Ted Sizer wrote: "We rarely underestimate the difficulties of learning. Having had to learn, we know that it is a complicated and unpredictable business," (Horace's Compromise, p. 2).
In today's climate, I disagree. I believe the wide majority, those that have never taught, regularly discount any challenge related to learning.
You're in sixth grade and you can't add fractions with unlike denominators with 80% accuracy? There's something wrong with your teacher. Or maybe you. You're lazy, kid. Get with it.
As every punishment must fit its crime, so too must every reform correspond to a particular failing of the system. Witness the rise of the "no excuses" mantra. Want to outlaw excuses? Someone must have been making a whole damn lot of them.
Can anyone who has never taught fractions really have an opinion? Should we really be listening to them at all? I'm not trying to be divisive, I really want to know. Should Bill Gates really be a powerful voice on education? Something tells me learning fractions was never that hard for him.
Is learning hard? Teaching? What does it even mean to learn? Have you ever learned? How do you know? How could you prove it to someone? Is there more than one way to prove it? Who or what caused your learning? How do you know? Do any of these questions even matter? To whom?
Until we, and I mean everyone, really wrestle with these ideas I see little hope for progress. Hold up a great school. Let's take a look. What's that, you say? The students have learned a lot? According to whom or what source? What did they learn? Did your school teach it to them? How do you know?
Popular assumptions undergird the debate. We are quick to applaud a school with high test scores. This is unquestionably a place where much learning has taken place; thus it deserves our attention. Left unwondered: are high scores really evidence of learning? What in fact, causes high scores on this particular exam? Do we know that the school played a role in causing the high scores?
Those few that ask these questions find a small audience and risk the label of contrarian.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Teaching Is What Matters
I've recently picked up Horace's Compromise by the late Ted Sizer. I'll try to post as I go through it. So much of this book rings true to me (though some parts need updating for the 21st century) I have a feeling there will be more to write, but the first thought is with respect to teaching.
From the introduction: "Curiously most of us, lay people and educators alike, tend to underrate teaching...We can play at learning, without retaining much save the temporary pleasure of the play, and we can act the teacher, strutting expectable stuff in front of blackboards. Real learning and real teaching require more." This is obviously still true. Few of those with a mainstream voice on education policy are willing to examine the details of what great teaching entails. Certainly for the policy wonks, actual teaching is a radioactive substance best left to those slovenly masses who actually have to handle it on a daily basis. They would much rather focus on the important stuff: parsing the intricacies of school governance models or arguing endlessly about national standards.
Last April, the New York Times ran a piece about out-of-work professionals turning to teaching amid the recession. Pam Grossman, ed professor at Stanford, made some insightful statements. She wrote (bold is mine):
Let me ask: Bill Gates, when you consider a high school with low math scores, do you shake your head and and wonder how teachers could not give accurate lectures on the quadratic formula? Do you wish that teachers would write equations more clearly on the blackboard? That they had more mathematical knowledge? That there were more and neater examples on paper?
Anyone with classroom experience will know that in many cases, it doesn't matter how clear your message is to the kids; it takes more and varied approaches. It takes student action and engagement with the content; it takes relevance to student lives (and I'm not talking about putting homework on an iPhone). It takes myriad other techniques, tasks, and ideas.
If teachers are going to shape the future of education, then we need to do a better job of convincing the public of what it really means to be a good teacher. Which means teachers' unions doing a better job of highlighting their star teachers and what they do. Which means media coverage that is more than a feeble-minded dichotomy between syrupy sweet Hollywood martyr-pics and "serious" articles and op-eds decrying the corruption and entitlement among teachers.
Maybe we need David Simon to make an HBO series about real schools.
From the introduction: "Curiously most of us, lay people and educators alike, tend to underrate teaching...We can play at learning, without retaining much save the temporary pleasure of the play, and we can act the teacher, strutting expectable stuff in front of blackboards. Real learning and real teaching require more." This is obviously still true. Few of those with a mainstream voice on education policy are willing to examine the details of what great teaching entails. Certainly for the policy wonks, actual teaching is a radioactive substance best left to those slovenly masses who actually have to handle it on a daily basis. They would much rather focus on the important stuff: parsing the intricacies of school governance models or arguing endlessly about national standards.
