TeacherScribe

Time has an interesting article on five ways to reform teaching.

It wisely avoids the ugliness going on in Wisconsin right now, much of which, or so I believe, has little to do with teaching itself.

Here is are the five areas that Time argues need to be seriously discussed and revised.

#1. Restrictions on evaluation.
Provisions in teachers contracts limit who can do evaluations, how often, and even specify how much notice a teacher must be given prior to being observed. In most professional workplaces, by contrast, evaluation is ongoing and both formal and informal. It's the same way in many high-performing schools where evaluation is a regular and continuous part of the improving process. Classroom "visits are not just more numerous but dramatically so" in the best schools says Tim Daly, President of The New Teacher Project, a non-profit that recruits teachers and analyzes education policy. In those schools, instead of "zero one or two [visits] it's 30-40 per year," according to Daly.

I agree that evaluations are vital.  But I'm also amazed at how for much of my career here (up until two years ago), once I reached tenured status, I was hardly evaluated.  In fact, when our new principal approached me with the observation checklist, he pointed to my name and the year 2006 and asked if this was a joke.

I assured him that it wasn't.

This is not simply the union's fault.  Principals and administration need to make a serious effort to not only evaluate their teachers but also give them serious feedback.  Our new principal and I sat down for nearly 45 minutes and had a great talk about how I can improve.

That's vital.

Nearly every other time in the past, I sat down with admin but it was just a cursory effort.  It had all of the feeling of "let's get this eval out of the way so we don't have to do it again for six years."

That's not effectiveness.

Oddly enough, this year I've been observed more times than ever before.  Gene Stuekel observes me twice a year for the MN History Grant I'm in.  I had a college student observe me for part of a college class.  I was observed twice by a recent college graduate who is going to be teaching high school English.  Our principal has stopped in - usually unannouced - often.  In fact, I had him and our superintendent in class last week to witness some of my College Comp II students' multi-media presentations.  I have had other teachers come in to discuss articles pertinent to my classes as well.

As far as I'm concerned, observations and evaluations are vital.  But I can't argue that once you get your tenure, they rarely happen in a majority of our schools.

As far as getting notice ahead of time, I find that a foolish argument.  If a teacher is doing poorly, you hardly need an evaluation to find that out.  Pull five kids in and ask them their opinions and then ask them to bring in their home work assignments from that class.  There's some good proof right there.  Stand outside their classroom and listen to the learning that is taking place.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when great teaching is happening and when it isn't.

Fixing that - and have administration with the guts to tackle it head on - is another matter entirely.  And that can't just be blamed on unions and contracts.

#2. Last in, first out.
With layoffs looming policies that require "last in, first out" are hotly debated around the country. These rules, which can be found in both state law and union teachers' contracts, require that teachers be laid-off according to seniority only, without attention to classroom effectiveness. In other words, when layoffs happen newer teachers - who in some cases still have several years of experience - are let go first even if they're more effective than the veteran displacing them. These policies would make sense if veterans were always better than newer teachers but abundant research shows clearly that longevity alone is not a great predictor of effectiveness. Last month civil rights groups won a landmark court decision in Los Angeles changing how layoffs and seniority rulers work there but just this week an arbitrator in Hartford Connecticut - a city lauded by national leaders including Arne Duncan as a model for labor-management collaboration - ruled in favor of using "last in, first out" there. Bottom line: In any organization that is serious about effectiveness quality-blind layoffs are nothing short of insane. 

To some extent, this is foolish.  I agree.  The most effective should be retained.  Without a doubt.  But there is something to be said for seniority.  But if you don't have effective evaluations, then I guess you are left with the "last in, first out" scenerios.

But I will go on record and say that there is a lot of talk about new teachers being the most effective.  Or at least that's how it appears (thanks to Rhee and Vallas).  I highly doubt this.  Sure, new teachers often have great momentum and work ethic, but they lack vital experience.

I was a hundredth of the teacher I am now when I first started teaching.  I get more accomplished in two months now than I did all year when I was a rookie.

Now that's not true of all young teachers certainly.  But it's true of many.  Just think back to anything you do in your life.  When are you most effective? The trial effort or the hundredth time you've done it?

I'm not saying there aren't teachers just pantoming their way through classes either waiting for their retirements.  But, come on, that's true of every industry or company in America.

Another issue to seriously think about before we annoint the rookies as the cream of the crop, look at how many young teachers have coaching commitments dumped on them.  I don't care what anyone says, if you coach, you are not as effective of a teacher as you would be if you didn't coach.  How could you possibly be given all the extra responsibilities that you have?

I've seen opponents of veteran teachers (namely Vallas in New Orleans) argue that teachers should only teach for five years and then get out.  That's just ridiculous.  In fact, many do just that because they are beaten down by the system.

Vallas argues (well, maybe implies is a better verb) that if you marry and have kids, you are - like a coach - subject to responsibilities and commitments that take away from your duties as a teacher.

I don't buy that.  If I'm a head coach of a winter or spring sport, how much time am I going to miss getting out of school to travel to away games?  Add those days up.  Then add up how much actual school time you might miss (other than maternity leave) for having a baby or a family.

And think of this issue in reverse.  How many school districts will bring in a master teacher at the top of the salary scale when they could bring in two rookie teachers for the same price?  This very issue was raised in my home town when we were going to bring in the best high school math teacher we have ever had.  A school board member remarked, "You know for his salary, we could hire two first year math teachers."  That's true.  But odds are those math teachers would not be as good as the veteran math teacher that school did hire.

