Boston Globe: A higher bar for future teachers

OpiefromMayberry · November 1, 2006, 5:22pm

“We have teachers who peel out of the parking lots at 3:15 in “Eat my dust” fashion.”

Did you ever stop to think it’s to get to an evening class for their masters? or a doctor/dentist appointment so not to lose time with the kids? Or even they have children of their own that need some attiention and they work at home later?

While I guess it’s OK to always assume the worst, it isn’t always that way hon.

I can tell you what is frustrating for excellent teachers are lay people who have all sorts of advice on how they should teach without really knowing what teaching involves. I guess if I started telling you how to provide nursing care to a patient, you might get a bit irritated, no?

We’re different as you mention the excellent teachers to imply you apprieciate them but are also willing to throw them under the bus to weed out your few “deadwoods”. I just won’t do that. Not every teacher my kids had was fantastic but 99% were, I won’t trash the profession for 1%.

epiphany · November 1, 2006, 5:52pm

Somewhere between Opie’s fairly rosy picture and SS’s focus on the particularly egregious examples, lies the fact that one bad teacher is one too many, i.m.o. (Speaking as a teacher.) (And Opie, I do respect your support, empathy, & praise of teachers, but there’s no denying that oversight & consequences are not nearly what they should be in a profession that is also regulated.) Nevertheless, the OVERregulation of teaching is one of the realities that has resulted in compromised outcomes for students. Or to put it another way, what & how they are regulated (putting aside unions for the moment) is often where the problem lies. The mixture of academics with social engineering, political agendas (e.g., special interest groups who want particular inclusions of certain curriculum content), etc., affects the teaching profession & individual teachers more than some posters on this board realize. You are told what you may teach, how you may teach, what you may not teach – and far too often. And you are told this, mandated this, by politicians & governing boards with zero expertise in education, child development, etc. So if, for example, you wonder why your child comes home day after day with boring worksheets in primary grades, I can virtually guarantee you that it was not the teacher’s decision. Rather, it was (usually) the decision of the administrators, concerned about “raising test scores,” or alternately outscoring neighboring high-rent district or school. The teacher may know very well such assignments are inappropriate, but may be pressured to comply & fear losing her job.

What administrators should control are the standards by which teachers are hired & fired, & how they are placed. I once taught in a school whose teachers complained about the principal’s style; however, dang could that man hire. He knew exactly who to hire & who would work best with each other. The consequence is that he created a dream team who lived for coming to work each day, & whom teachers in others schools were jealous of. I was lucky to work in that school, & came to respect how critical the hiring process is.

marite · November 1, 2006, 6:27pm

epiphany:

I see the rise of charter schools not so much as a comment on teachers’ unions but on districts’ superintendents and school boards who tie the teachers with so much red tape that the teachers cannot teach to their strengths.

I agree with you about the importance of the hiring process, which is why I got involved in hiring teachers, principals and even superintendents.

StickerShock · November 1, 2006, 6:32pm

That depends, Opie. If I was prepping your right leg for surgery when the knee replacement was scheduled on your left knee, you’d be wise to point out my error. In fact you’d be a damn fool if you didn’t. I’ve seen the equivalent in shoddy, incompetent teaching. Likewise, I’d be a damn fool if I didn’t complain. I also expect that any teacher, whether specializing in humanities or math/science, should speak grammatical English. I’ll let the NJ crack slide, as we are the most highly educated state in the nation & our grammar is just fine, thank you. We are all not members of the Sopprano crime family. But can’t you knock off the snarky tone and the “hon?”

Amen, epiphany.

marite · November 1, 2006, 6:37pm

And that is not the fault of teachers or of teachers’ unions.

StickerShock · November 1, 2006, 6:37pm

Do I understand you to mean that eliminating tenure is the equivalent of “throwing them under the bus?”

Can you name any professional field that enjoys the luxury of tenure?

emeraldkity4 · November 1, 2006, 6:51pm

I am in a very dysfunctional school district
I quit my job to be in the school every day and try to get legally mandated services for my daughter- unfortunately she was in teh school 6 years- had three principals- a stretch of some poor to worse teachers although after changing schools- from a school where the principal ( who was interim and had her contract declined to renew by the commitee- had told me- she wasn’t worried because the principal union guarenteed her a salary-* she was truly awful- she didn’t show up for important meetings- fostered conflicts between teachers and after she left our school, she spent time in two other schools- until the district finally got “wise” and kicked her upstairs to a director position- but at least she doesn’t have to come in contact with parents or students*
I have used my daughter as an example before to illustrate the harm that even one mediocre teacher can do.

