and promote accountability. 

So this list looks like the devil's details.  Those who have read the report Transforming Teaching: Connecting Professional Responsibility with Student Learning will recognize some of the bullet points.  The teachers who wrote the report argue that teachers will assume accountability when we have more control over the training, the workplace, and the criteria for advancement.  In other words, ownership of a supportive system in tandem with accountability.


The door is not fully open for professionalizing teaching, but this looks like a window to crawl through.  


Nothing happens until discussion ensues.  Start talking.   Our representatives need to know which bullet points need to be pushed forward in this agenda to lift teachers to the role of professional.  Our children and the future will benefit.

Dear Colleagues,

Today is an unexpected snow day-- a hole in my professional life I will fill in speaking frankly about teaching.

But first, a story:

My daughter is a Veterinarian.  I am extremely proud of her accomplishments in this field because I know of the dedication and hard work she put in to achieve her dream of working with animals.  I know where the dream began: pony club.  She started riding horses after working on a girl scout badge at age 10.  She loved the horses so much that, even as a teen - those sloths who love to sleep in, especially on a weekend or snow day -- woke up early every Saturday-on her own- just for the privilege of mucking a stall.

Her passion for learning about horses and animals remained unabated through the storms of adolescence and young adulthood.  To my surprise, she worked methodically toward her DVM with little input from her parents other than the support of time and resources.  And now she works to maintain the health of the pets in her community.

What does this have to do with teaching?  Everything.

My daughter works with pets.  I work with children.  Other people's children.  Our preparation couldn't have been more different.

First, she had to have an undergraduate degree before entering formal training for her profession.

To get into Veterinary School she had to document 400 hours of volunteer work with animals.  A hundred of those hours had to be under the supervision of a licensed vet.  This, I assume, would weed out the applicants who want to work with animals because they think they are cute and lovable.  Some of her experiences involved unpleasant activities.  There was a trip to a rendering plant.  Collecting semen.  Sticking pigs.  Putting down a favorite pet.

Working with animals is decidedly unromantic.  Best to get that notion out of the way.

Her final year in Vet school was entirely clinical.  She worked in various parts of the state through rotations that took her onto farms and into animal hospitals, putting down large, expensive animals, rehabbing, treating, caring for large, expensive animals.  All under the watchful care of a top practitioner.

Oh, and there was a test.  Several, in fact.  A national test first and then one each for Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia.  All required for a practicing license.  And then the real learning began: a daily practice where hundreds of informed decisions are made on the spot every day.  All augmented by continuing professional development for a field that is always learning.

Contrast that to teaching - where we work with actual human beings and shape their destiny.  On the Great Chain of Being, even children rise above the level of animals in their closeness to God.  But you would never know it in America.  Somehow we find it acceptable to relegate our children's development to chance.

Today, assuming the role of teacher can mean simply changing your mind on the way to someplace else.  We let recent undergrads become short-term teachers after only five weeks of training in Teach for America. The answer to the teacher problem has been to ask for less from the workforce, not more.

The plan du jour is to throw adults -- and now computer software -- at the wall and see what sticks.  Meanwhile, the wall is a group of young people in their developmental years.  We won't get those years back down the road.  In addition, any yahoo walking in off the street with an opinion is allowed to make sweeping changes.

Because we have all been taught at one time or another, we all assume we can teach.  Even teachers sometimes see their work as requiring little skill.

I could not disagree more.  Those who succeed have come to grips with the nature of teaching, and its often very unromantic realities.  (See veterinary corollaries above.  Real kids are not always cute and lovable.)

In creating the document Transforming Teaching: Connecting Professional Responsibility with Student Learning, the commissioners outlined the skills and knowledge teachers need to be effective.  Every teacher candidate should be able to demonstrate (from p. 11-12):

KNOWLEDGE: We believe that for future success, all pre-service teachers need to learn at least the following:

uContent matter appropriate for teaching the subject area(s)

u Child, adolescent, and abnormal psychology

uEnglish language development and second language acquisition strategies

u Instructional methods, strategies, and practices

u Curriculum models and practices

uInstructional technology practices and information technology use

u Standards-based curriculum design

u Content-based reading and writing strategies

uInstructional adaptations to address students’ individual learning styles, readiness to learn, and level of independence

uInstructional accommodations for students’ special learning needs uImpact of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, race, gender, language skills, disability, and

other factors on teaching and learning

u Classroom management strategies

SKILLS: We believe all pre-service teachers must learn to do the following:

u Plan instruction

uGuide students through a variety of learning experiences

u Assess student progress

u Analyze student learning outcomes

uDiagnose special needs, prescribe learning strategies, develop remedial plans, and adjust instruction to suit special needs

u Reflect on practice

u Collaborate with colleagues

uIncorporate 21st century skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, into teacher practice

alongside effective teachers. A series of classroom experiences such as the following will allow candidates to apply the content and pedagogical knowledge and skills they acquire:

SCHOOL-BASED EXPERIENCES:  We believe that to be successful in today’s complex learn- ing environment, all pre-service teachers need to spend significant time in schools working

u Observing a variety of effective teachers uAssisting with small and large group instruction uPlanning and conducting small group and whole class instruction uTeaching a diverse range of students for an extended period of time u Conferencing with individual students uConferring with parents and other responsible adults u Collaborating with teams of teachers

Turns out it IS rocket science.

Ok.  I know.  I already hear you complaining, "That's costly."

But the top tier education countries underwrite the tuition and subsequently attract top candidates who succeed in a rewarding, high-status, lifelong careers.  These teacher-led professions are continually examining and improving themselves.  That vision is far less costly in the long run than our current practice of churning teachers.  And are you telling me the 'richest nation in the world' cannot afford to do what's right for kids?

Read and rally around the report.  We cannot wait for someone else to hand us what is clearly necessary.

It must be demanded.