Last April, the New York Times ran a piece about out-of-work professionals turning to teaching amid the recession. Pam Grossman, ed professor at Stanford, made some insightful statements. She wrote (bold is mine):
Because all of us have spent thousands of hours in classroom observing teachers, we may underestimate the skill required to engage a group of children or adolescents and ensure that they are learning. Much of the teaching we do in everyday life, as parents or employers, involves telling or tutoring. As parents, we help children with math homework, test them on their vocabulary words, answer their questions. But teaching is much more than telling, and teachers have to know more than right answers.My impression is that most reformers working from without, who have little or no experience teaching, likely misunderstand fully any and all problems with our educational system, since they likely misunderstand fully any and all aspects of teaching. If teaching is a sort of knowledge transfer then logically any problem must lie with its agents; the teller or the telling is flawed.
Let me ask: Bill Gates, when you consider a high school with low math scores, do you shake your head and and wonder how teachers could not give accurate lectures on the quadratic formula? Do you wish that teachers would write equations more clearly on the blackboard? That they had more mathematical knowledge? That there were more and neater examples on paper?
Anyone with classroom experience will know that in many cases, it doesn't matter how clear your message is to the kids; it takes more and varied approaches. It takes student action and engagement with the content; it takes relevance to student lives (and I'm not talking about putting homework on an iPhone). It takes myriad other techniques, tasks, and ideas.
If teachers are going to shape the future of education, then we need to do a better job of convincing the public of what it really means to be a good teacher. Which means teachers' unions doing a better job of highlighting their star teachers and what they do. Which means media coverage that is more than a feeble-minded dichotomy between syrupy sweet Hollywood martyr-pics and "serious" articles and op-eds decrying the corruption and entitlement among teachers.
Maybe we need David Simon to make an HBO series about real schools.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Non-governmental org's have kept me here
As much as I support unions and believe in public schools for all, it hit me today that without (1) charter schools and (2) another non-profit that provides financial support and professional development, I might have quit teaching two years ago. Depending on how you view my quality as a teacher, this is either a good or a bad thing.
But if high quality teaching is critical to great schools we will continue to depend on the non-profit sector to invent means for recruiting and maintaining high quality teachers. I think there is a lot of room for non-profits in the areas of teacher evaluation and improvement. In districts where unions and school boards/mayors are constantly locked in battle, there is room for "third-party" solutions.
But if high quality teaching is critical to great schools we will continue to depend on the non-profit sector to invent means for recruiting and maintaining high quality teachers. I think there is a lot of room for non-profits in the areas of teacher evaluation and improvement. In districts where unions and school boards/mayors are constantly locked in battle, there is room for "third-party" solutions.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Fix 'Em
Via Aaron Schutz at Education Policy Blog:
"In a sense, focusing on education as the 'solution' to anything at least partly entails 'blaming the victim.' If education is the solution, then there must be something about someone that is inadequate and needs to be "fixed." A focus on education inherently implies that the 'problem' is with those who are being educated (and can't seem to learn)."
Primarily, I agree with this, in terms of policy. I hear echoes of this in today's calls for more testing, the belittling of urban students and their teachers, and the pervasive belief that academic and economic success are simply choices avoided by the lazy poor.
For many that work at high-poverty schools, however, this is an oversimplification bordering on utter distortion.
Public schools are safe places in high-poverty neighborhoods where many kids love spending their time. We know this because of the many children that show up hours ahead of time and linger in the hallways for hours after the end of the day. We know this because of the joy and success lots of kids feel in our schools, academically and in extracurricular activities. Adults often work in these schools not because they want to "fix" inadequacies but because they want to be a part of a positive force in a high-poverty neighborhood. Maybe schools aren't the only positive force, but they carry strength nonetheless. If we acknowledge stresses and negative factors pervasive in such neighborhoods, it is, I think, natural to want to be a part of a school. Not the desire to "fix" children, but a desire to make schools great places for kids that want love and validation just like all kids do. If that's imperialism then I'm confused.
A second thought: in a country not long on institutions of social welfare, is there another force for fighting poverty from which we can expect much? I'm asking seriously. As unions fade and politicians succumb further to moneyed interests, schools remain open to all and have an opportunity to be major players in their communities. Certainly over-testing and the sort of "tough" accountability being tossed around by Secretary Duncan and others likely will only ingrain poverty by decontextualizing and oversimplifying learning, but can we imagine a version of schooling that would be a force against poverty? I think we ought at least to try.