For 4th grade- she had a new teacher- who previously only had taught 1st grade- for one year. The 4th grade curriculum was apparently based on the 1st grade curriculum- lots of worksheets that looked like they were taken out of a coloring book.
I hired a tutor for a short time ( that was all we could afford) to try and make up for some of the learning that wasn’t happening. The parents that were vocal- got a different teacher- but I wasn’t able to do that for D.
So that year- was basically a wash.

5th grade I had high hopes that the lack of writing in 4th grade would be made up( she had done more written reports in 3rd gd)
HEr teacher filled the class with high expectations of descriptions of all the things they were going to do that year.

Unfortunately- about a month into the school year- the teachers mother (who was in her 80s) started failing and the teacher wanted to be at her side.
She would come in for a couple days a month- the rest of the time for the entire school year ( and for several years afterward) the classroom was supervised by rotating substitute teachers who had barely any control of the classroom- who didn’t have a lesson plan because the tenured teacher hadn’t been in contact with the school for weeks, sometimes the class was even in the cafeteria, while one teacher supervised two classrooms.

Hard as it would have been for me to believe at the end of 4th grade- her 5th grade experience was even worse- it was several months into the school year, before the principal even admitted to parents there was a problem. They couldn’t hire another teacher- because the classroom teacher was still the teacher- she wasn’t on leave- and the school couldn’t force her to take leave.

What they did, was split a few kids off into two other classrooms- but again because of union rules, they couldn’t take over the negotiated limit.

The kids that were left, including my daughter had 2 substitutes along with a lot of parents trying to piece things together for the rest of the year.
For 6th 7th & 8th grade- her teachers werent that bad- often not great- but they didn’t come close to rebuilding the momentum that she should have had going into middle school.

Now she is a junior at a different school-( thank goodness we were able to change schools) the principal is professional as are every teacher I have come into contact with so far- they would never allow a situation like the above to go on.
Yes it is 6 years later & I am still furious.

Not just for my daughter and her classmates- but for the years afterward, when that situation was continued by the same teacher, for three other classrooms of students.

Her mother finally died, poor soul, or else it still might be going on.

I am not against teachers having unions although when the district caves to their pressure to raise pay higher than the district can offer- I blame the district- who now has to cut money in order to pay salaries.
I am against principals having a union, because they have to supervise the teachers & if they don’t we should be able to get rid of them.

epiphany · November 1, 2006, 7:16pm

marite,
I don’t think I said that charters were a reaction to unions. I think I said indeed that they were reactions to bureaucracy & inappropriate over-control by superintendents, distant boards – and in the case of my State – a heavily meddling legislature. (I’ve said it on other threads, too.)

Similar comment for your quoting me (post #85, I think it is) on the social engineering agendas of – not unions, but over-governing regulating bodies not directed by unions.

Unions are another matter entirely. I think they have neither created most of the problems in the system today, but importantly nor have they solved them.

OpiefromMayberry · November 1, 2006, 7:23pm

"Do I understand you to mean that eliminating tenure is the equivalent of “throwing them under the bus?” "

Do you know how hard some districts try to force teachers into retirement because they are high on the pay scale and for no other reason? Some districts want 22 year olds at 25k rather than an excellent 30 years experience teacher because of pay.

As I’ve said the day that administration can deal honestly and fairly all the time will be the last day a union exists. They’ll be no need for a union at that point.

epiphany · November 1, 2006, 7:31pm

Just to expand on my last post. It is true that early in this discussion I mentioned “loathing” unions. I meant no offense to anyone belonging to a union, or supporting those who belong. In this country’s history, unions have served important constitutional, legal, ethical functions. However, I do see them more appropriate for some occupations than others. And teaching is not where I view them as most appropriate. (I’m keeping in mind that workers in other occupations do reluctantly belong to unions themselves, accepting them as a “necessary evil” that is preferable to having no union at all, in some cases.)

What I object to with regard to unions & teaching is that unions often derail some of the more core issues & arguments that many of us are discussing here – issues fundamental to education, as fundamental – & more so – than salary, benefits, or class size. I also recoil from the atmosphere, tactics of many unions, & how in my opinion their members often behave unprofessionally. Again, I can understand why in frustration many of them voice their opinions loudly as they do; it’s just that I don’t necessarily want to identify with or associate myself with those behaviors.

OpiefromMayberry · November 1, 2006, 7:36pm

ephif,

“charters were a reaction to unions. I think I said indeed that they were reactions to bureaucracy & inappropriate over-control by superintendents, distant boards – and in the case of my State – a heavily meddling legislature. (I’ve said it on other threads, too.)”

