"The Myth of the Super Teacher" (alternate title: "Teachers Are Human")

 Photo from Wikipedia

Probably anyone and everyone who has ever been a teacher can relate to Roxanna Elden's message in the video below (including myself).  Everyone who enters the teaching profession has an image in their mind of what the job will entail.  Every new teacher thinks they are going to step right in, reach every single student, and change the world.  It doesn't matter how big the classrooms are, or what type of home life these students have.  Every lesson will be perfect, every student will like us and WANT to learn, and will behave properly.  While Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds may not come to everyone's minds, they do have that image in their head of the super teacher.  We all tell ourselves "By God, I am going to be that super teacher."

Then, of course, we start teaching, and realize that we are human, and this is not the movies.  The job entails longer hours than you can imagine, lesson plans with potential holes (holes that are often exposed during that first year of teaching), and students who could care less about what a fantastic lesson you have worked hard on (no matter how "interesting" the lesson is).  Oh, and what you have always heard about teacher pay is true.  That paycheck you bring in seems pretty miniscule given the amount of hours you put in and stress that comes out.  There are numerous reasons why nearly half of all teachers leave the profession by their fifth year.

But most of us who do stay in do not give up.  We love what we do, and we still want to make a difference in EVERY student's life.  I don't want education students to think that teaching is a hopeless, thankless profession (although it may feel like that some days).  By all means, it is a wonderful profession, and I am grateful everyday that I chose it.  But experience does bring in a more realistic view of what being a school teacher entails.  Just know that you can be a great teacher, but you are human, and there will be days the job will suck.  I am generally a strong defender of traditional teacher training programs as a whole, but it is true that there are things that NO education course can teach you.

Please enjoy this video!
The Myth of the Super Teacher from EdWriters on Vimeo.

Teachers, Doctors, and Professionalism

 Photo from Professorbaker's blog

Diane Ravitch shares a fascinating story a reader sent her:

A reader sent in a comment about holding teachers accountable for test scores.

He attended a “question and answer” luncheon hosted by the Lafayette, Louisiana, Chamber of Commerce, where Governor Bobby Jindal was the speaker. Jindal came late, spoke fast, and left without answering any questions. The reader, possibly the only educator in the audience, turned to the CEO of a hospital sitting next to him and asked “if he ever pondered posting his hospital’s mortality rate outside its door.”

The reader was “a little surprised at how firmly his ‘no’ response was—-it was as if I asked him to jump off of a bridge. I was merely trying to make a comparison to cohort grad rates and letter grading systems in our state to the business community.” The reader concluded that “accountability as educators know it will never be applied to any other type of profession much less within the business community despite their unwavering support of accountability for public schools. That CEO’s firm ‘no’ response was all the proof I needed that accountability the way we know it will not make anything better….and the business world knows this.”

Another reader liked that comment and added: “had the CEO offered more than his terse response, I suspect his explanation would include that although doctors play a role in a patient’s health, there are a number of other factors that doctors have no control over–patient’s genetics, prior medical history, willingness to follow the doctor’s prescriptions, environment, how far an illness has progressed before the doctor sees the patient, etc. And, of course, his explanation is perfectly valid. For some reason, though, when teachers make the same point regarding students’ test scores, corporate ed reformers are quick to accuse them of making excuses.“

Now it is true that doctors absolutely HAVE to go to school for a much longer time than teachers do given the amount of life-saving information they must know, sometimes right off the top of their head without being able to look it up.  And let's be honest, as important as the purpose of being a teacher is, the purpose of being an MD is much more important when all things are considered.  I can even see this being a valid justification for doctors making a lot more money than teachers (though, of course, public school teachers are still highly underpaid).

But the overall point Diane and these readers are making are absolutely true.  For whatever faults the teaching profession may have, teachers are still highly trained professionals.  Education, like medicine, is an area that is unconditionally paramount to a healthy, successful society.  Accountability - whether in education, medicine or elsewhere - is certainly important.  But accountability in any profession that serves such an important purpose should not be reduced down to an agenda-driven panacea (i.e. testing), while trying to factor in other such complexities of said profession are considered making excuses.  Accountability, especially when it is for a highly critical profession dealing with significant complexity, should be reflective of that complexity.  Here is what Ken Jones of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has to say about teacher accountability:

We most certainly need teacher accountability. But it should be the kind that builds capacity, not the kind that creates fear. It should look at complexities, not simplicities. Teachers should be accountable for grounding professional practices in the best available research, for maintaining a modern vision of what constitutes important mathematics, for providing students with engaging and relevant lessons and equitable opportunities to learn. This type of accountability must focus on individual responsiveness and interpersonal dynamics within specific contexts. It must be local in implementation and of high resolution in the light it sheds on teachers’ practice and students’ learning.