#3.
Forced transfers and "bumping."
Every organization recognizes seniority in different ways. But frequently in education seniority confers a set of powerful rights when it comes to transferring to new schools. In practice this means veterans can bump teachers with less seniority when jobs open up or that principals are limited in who they can choose from when filling positions. In other words teachers can force their way in to a school. When The New Teacher Project analyzed this practice, they found that the policy contributed to newer teachers leaving teaching. But parents don't need a wonky report to get the basic problem here: Shouldn't individual schools get to decide who teaches in them? 

Yes.  Schools should get to decide who teaches in them.  But this very thing happened here.  We had a math teacher who was going to get cut.  Luckily, one of our colleagues decided to save his job and move on to an open position at the middle school.  The middle school was lucky enough to get one of the best math teachers (and one of the most motivated and passionate teachers I know) come work for them.  So this 'bumping' is not always a nightmare scenario.

#4. Tenure and due process rules.
Earlier this month an arbitrator in Washington, D.C. gave 75 teachers - including chronically absent and demonstrably low-performing ones - their jobs back over a technical due process issue. Reformers groaned but union leaders applauded. Long considered a "third rail" of education policy tenure is now under attack in a number of states where various rules are found as part of both state law and in collective bargaining agreements. It's hard to find someone who doesn't think teachers, and other workers, should have due process before losing their job. What actually constitutes "due process" is a more contentious issue but even teachers union leaders agree that in many cases the rules are out of hand.  

Oh boy. There is no doubt tenure is under attack, and for good reason.  I am not a fan of tenure, but - as a colleague put it this fall - what would happen if a school district wants to save money and lets an excellent veteran teacher at the top of the salary scale go in order to hire two new teachers (who could prove to be excellent teachers in their first years . . . or they could be quite terrible too).  I would like to think the school board would be loyal to an excellent teacher, but I don't put much faith in that.

Here is a post on tenure that I wrote previously that delves into this issue more. 

#5. Inflexible Salary Schedules.

Today teachers are overwhelmingly paid based on two factors, length of service and degrees. Salaries are based on master schedules with columns for degrees and rows for years of service so a teacher moves across lanes and up the steps as their career progresses. Most professions pay more for experience but there is little evidence that most additional degrees improve teaching. More problematic is what's missing: differentiation based on how challenging teaching assignments are, hard-to-fill subjects like math, science, special education or foreign languages, and how effective teachers are in the classroom. The rules of economics don't stop at the schoolhouse door and school superintendents privately complain about having to pay physical education teachers and physics teachers the same amount even though it's easier to find coaches than physicists. Hard to find a better example of something that works great for the adults in the system but not so well for the kids schools are supposed to serve.

I agree with the last sentence.  But what is the solution?  Pay for performance?  There is more than enough data to prove that pay for performance doesn't work.  There is enough evidence too to support the fact that most teachers don't have an advanced degree in the subjects they teach (the implication is that the teacher just got a quick MA to get to the top of the salary scale, but that is not always the case).  There might also be some interesting data to examine whether or not having your MA in your content area really makes you a better teacher.  I mean college professors have advanced degrees, and how many professors did you have in college that you would rate as 'good'?

I don't think you can fault teachers for wanting to get to the top of their salary scales by getting an MA.  What other professionals wouldn't want to do the same?  

Here is a link to my thoughts on this. 

Fixing education is not a simple task.  But here is my two cents worth.

First, hire the best and the brightest.  But, my opponents will counter with what if the best and brightest don't even go in to teaching because of the poor pay.  I counter with, if you go into teaching for the pay, I don't want you teaching my kids.  Teaching is a calling and a mission.  You can't put a price tag on that.  But let's start treating the profession like it's a calling and a mission instead of treating like it has been for years - "anyone can teach" (thus the move toward non-certified teachers).  

Part of this first issue is athletics.  How many teachers are not hired because they can't coach a sport or two?  School districts have to get serious about what they want: competitive athletic programs or strong academic programs.  Sure these don't have to mutually exclusive in larger areas where you might be able to get a couple coaches from the community, but in small town America that just isn't the reality.  Thus we hire teachers who can coach.  Sometimes maybe they aren't the best for the job, but they fill two slots instead of just one.  And then we dump all the responsibility on them.  New teachers usually teach the classes the veterans don't want.  So they are burned there.  Then they have coaching eating into their work time.  So they are burned there.

This cycle should end if we really want to fix education.  But do we?

Second, get administrators who are not, as Michelle Rhee found out when she took over the school district in Washington, D.C., "conflict adverse."  It's easier to pass a bad teacher a long just like it's easier to pass a poor performing student a long, but at what cost? A long with getting administrators who are willing to hold teachers accountable, let's find a better way to evaluate teachers.

Third, improve professional development for teachers.  As it stands most professional development is a joke.  If you teach, you know this is true.  Sit in an auditorium and listen to some hired gun fire you up for two hours and then you leave and go back to your class and do what you did before.  This is the teacher equivalent of a multiple choice test.  You get some great info, but it oozes out your ear the minute you walk out the door.

Have teachers teach teachers.  Encourage team teaching.  Allow teachers to visit with professors and other community members to build programs and connections.  Encourage teachers to implement technology and experiment.  Put an end to high stakes testing that force all kids to learn basic skills.  Instead, allow kids to find their passions early on in school.  Then design a middle and high school experience that is designed to the individual kid to allow delve into their passions.  When you love what you do, it suddenly stops feeling like school or work.  Why do you think so many kids poor so much time in to video games and computers or even work outside of school?  Tap in to that and bring it in to our classes.

Now, that doesn't sound too hard does it? 

.