Perhaps we need to consider a model that seeks to change neighborhoods through schools, such as the Harlem Children's Zone, which, though anchored around schools, provides many auxiliary services to combat the stresses and problems of being poor. Perhaps we need to consider a curriculum that empowers students to organize and build political capital in their communities, in order to engender beneficial economic and social policies. Perhaps we need to consider schools that would truly be the hearts of their communities, offering free medical, legal, and other services beyond the traditional school day.
I guess I have trouble with the dismissal of those who choose to work in urban schools as part of an "imperialist" ideology. It's hard to fathom a more insulting word for what I do.
"In a sense, focusing on education as the 'solution' to anything at least partly entails 'blaming the victim.' If education is the solution, then there must be something about someone that is inadequate and needs to be "fixed." A focus on education inherently implies that the 'problem' is with those who are being educated (and can't seem to learn)."
Primarily, I agree with this, in terms of policy. I hear echoes of this in today's calls for more testing, the belittling of urban students and their teachers, and the pervasive belief that academic and economic success are simply choices avoided by the lazy poor.
For many that work at high-poverty schools, however, this is an oversimplification bordering on utter distortion.
Public schools are safe places in high-poverty neighborhoods where many kids love spending their time. We know this because of the many children that show up hours ahead of time and linger in the hallways for hours after the end of the day. We know this because of the joy and success lots of kids feel in our schools, academically and in extracurricular activities. Adults often work in these schools not because they want to "fix" inadequacies but because they want to be a part of a positive force in a high-poverty neighborhood. Maybe schools aren't the only positive force, but they carry strength nonetheless. If we acknowledge stresses and negative factors pervasive in such neighborhoods, it is, I think, natural to want to be a part of a school. Not the desire to "fix" children, but a desire to make schools great places for kids that want love and validation just like all kids do. If that's imperialism then I'm confused.
A second thought: in a country not long on institutions of social welfare, is there another force for fighting poverty from which we can expect much? I'm asking seriously. As unions fade and politicians succumb further to moneyed interests, schools remain open to all and have an opportunity to be major players in their communities. Certainly over-testing and the sort of "tough" accountability being tossed around by Secretary Duncan and others likely will only ingrain poverty by decontextualizing and oversimplifying learning, but can we imagine a version of schooling that would be a force against poverty? I think we ought at least to try.
Perhaps we need to consider a model that seeks to change neighborhoods through schools, such as the Harlem Children's Zone, which, though anchored around schools, provides many auxiliary services to combat the stresses and problems of being poor. Perhaps we need to consider a curriculum that empowers students to organize and build political capital in their communities, in order to engender beneficial economic and social policies. Perhaps we need to consider schools that would truly be the hearts of their communities, offering free medical, legal, and other services beyond the traditional school day.
I guess I have trouble with the dismissal of those who choose to work in urban schools as part of an "imperialist" ideology. It's hard to fathom a more insulting word for what I do.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What do we want from schools?
More and more, it seems, the public sees our public K-12 system as a means to entering college, the gateway to a higher income. All students must be "college ready". The conventional wisdom seems to hold that sending more poor students to college is the solution to poverty.
The ever-controversial Richard Rothstein writes recently in The American Prospect:
"If more youth from disadvantaged backgrounds got the education and training to compete for skilled jobs, would the number of good jobs expand to soak up these newly qualified beneficiaries of better schooling and active labor-market policies? Or would these youth displace competitors from middle-class backgrounds?"
It seems obvious to me that simply sending more students to college will not, in fact, help our economy in a meaningful way. Nor is it the magic bullet that is the solution to ending poverty. Nor will it serve to make our society more equal.
Schools certainly play a role. But so does economic policy that doesn't blindly serve the rich. So do strong unions and politicians that are elected with working people in mind. We need to stop buying into the idea that the wealthy and middle classes earned their salaries and homes simply by having good teachers and working hard in school. There were fortuitous circumstances that helped out. A major question for the future: will similar fortuitous circumstances return?
The ever-controversial Richard Rothstein writes recently in The American Prospect:
"If more youth from disadvantaged backgrounds got the education and training to compete for skilled jobs, would the number of good jobs expand to soak up these newly qualified beneficiaries of better schooling and active labor-market policies? Or would these youth displace competitors from middle-class backgrounds?"
It seems obvious to me that simply sending more students to college will not, in fact, help our economy in a meaningful way. Nor is it the magic bullet that is the solution to ending poverty. Nor will it serve to make our society more equal.