High-resolution accountability is a far cry from the new trend for high-stakes teacher accountability. It emphasizes information feedback and continuous improvement, not false and degrading “incentive” systems. It takes time, leadership, attention to the many details of practice, and a culture of reflective practice. Let’s face it—there are no shortcuts to improving education

Professor Thomas Baker of the English Department at Colegio Internacional SEK in Santiago, Chile also an a piece of teachers and doctors on his blog that is worth a read.  He sums the issue up this way:

Society is pretty darn lenient with doctors. We don’t hold them accountable for things which they could be reasonably expected to perform a lot better, for society as a whole.

On the other hand, society, in general, gets pretty riled up about teachers. People get angry when they talk about the performance of the teaching profession.

There is even, “strong empirical evidence that suggests teachers are the most important aspect in the educational achievement of students.”

And so, society is very upset with these so-called “Teacher Professionals”.

“Why can’t teachers be more like doctors?”, society asks.

This teacher, myself, asks the reverse question:

“What if doctors were treated like teachers?”

What Teachers Make

I just watched this video and felt the immediate urge to post it.  It inspires me and reminds me of some of the reasons why I originally became a teacher.  And as much as I enjoy my job as a para, I cannot wait to have my own classroom and be called a "teacher" again.

Obama, Matt Damon, Education Policy, and Electoral Politics

 Photo from Huffington Post

In the past year, Matt Damon's support for the Save Our Schools movement has made him a favorite of teachers all over the country who are opposed to the hurtful policies implemented by so-called "education reformers" across the country.  I count myself as one of those whose personal fandom of Damon has increased for this very reason. 

Today, I was reading an article on Huffington Post where Damon criticizes Obama's failure to be more audacious and anti-establishment during his first term as president.  One of the policy areas that Damon addresses is his policies on education:

"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon told CNN host Piers Morgan. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them."

Everyone who supports the SOS movement, including myself, would certainly agree with Damon's words here.  We do have an over reliance on standardized testing in this country that hurts both students and teachers.  Indeed, the policies that President Obama has implemented on Education since his inauguration are, on the whole, not any better (and possibly worse) than President Bush's were.  These policies include the aforementioned testing procedures, as well as his support for funding charter schools and merit pay, and the destructive and simultaneously inefficient Race To The Top.  But what is most surprising in all of this is not Obama's support for these positions, but rather, that many of those who supported Obama in 2008 are suprised by his education positions. 

This is because President Obama's platform on education in 2008 was essentially an endorsement of the education reform movement.  For instance, he publicly supported the idea of merit pay in a speech to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher union, in 2007.  In addition, he was a supporter of both charter schools and school choice.  From USA Today in October, 2008:

[Obama] wants to expand federal funding for charter schools from $236 million to $450 million. He says he'd "work with all our nation's governors to hold all our charter schools accountable," adding: "Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow; charters that aren't will get shut down." He also wants to expand non-profit child care, parenting and education efforts such as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York to other cities.

Just like his support for the Afghan War, Obama proposed policy initiatives on education during the 2008 campaign that are unpopular to many progressives and supporters.  But then (SURPRISE) he ended up mainly keeping his promise when entering office.  I am not sure if those who originally supported Obama thought he would renege on these particular policies when he entered office, or if they were so caught up with "Hope", "Change" and "Yes, We Can", that they didn't notice those particular aspects of his platform to begin with.  In any case, nobody who did pay attention to the Obama campaign in 2008 should be surprised at his current education policies.

To be clear, I supported Obama then (with full knowledge of his platform), and would do it again if I had to.  The prospect of a McCain presidency, or any presidency led by the 2008 GOP contenders, is too unnerving to contemplate.  I supposed I am in the category that hoped he would renege on some aspects of his education platform, but alas, he kept his word (and then some).  In addition, I hope President Obama wins reelection in 2012.  This, however, does not mean I will necessarily vote for him.  Like Damon, I am extremely disillusioned with many of Obama's policies (including education and Afghanistan), as well the continuation of the Democrat's love-affair with pussyfooting and unnecessary compromise. 