Don’t you find it odd that the same people who bring all this red tape also have brought about charters? Free of the red tape? Why not reduce the red tape for publics? If it’s so great for charters why not allow it across the board? Could it be the opportunity to privatize and profit education dollars gets in the way of just simply a reduction of tape red or whatever color?

" the OVERregulation of teaching is one of the realities that has resulted in compromised outcomes for students. Or to put it another way, what & how they are regulated (putting aside unions for the moment) is often where the problem lies. The mixture of academics with social engineering, political agendas (e.g., special interest groups who want particular inclusions of certain curriculum content), etc., affects the teaching profession & individual teachers more than some posters on this board realize. You are told what you may teach, how you may teach, what you may not teach – and far too often. And you are told this, mandated this, by politicians & governing boards with zero expertise in education, child development, etc. So if, for example, you wonder why your child comes home day after day with boring worksheets in primary grades, I can virtually guarantee you that it was not the teacher’s decision. Rather, it was (usually) the decision of the administrators, concerned about “raising test scores,” or alternately outscoring neighboring high-rent district or school. The teacher may know very well such assignments are inappropriate, but may be pressured to comply & fear losing her job."

I am in total agreement with you here, you have said it very well. Teaching is an art form under attack by the widget makers. Who needs art? Who needs music?

And by the way, I am not a rosy picture person. Not everyone who educates is perfect, but not everyone who educates is bad either. If I am to err, I will err based on experiences and my experiences simply do not have that many BAD educators in the mix. Some, yea. But I can count them on one hand and have fingers left over. So either I live in the luckiest school district in the country and this is a statistical aberration or it is fairly representative of the situation nationally. Yes, one bad one is too many, but should that call for the comdenation of the profession?

OpiefromMayberry · November 1, 2006, 7:49pm

E,
"What I object to with regard to unions & teaching is that unions often derail some of the more core issues & arguments that many of us are discussing here – issues fundamental to education, as fundamental – & more so – than salary, benefits, or class size. I also recoil from the atmosphere, tactics of many unions, & how in my opinion their members often behave unprofessionally. Again, I can understand why in frustration many of them voice their opinions loudly as they do; it’s just that I don’t necessarily want to identify with or associate myself with those behaviors. "

But your only identifying one side in these situations. Is the other side pure of heart, thinking only of children’s issues and warm fuzzies? :)

Our former school board had two members who were part of an anti public schools organization and at every turn they did things to undermine public schools cause they wanted charters. Were they working in the best interest of kids? or their organization?

It’s not that I flog myself in apprieciation of unions, I don’t belong to one. It’s just people (even you) forget that the other side has an agenda too. Demanding one side be professional and letting the others run willy nilly isn’t right either. Unions are a necessary evil because those same people who cover you in red tape and unreasonable demands need to be checked.

Heck look at our country, with no checks and balances of power what’s happened? Wouldn’t America be a better place had our politicans had to come to an agreement both sides could live with? Instead we’ll continue to go from one extreme to another for probably generations…weakening America at every turn. Turning too far left or too far right only makes us go in circles.

spoonyj · November 1, 2006, 7:57pm

There’s no getting around the money issue, because it speaks to our own responsiblity in the failure to attract and retain good teachers. I would argue that this failure stems from the fact that, when it comes right down to it, we just don’t value teaching, however much lip service we pay to education. We may not like to admit it in all our high-mindedness, but in a market economy what we value is tied to the amount of money we are willing to pay for it. Young people can sense this–they see right through all our abstract pronouncements on the importance of education–which is why so many are indifferent to school (except as a means to an end, a giant hoop to jump through) and unwilling to even consider teaching as a possible career. In this sense, our students are learning exactly what we’re teaching them.

emeraldkity4 · November 1, 2006, 8:10pm

in our district- at least at the schools that i have been involved in at the building leadership team level- teachers are not told what to teach other than they are told by the principal which texts they are adopting
for math for example
Some teachers- have their own curriculum they have developed over the years
Others use the districts flavor of the month and others supplement the districts whim of the week with their own material
.
which is why some kids end up knowing long division and others whose teachers didn’t feel the need to supplement don’t

So you have some schools where 8th graders are ready for algebra and some where they are still working on their multiplication tables.

At one school for example- juniors in high school, are allowed to turn in a poster for a english research paper- and at another school they are expected to have footnotes down.

That is also part of the problem- not only forcing teachers to all teach the same which opie is citing, but also lack of continuity and standardization of what is taught

(spoony- the 5th grade teacher I mentioned above- is making $41 an hour not including benefits)
I know a lot of people who would consider those to be pretty good wages considering the average worker in the UW ( or is it family?) makes half of that.

epiphany · November 1, 2006, 9:05pm

Opie,
Would that it were true that charters were free of red tape. Unfortunately, they are not. Because they are public, they are actually pretty heavy in red tape because the State – ever the control freaks they are – make charters go through a million hoops yearly, to demonstrate legitimacy. In fact there are different (higher) standards for charters, imposed by the State.

Example: for a school’s charter to be renewed, it must demonstrate increases in test scores versus previous year. If it doesn’t, it’s often closed (or that particular charter is closed, for that particular county; that same school’s charters in neighboring counties might be maintained). Never have I heard of a traditional site school being closed – or threatened with closure – if their test scores do not improve. Test scores of site schools can plateau or decline: Hey, no problem.
What closes site schools? Only 3 things that I know of: structural problems (unsafe or toxic building), declining enrollment within the school/district; budget squeezes within the district, prompting reduction of cost to maintain multiple sites, thus doubling up on them.

I’ve taught in charter schools where the students below grade level are nevertheless outperforming themselves vs. at their previous non-charter site schools, but no, that’s not good enough for the State.

And an additional aspect of proving legitimacy is to engage in red tape paperwork to keep the State’s auditors happy, whether or not that paperwork is evidence of real teaching & real learning.

So overall, I actually consider charter schools not a significant reduction of red tape, rather a significant increase in autonomy. They offer greater teacher control over curriculum, parental input into curriculum, huge differences in behavioral expectations (which directly affects teacher morale & performance), & much greater personal safety for the student (a major issue in urban publics). Again, they are not perfect, just often a better option depending on the State system & variables we’re talking about.

StickerShock · November 1, 2006, 9:15pm

Here’s a bit from a recent article found on the Buckeye Institute websiste on teachers unions fighting the charter school movement:

"Both major teacher unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers view the charter school movement as a direct challenge, perhaps the greatest from any source. Thus they have opposed laws authorizing the establishment of charter schools, weakening charter school laws as much as possible and limiting the number of such schools that are authorized.

Even after all of this has failed, they continue to try to sweep back the sea. In Ohio where charter schools are called community schools, the Ohio Federation of Teachers wants the authorizing legislation to be found unconstitutional. Why is this so?

Primarily because of one thing that wasn’t mentioned in the preceding positives about the charter school movement. That one thing is that charter school teachers, in overwhelming numbers, do not vote to affiliate with the teacher unions, nor do they tend to join the unions as individuals.

More than anything else the charter school movement is illustrating that teacher union rhetoric about teacher autonomy, professionalism, and conducive working conditions are just that—rhetoric."

<a href=“Page Not Found » Search » The Buckeye Institute”>Page Not Found » Search » The Buckeye Institute;

OpiefromMayberry · November 1, 2006, 9:23pm

“Would that it were true that charters were free of red tape.”

It’s going to depend on your state. Here not so muchm that has been their rally cry to the voters who’ve turned them down 4 times in the last ten years.

And if you check NCLB the penatlies pretty much shut the place down after 3 times. That is why you see school distircts moving their special ed programs every few years because they are tested too and scored.

I guess it’s going to come down to where you live, I like it here on the west side.

epiphany · November 1, 2006, 9:24pm

spoonyj, I agree that money is also a big issue. Unfortunately, though, with publics (again, at least in my State), legislatures often want so much to do with spending that (educational) money, that much of it is wasted, regardless of what is budgeted. Therefore, even huge increases targeted to education often benefit teachers & students very little, but rather go to inflate bureaucracies & the distant administration of local schooling.

The hypocrisy on the part of many who make such decisions is that they are so clear themselves on the importance of money that they pay to send their own children to pricey private schools, or they pay for high rents/mortgages in pricey parts of town where schools are well funded & supported by educationally competent parents.

I’m actually very much for the full privatization of public schooling, supported governmentally by across-the-board taxes. That’s essentially what the charter movement is trying to do: in its own way, to “privatize,” which is not a dirty word. In this context it means “own” or “reclaim,” but doing so with public funding which provides access to all, regardless of ability to pay. The current public school system actually provides very unequal access, which is very much dependent on one’s ability to pay (rent or mortgage in a good zipcode, or tuition).

Yes, money’s a big issue.

OpiefromMayberry · November 1, 2006, 9:27pm

sSS,

blah blah blah… Ok you win let’s kill all the teachers then we can start on the nurses… My best grades in college were in statistics I know you never survey without getting the answer you want in the first place. I’m sure your children’s success can only be traced to you and if it weren’t for those darn union teachers your kids would be kings.

Da ever think how screwed up this country’d be if you or I completely got our way.

goaliedad · November 1, 2006, 10:26pm

I’ve been sitting here watching this food fight and wondering why the heck I am following this thread…

What I see lacking in our public schools (and most private schools for that matter):

1) Teachers are too busy talking (what they perceive to be teaching) and not listening and observing enough.

Most K-3 teachers cannot tell you what type of learner Johnnie or Susie is. Is s/he auditory, visual, or tactile? Does the child learn by example and try to apply concepts to related topics or is s/he a wrote memorizer? What types of gross and fine motor or social skills does s/he posess? After all these years, I’m finally getting real written feedback from my daughter’s 9th grade teachers (at a NE boarding school) as to her learning strengths and weaknesses. The standard report cards are all about measuring the widget and not evaluating how to get the widget to be most productive.

Why are teachers talking and not listening? Because of the lesson plan fed from the top down (from the state and district), using a fixed methodolgy to teach a fixed set of facts (not how to think, but what to think) in a certain method so they can be measured by a standard tool (the dreaded multiple guess test). So most of the day is about making progress in piling useless facts into the kids’ skulls (to the kid who is naturally curious, but doesn’t explore the world the same way as the district). The rest of the day is dealing with the discipline problems that come when the kids are not with the program.

Sometimes I wonder if our teacher schools teach our teachers how to identify and work with different learning styles. I often think the teachers who can discern this just have better insight not training.

2) The few things the teacher observes about a child (what motivates him/her, what s/he struggles with) cannot be used productively over time to help the child. Institutional knowledge of a child’s strength’s weaknesses are only as good as the sharing of that information.

The school year begins with a teacher typically having a couple of paragraphs of information about each kid, usually some offhand notes about what problems or major achievements the child has accomplished. So, the teacher spends the first 1/4 of the year learning the stuff about their students that they should have been able to learn had good institutional knowldege been kept about how the child learns, etc.

Of course, the teacher is still stuck with the fixed lesson plan that is one-size-fits-nobody, but by mid year starts figuring out how to help Johnnie or Susie adapt as best they can to the materials presented.

If in the earliest grades, they would have observed learning styles and strengths (by trial observation - scientifically) and then grouped kids with similar learning styles, a teaching method that is most productive can be chosen for those students. Not all students learn reading by phonics best. Whole language may be better for some. Math is learned differently by different children as well. Some children learn better in groups through experimentation. Some children are better off quietly reading and doing by themselves. This knowledge has to be relearned by every teacher and then force-fitted to the standard lesson plan.

3) Without professional judgment being applied to figure out how an individual child learns best and without that being documented and carried forward through grouping of children in future classes, we prepetuate a culture of teachers just “doing what they can” for a student and not really ever developing ownership of that childs development. The worst manifestation of this is the pass the students along no matter how little they know mentality that led to the even crazier NCLB.

As much as y’all want to point fingers at various problems (and each other), the behavior model of American educational institutions is a multi factor, self-reinforcing lack of ownership and responsibility for truly understanding and serving their clients (the children) in the most appropriate method for that child.

Of couse, most parents wouldn’t know a good elementary and secondary education if it walked up and introduced itself. I was riding home on the bus the other day, talking to a professor from the large flagship state U in our city whose daughter attends 2nd grade in what is regarded as the best primary school in the county. He recently found out from the (seasoned veteran) 2nd grade teacher that despite getting glowing grades from the (rookie) first grade teacher, his daughter was seriously behind in her reading skills.

Quite frankly, I don’t know if this professor knows what “normal” progress is for a young child and is very trusting of the school. After all, he said he moved to this particular area because the school test scores were the best. This brings to mind my last major beef with education in America…

4) The educators first job is to get the parents educated about what they are trying to accomplish with a child, so they have an ally and accountability can be established for parent child and teacher.

Yes, teachers have to deal with dysfunctional families where the parents may not be any more literate than their child, but that just means the teacher has to reach out that much more. All parents love their children and want them to do well. Many of them have no idea how to help. Most of the non-participation is probably out of fear and ignorance. And the children of those parents also have that fear and ignorance because they learn it at home.

Yes, it is a lot to ask teacher to educate the parents. And no one teacher can do it by themself. A culture of regular involvement by ALL parents must be established as a norm in our society. If a teacher holds 1 hour a week open for parents to come in and learn what the teacher is currently working on and parents came in on a fairly regular basis (with or without the child), the integration would break down many of these barriers to learning and even more importantly reinforce the value of what is being done for the child in the child’s eyes.

So many problems… So much finger pointing… No wonder nobody wants to spend more money to fix the problem…

Boston Globe: A higher bar for future teachers

CONNECT WITH US