Schools certainly play a role. But so does economic policy that doesn't blindly serve the rich. So do strong unions and politicians that are elected with working people in mind. We need to stop buying into the idea that the wealthy and middle classes earned their salaries and homes simply by having good teachers and working hard in school. There were fortuitous circumstances that helped out. A major question for the future: will similar fortuitous circumstances return?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Because I'm on a pro-teacher kick
Or, maybe, I'm just very pro-teacher. Timothy Egan, in the New York Times, recently presented a "back to school" blog post. This, another, in the spirit of Brill's New Yorker article, is filled with the usual loose language that belittles teachers and teaching. I guess it's a little better because Egan was at least trying to be funny.
Far more interesting are the comments. Check this out:
Far more interesting are the comments. Check this out:
I’m writing this at 5:45 am as I ready myself to go to school where I teach high school English. I accepted a $3000 pay cut: I have a masters plus an additional 21 credits of post graduate study, I’m 46 and a single mom, I work about 55 hours a week and I earn $50K. What does Timothy Egan earn? Does his career as a reporter have oddities and weird examples - corruption, entitlement - if I comb the entire country for ‘proof’? I’m sure it does. But why would I do that? Why? Unless I was filled with bile and contempt for a career, and was blessed with a platform, and above all, wanted to help destroy journalism.
In this time, when teaching is at a crucial juncture, it is extraordinarily irresponsible for Mr Egan to twist a handful of incidences into an article about ‘bad’ teaching. THere are SO many good teachers out there. So many of us give hours and hours to try to help our children learn, and yet here is the contempt and misinformation yet again. It’s very dispiriting and it’s no wonder that so many people leave the teaching profession.
— Diana
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Bouncing Around The Room, Part II
"Critics are so intent on exposing the racism and obtuseness of the teacher that it is difficult to understand her view of the world. Like welfare workers and police, teachers in the urban colonies of the poor are part of a social system that shapes their behavior, too. It is more important to expose and correct the injustice of the social system than to scold its agents. Indeed, one of the chief reasons for the failures of educational reforms of the past has been precisely that they called for a change of philosophy or tactics on the part of the individual school employee rather than systemic change-and concurrent transformations in the distribution of power and wealth in the society as a whole."
-David B. Tyack, The One Best System, 1974
Spot on, 35 years later (charges of whole-scale racism, I think, notwithstanding). Blaming teachers simultaneously absolves the non-teaching public of all responsibility for educating poor people and also strokes its ego. Yes, schools can be fixed, if only we could fire the bad teachers! No further public obligation required! And yes, while I may occasionally face problems in my own life, at least I'm not a stupid teacher!
I believe that we're better off doing everything we can to improve the teachers we've got and at the very least, offering them incentive to stay where they are. Teaching poor students is, I will maintain, the hardest job in America, but also one of the most widely misunderstood. Given the hours required outside of the classroom for student feedback, parent contact, careful planning and assessment, why don't we lighten teaching loads to two periods a day for teachers in Title I schools? Why don't we change school funding rules so that NYC principals aren't forced to hire an uncertified rookie instead of a veteran in order to cut costs?
And when will we see that the biggest obstacle to poor children's success in school isn't incompetent teachers, the student-laptop ratio, lack of school choice, or governance issues, but rather deeply ingrained hopelessness quite rationally wrought by economic realities?
-David B. Tyack, The One Best System, 1974
Spot on, 35 years later (charges of whole-scale racism, I think, notwithstanding). Blaming teachers simultaneously absolves the non-teaching public of all responsibility for educating poor people and also strokes its ego. Yes, schools can be fixed, if only we could fire the bad teachers! No further public obligation required! And yes, while I may occasionally face problems in my own life, at least I'm not a stupid teacher!
I believe that we're better off doing everything we can to improve the teachers we've got and at the very least, offering them incentive to stay where they are. Teaching poor students is, I will maintain, the hardest job in America, but also one of the most widely misunderstood. Given the hours required outside of the classroom for student feedback, parent contact, careful planning and assessment, why don't we lighten teaching loads to two periods a day for teachers in Title I schools? Why don't we change school funding rules so that NYC principals aren't forced to hire an uncertified rookie instead of a veteran in order to cut costs?
And when will we see that the biggest obstacle to poor children's success in school isn't incompetent teachers, the student-laptop ratio, lack of school choice, or governance issues, but rather deeply ingrained hopelessness quite rationally wrought by economic realities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