This does not mean I will vote for a Republican.  There is not a chance in hell of that given the current lineup of  pitiful and moronic contenders for the nomination, as well as the ignorant and cruel platforms that seems to be considered "mainstream" in today's GOP.  But now that I am a voter in the state of Kansas (as opposed to Missouri, where I am originally from), my vote as a progressive does not really count when voting for the Presidency.  No amount of campaigning or electioneering in the next year and a half will get the state of Kansas to elect a Democrat for the Presidency.  Not unless something happens between now and then of such earth-shattering magnitude, that Kansas electoral support for Obama in simply unavoidable.  I may, based purely on the principals I hold as a liberal, as well as being fed up with Mr. Obama, vote for a third party in the 2012 election (e.g. Green Party).  This is not final decision yet, and the President still has time to win disillusioned liberals such as myself over for an electoral landslide in 2012 (although, admittedly, that support will be more important in key swing states rather than states like Kansas). 

For starters, there is one policy proposal on education that Obama put at the center of his education platform in 2008 that he could start pushing for.  I am referring to his support for the expansion of early childhood education programs.  Here is an excerpt from the same 2008 USA Today article quoted above:

[Obama] proposes a $10 billion "Zero to Five" plan that would quadruple the number of slots in Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve the quality of both; he'd make states compete to create or expand child care and education for pregnant women and children. He'd "encourage" states to adopt voluntary universal preschool; he'd expand the Child and Development Care Tax Credit, making it refundable and allowing low-income families to get up to a 50% credit for child care expenses.

We already know how important the exposure to early childhood education can be to the potential of a young person, and there chances at academic excellence in the long term.  It is somewhat surprising, and unfortunate,  that Obama has yet to pursue such a proposal during his first term (at least, as far as I know).  Perhaps he is fearful that, given the current political environment in favor of austerity and worriment over budget deficits, proposing federal spending for early childhood programs wouldn't pass, at least, without some type of backlash. 

But one thing the President is long-overdue in understanding is that there will be a backlash by Republicans in anything he proposes.  That is what the Republicans do.  He is too worried about compromising with Republicans without ever putting up a fight to begin with.   Although he has shown glimmers of hope in changing this trend in recent months, he needs to keep up, and advance the good fight.  His Presidency, as well as the good of our country, depends upon it.  A comprehensive, early childhood education bill would be a step in the right direction.  Come on, Mr. President, time to get audacious!

Early Childhood Education, Poverty, and Occupy Wall Street

Nicholas Kristoff recently wrote a fascinating piece regarding education and the Occupy Wall Street movement.  He seems generally in favor of what the movement stands for: the desire to change economic inequality in this country.  While Kristoff doesn't belittle ideas such as raising taxes on the rich, or throwing bankers in jail, he says those ideas will not be nearly as effective to fixing the crisis of income inequality as expanding early childhood education:

But although part of the problem is billionaires being taxed at lower rates than those with more modest incomes, a bigger source of structural inequality is that many young people never get the skills to compete.  They're just left behind.

I agree with the importance of funding early childhood education (and public education in general) as a means of changing society.  After all, one of the biggest reasons why many teachers choose the career they do is to make a greater difference in society (I would include myself in this category).  I don't know if it is more important that other policy measures such as raising taxes, and passing more baking and business regulations.  But nonetheless, education is highly important.  Here is another excerpt from Kristof's column:

“This is where inequality starts,” said Kathleen McCartney, the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, as she showed me a chart demonstrating that even before kindergarten there are significant performance gaps between rich and poor students. Those gaps then widen further in school.

 “The reason early education is important is that you build a foundation for school success,” she added. “And success breeds success.”

Kristof goes onto quote Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman, who says something I'm not sure I quite agree with.

“Schooling after the second grade plays only a minor role in creating or reducing gaps,” Heckman argues in an important article this year in American Educator. “It is imperative to change the way we look at education. We should invest in the foundation of school readiness from birth to age 5.”

One's early childhood education can determine a lot about how a student will fair in school.  I would even go so far to say that early childhood education does have a bigger impact on a child's education than upper elementary and secondary education does.   But I am skeptical that schooling from grades 3 and up only play a "minor role". 

Admittedly, I have not read Heckman's article, and I am sure he has good data and points to support his assertion.  But how can 10 additional years in school be considered a minor?  How are we defining what important vs less important?  I am not saying Heckman is wrong, I am just skeptical of his assertion.

Kristof also discusses the importance of the Head Start program.  I know multiple educators who like to criticize Head Start (and rightly so to a point) because of the long term ineffectiveness the program seems to have on a child's education.  While Kristoff admits the program has faults, he also shows that it is far better to have Head Start than nothing at all, showing the need for early childhood education:

Take Head Start, which serves more than 900,000 low-income children a year. There are flaws in Head Start, and researchers have found that while it improved test results, those gains were fleeting. As a result, Head Start seemed to confer no lasting benefits, and it has been widely criticized as a failure.

Not so fast.

One of the Harvard scholars I interviewed, David Deming, compared the outcomes of children who were in Head Start with their siblings who did not participate. Professor Deming found that critics were right that the Head Start advantage in test scores faded quickly. But, in other areas, perhaps more important ones, he found that Head Start had a significant long-term impact: the former Head Start participants are significantly less likely than siblings to repeat grades, to be diagnosed with a learning disability, or to suffer the kind of poor health associated with poverty. Head Start alumni were more likely than their siblings to graduate from high school and attend college.

Finally, Kristoff finished his column by discussing President Obama's need to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise of greater funding for early childhood education. 

President Obama often talked in his campaign about early childhood education, and he probably agrees with everything I’ve said. But the issue has slipped away and off the agenda.

That’s sad because the question isn’t whether we can afford early childhood education, but whether we can afford not to provide it. We can pay for prisons or we can pay, less, for early childhood education to help build a fairer and more equitable nation.

It is surprising that no one other columnists or pundits have brought this up.  Not that the Republicans will let him pass new spending on this, but Obama should at least try.  He also needs to quit supporting asinine measures such as Race To The Top and merit pay which only hurts education.  Like a lot of those on the "education reformer" side of the debate, I believe the President has good intentions when it comes to what education in America should look like.  But the reality of his education policies so far only hurt schools because they do so much to hurt teachers and push standardized testing.  This is not the way to fix American education, and it is damn sure not the way to help combat poverty in the long run.

To Those Who Think American Teachers Are Lazy

Here is a chart that documents who pays teachers the best for their time in Industrialized nations.

Photo From GOOD

As you can tell, American teachers work the most hours, but have one of the lowest salaries for teachers.  As a public school teacher, I knew that the criticism of American public school teachers that has come out of the mouths of pundits in the past year are not in line with reality.  Here is proof.

Thank You, Jon Stewart!

Teacher bashing is nothing new, but since the events is Wisconsin started two weeks ago, it has seemed to reach an all time high by many in the media.  In the clips below, Jon Stewart takes a look at this phenomenon.  Not only are teachers being blamed for the budget crisis that affects nearly every state across the country, but some of the oldest, most overused and unnecessary put downs of teachers are being used by pundits who feel most teachers have it easy.  As The Daily Show played clips of these pundits talking about what a cushy job teachers have, I sat in cold silence with a smirk on my face, while my wife yelled at the TV because they clearly didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

Jon Stewart, certainly out of a love for his mother who is a teacher, takes on these pundits, and defends teachers against these charges.  Anyone who is a teacher or who has a loved-one who is a teacher knows that teaching is anything but cushy (with the exception of the Fox News pundit in the first video below whose Mom is a teacher).  There are many long hours outside of their work day where they are grading papers, planning lessons, or talking to parents.  Chances are, if a teacher isn't spending time outside of their 8-hour contract period doing work, they aren't very good at their job.  Yes, there are summer breaks, but many teachers teach summer school, tutor, take a second job to earn extra income, or spend time coming up with new lesson ideas and getting ready for the upcoming year.  Often times, they are doing a combination of these.

Finally, there is the issue of teachers having a cushy pay in comparison to those in the private-sector workforce.  I will admit that in today's economy, the pay of a teacher probably looks pretty good compared to the many jobs people are now forced to get because of hard times.  But five years ago, when I decided to become a teacher, this was not the case.  While teachers have always had their detractors, it was widely agreed that teachers were overworked and underpaid.  One woman I knew growing up who is a now-retired professor of education joked that whenever I get married, I will know that girl is not marrying me because of the money I make (and I can honestly say that is true).  But times have changed, and suddenly teachers have it easy, they are overpaid, and are living off the the hard-earned money of the taxpayer (how dare we do that).  Fortunately, Jon Stewart challenges this thinking, and brings in some much-needed reality to this debate.

Here is Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Crisis in Dairyland - Angry Curds
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Here is Part 2, a message to the teachers from Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Crisis in Dairyland - Message for Teachers
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook