Richard Rothstein recently gave a commencement address to the graduates of the Chicago Loyola School of Education.
What do you say to new teachers, embarking on their careers in these perilous times? What do you say to those who have chosen a profession that is under siege?
Rothstein is a deeply knowledgeable and fearless scholar. Read what he said.
I posted earlier today about a new Xerox machine that is being marketed to “read” and grade student essays. Not to score bubble tests, but to grade essays. Granted, this is not a new idea. There are now different companies selling machines to grade student writing. I have seen demonstrations of this technology, and I can’t shake the feeling that this is not right.
Why? I am not opposed to technology. But here is the nub of my discomfort. I am a writer. The moment I realized I was a writer was when I discovered many years ago that I write for an audience. I think of my reader(s). If I am writing for a tabloid, I write in a certain style. If I am writing for the New York Times, I write in another way. If I am writing a letter to a family member, another style. If I am writing for a scholarly journal, something else. When I write for this blog, I have a voice different from the voice in my books. I don’t know how to write for a machine.
Robert Shepherd reminded me how important the audience is for a writer when he posted this comment about the Xerox grading machine:
“The slick piece of marketing collateral that Xerox produced for this product features, most prominently, a picture of a smiling teacher bent over to help a smiling student. But the promise of the product is precisely the opposite–that teacher feedback will be eliminated (automated).
“Clearly, it’s a fairly simple matter to create technologies that correct multiple-choice and other so-called “objective” tests. More troubling is the promise that the technology will score “constructed response” items (in non-EduSpeak, writing). Let’s be clear about this. There is no existing system that can read, as that term is understood when it is predicated of a human being. What creators of such software can do is to correlate various features of pieces of writing that can easily be recognized by software to outcomes assigned those pieces of writing by human teachers.
“So, one might come up with some formula involving use in the piece of writing of terms from the writing prompt, average sentence length, average word length, number of spelling errors, number of distinct words used, frequency of words used, etc., that yields a score that is highly correlated with scores given by human readers/graders using a rubric. At a whole other level of sophistication, one might create a system that has a parser and that does rudimentary checking of grammar and punctuation. Some of that is easy–e.g., does each sentence begin with a capital letter? Some of it is rather more difficult (a system that correctly identifies all and only those groups of words that are sentence fragments would have to be a complete model of grammatical patterns for well-formed sentences in English).
“Who knows whether the Xerox system is that sophisticated. One cannot tell whether it is from the marketing literature, which is a concatenation of glittering vagaries. But even if one had a perfect system of this kind that almost perfectly correlated with scoring by human readers, it would still be the case that NO ONE was actually reading the student’s writing and attending to what he or she has to say and how it is said. The whole point of the enterprise of teaching kids how to write is for them to master a form of COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PERSONS, and one cannot eliminate the person who is the audience of the communication and have an authentic interchange.
“Since these writing graders first started appearing, I have read an enormous amount of hogwash about them from people who don’t understand that we don’t yet have artificial intelligences that can read. Instead, we have automated systems for doing various tasks that stand in lieu of anyone doing any reading.”
Pasi Sahlberg, the great expert on education in Finland, here examines the founding myths of the corporate reform movement.
Reformers search for the teacher who can generate high test scores. They like the idea that teachers compete for rewards tied to scores. Sahlberg points out that a school is a team, not a competitive individual sport. Teachers must work together towards common goal.
Another fallacy is the “no excuses” claim that great teachers overcome all obstacles. Sahlberg reminds us that the influence of the family and student motivation is far greater than the efforts of teachers in determining outcomes.
A corollary to this fallacy is the belief that three or four great teachers in a row eliminates all social and economic disadvantage.
Sahlberg maintains that teacher education requires high standards and even standardization to produce highly skilled teachers. Once the pipeline is improved, teachers should have a high degree of personal autonomy. He notes that there is no Teach for Finland. All teachers go through a highly selective process and are well educated and prepared for their profession.
All in all, a great post.
Send it to your legislators and leaders.
EduShyster gets great tips!
In this post, she describes a dating service that matches teachers with just the right charter school.
What will they think of next?
Amy Prime teaches second grade in Iowa. She writes frequently about education issues in her state. When the politicians began passing laws to “fix” teaching, Amy decided they should know what teachers want and need.
This is the article she wrote.
Amy is engaged not just in teaching second grade, but in educating the public. This is crucial, as we must build public understanding, demolish the myths about teaching, and allow the public to recognize the realities of education today.
She concludes her article with this message to Governor Branstad:
“The governor’s desire to help support teachers is noble. His administration has acknowledged many times that Iowa has great teachers. So let’s not fix a nonexistent problem and create more hoops for teachers to jump through. Instead let’s provide real assistance. Let’s make sure facilities, materials and technology are current and that support staffers are plentiful. Let’s find ways to provide more time for teachers to prepare for students and find ways to help kids be ready for school. And, most of all, let’s stop sending the message that the dedicated professionals of this state who put their hearts, minds, time and money into the kids of Iowa are somehow failing them.”
A teacher writes to explain how life in the classroom differs from his earlier life in another field:
I worked in industry for 15 years before switching careers and moving into education. I can honestly say I work harder as a teacher than I did in my job in the communications industry.
I do make comparable pay to my previous job now although it has taken 20 years of service to do it. There were some lean years when I started as an educator. I get paid for 9 months of work and it gets spread out over 12 months. I have yet to actually see “3 months” off. I may, if lucky, squeeze about 4-5 weeks off where I’m not responsible for something directly related to teaching or keeping my professional certification so I can keep my job.
That’s what I had in my previous job after 15 years. I could take my vacations when I wanted to then. I can only take my vacations between mid June and mid August now. I had a health plan that I paid into in my previous job that was very similar to the one I have at my current school. I had a retirement account through a large investment company which I paid into and the employer matched it. I was evaluated once per year in my previous job and had the option to join a union but was not required. I signed a contract each year which I had to negotiate with my immediate superior and the corporate lawyers. That was not easy and I got eaten alive on a few occasions by their New York lawyers. I was evaluated by my superior strictly on my performance in my job and how he as a professional in the same field thought I did.
If I had to base my pay and job security on one test given to a group of 7th and 8th graders who knew nothing about how I did my job, I would have left sooner. I watch my students take some of the state mandated tests and cringe when I see them drawing dot to dot puzzles on a scantron or sleeping during a timed portion of the test. That’s supposed to be a fair evaluation of my performance? No parent, no adminstrator, no other teacher will see that student’s indifference because I’m the one proctoring the test and I can’t influence them in my room while they are testing. They will only see the final numbers or the media spin on the scores.
I think we as professional educators can contribute in a positive way to improving our profession and not trying to excuse away the questionable parts. Our product isn’t perfect yet but we continue to improve on it and it will happen if we don’t have to put up with profiteers and politicians trying to cut the legs out from under us. We can’t do it if we have our ability to negotiate take away or if we have to negotiate with people who know nothing about what it is like to be in front of a classroom full of adolescents everyday. We are professionals. We know our craft as well, if not better, than a politician or a boardmember who was given the position. I work in a state where the legislature seems to have a vendetta against educators.
They have their high paid superpack working to help them stay in office and keep all their perks, which I also pay for. While the union I belong to helps me keep my job and some of the benefits, which as a tax payer I also pay for. But according to the politicians I’m over paid, under worked, and don’t deserve any benefits for the sacrifices I make to do my job in a professional manner. Several politicians who fit that description too. I didn’t go into education to get rich and 70K per year is by no means rich, especially compared to some of our elected officials.
The Chicago teachers deserve the terms they have asked for and the respect that should be given to them. In other countries, it is expected that students thank the teacher each day after class for taking the time to teach them. If we instill that value in our students about their teachers instead of publicly demeaning them, just maybe we could fix some of the problems and indifference that seem to be dragging our kids down and keeping us from being viewed as the best educational system in the world.
Angie Sullivan, a kindergarten teacher in Las Vegas, sent the following message to members of the Nevada legislature to mark Teacher Appreciation Day:
It’s been a long, long time since my district has had positive educational leadership.
I watched this short video of Interim Superintendent Skorkowsky – and I wept. Something unusual – to NOT receive abuse and berating – but instead a positive uplifting message. I weep because my heart is breaking for my profession that is being destroyed – and not being replaced with anything of value to kids.
I don’t know when the “witch hunts” for the infamous “bad teacher” started but it’s now become harrassment for everyone.
I don’t know when it became sport to hurt women who teach people to read.
I don’t know when everyone became convinced that testing is teaching and. . . now there is NO MORE teaching. . . only testing.
I don’t know when we started paying “reformers” without research to “fix-it-up-chappie” our schools instead of being willing to pay for retirement for professionals who were dedicated for decades.
I don’t know when it became OK to privatize by charter . . . but not hold charters accountable . . . even though they use tax payer funds.
I don’t know when it became OK to fail an entire city and not recognize significant amounts of poverty and obstacles. Cities full of people, families and kids that did not graduate – most likely because they couldn’t understand English?
I don’t know when the textbook companies and computer software manufacturers took over and decided the nation must be standardized to common core – not because we would all benefit – but most likely to sell more product nationally.
I don’t know when people became convinced that some silly rich people became MORE knowledgeable than trained professionals about my classroom.
I don’t know when politicians started taking money from Students First, TFA, The New Teacher Project, ALEC, and other union busters – to privatize instead of fund our schools.
But I’m grateful to hear from a leader who was a TEACHER first and sounds like he remembers – and knows how important the front line – LABOR – is to public education.
So as you decide to legislate – could you please ask someone in the CLASSROOM their opinion? Please ask my union. Please ask an educational leader. Please encourage the school boards to hire educational professionals – not unionbusting businessmen in disguise. Our problems are significant. I will fight this war as I beg for support. But I’m drowning in impossible mandates in a sea of needy five year olds. So I weep.
But I’m grateful someone powerful thanked me today.
O God, hear the words of my mouth. Let hardened hearts be softened to hear the cries of women who love children – and the children in need.
Angie Sullivan
Joe Bower teaches in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. He blogs at http://www.joebower.org.
He wrote this for us:
DO I SERVE YOU OR ARE YOU TO SUPPORT ME?
As a classroom teacher, I spend the majority of my time working with students while they are still learning, so I have an intense understanding for how important it is for kids to be engaged in learning by doing projects that are in a context and for a purpose.
Without the information (read: observations) that I gather from such projects, I could not call myself a teacher, nor could my students call themselves learners.
But how often is data defined like this?
As a classroom teacher, I have absolutely no use for data that reduces learning to a number for the convenience of administrators, policy makers and others who wish to judge the classroom without ever stepping foot in the classroom.
I will not be an accomplice to those who have needs and have absolutely no intention of ever even meeting my students. A system with authentic accountability would never ask me to do so.
If you are a politician, superintendent, schoolboard trustee, administrator or someone else who rarely visits the classroom, you might be thinking to yourself: “I need spread-sheet friendly data to report the successes, failures and growth of the schools.”
To you I say: “As a classroom teacher, am I here to serve your needs for your spreadsheet, or are you here to support me so that I may better serve my students’ needs
Mark NAISON is a professor of African-American Studies and history at Fordham University. He writes:
Thoughts on the Destruction of the Teaching Profession and Other Losses
As I watch the teaching profession be destroyed before my eyes, through bi-partisan initiatives that are difficult to fight, and through the march of technology that some view as irreversible, I am filled with anger. This after all is my life they are rendering obsolete, something that has been a source of pride and excitement for me for nearly 50 years since I first started teaching tennis at Camp Kitatinny in Dingmans Falls NJ in the summer of 1963 at age 17. The kind of freedom I experienced in teaching high school students in Upward Bound programs in the late 60′s and early 70′s and in teaching college students and graduate students at Fordham since 1970, is gradually simultaneously being crushed by “outcomes assessment” and scripted learning, and the replacement of tenured positions like mine with low paid adjuncts who have no job security. And what I am experiencing in universities is magnified tenfold in the nation’s public schools where surveillance, supervision and assessment have truly reached Orwellian proportions, and where teachers are browbeaten into squeezing all joy out of innocent children as they force march them into passing high stakes tests.
I hate what is going on, and will fight it with every ounce of my energy, but as a historian, I am hardly surprised to see something of value be destroyed both by the impersonal evolution of the economy and by conscious choices of policy makers. After all, I watched the Bronx burn before my eyes in the early 70′s as I took the 3rd Avenue El to Fordham in the early 70′s, and watched it burn some more when the El came down at I started taking the number 4 train up Jerome Avenue. These fires weren’t abstract to me. They destroyed neighborhoods where I fell in love, played ball, celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas, and hung out and heard music in bars and clubs. Watching this, I felt like something precious in my memory was being desecrated, or better yet, like a limb was being violently torn from my body yet I was helpless to stop it. I joined with organizations which kept the fires from spreading to the Northern parts of the borough and began rebuilding slowly rebuilding devastated areas, but when the smoke cleared, buildings which once held 300,000 people had turned to ashes
Then, ten years later, I watched cities in America’s great industrial heartland be crushed by factory closings that not only destroyed millions of jobs that paid enough to support a family, but crushed the dreams of people whose labor had helped make the US the most prosperous, and one of the most equal nations in the advanced world, leaving huge sections of once vibrant cities looking as though they had suffered aerial bombardment. As I walked through devastated sections of Detroit, Buffalo, Youngstown, Baltimore and Bridgeport, and saw factories which once employed tens of thousands of people be knocked down, I thought of the what those communities had once been during WWII and the 50′s, and felt tears come into my eyes for what had been lost. once again I could do nothing.
Given these experiences, it would not surprise me for the Education Reformers to have their way and make creative teaching impossible in most American public schools. I will fight them, but I am not sure my efforts will make that much of a difference
But I will say this. I cannot and will not forgive those who profit from the destruction of other people’s livelihoods, institutions and dreams. I reserve the right to resist, along with the right of memory and of moral judgment . And I will never give those up, if only out of respect for those who lives have been crushed by “impersonal” forces which they experienced in the most personal terms.
May 11, 2013
A few days go, Professor Ira Shor posted a comment and asked if Mercedes Schneider would analyze the poll showing that 75% of AFT teachers support the Common Core standards. Mercedes Schneider saw his request in the comments section and posted her analysis. Schneider is a high school teacher in Louisiana with a doctorate in statistics and research methods.
Hart Research Associates, which conducted the poll, did not agree with Schneider. The Hart firm is a highly respected polling organization. I invited them to respond to Scneider’s review of their work, and they agreed to do so.
Their response begins here:
TO: American Federation of Teachers
FROM: Guy Molyneux, Hart Research Associates DATE: May 10, 2013
RE: Methodology for Common Core Survey
Following are some facts about the methodology for AFT’s recent survey of AFT K-12 teachers on Common Core implementation that may help to answer the criticisms and questions raised by Mercedes Schneider.
Schneider’s objections speak to two distinct questions: 1) does the survey reflect the views of AFT K-12 teachers?, and 2) if so, can the AFT results be extrapolated to all U.S. teachers? The answer to the first question is “yes,” for reasons explained below. The answer to the second question is “not necessarily.” When Randi Weingarten refers to what “teachers” think about the Common Core, she is referring to AFT teachers. This shorthand is not meant to deceive anyone; if it were, the press release and various poll materials would not have stated so clearly and repeatedly that the survey was conducted only among AFT members. (Indeed, even the quote highlighted by Schneider mentions “a recent poll of AFT members.”)
In fact, it is likely that a survey of all U.S. teachers would report results broadly similar to what we found among AFT members, for reasons explained below. However, it is true that we cannot be sure of this unless further research is done among non-AFT teachers. Such research would be welcome.
The survey employed a standard sampling methodology, used in countless surveys by many polling organizations. On behalf of AFT, Hart Research Associates conducted a telephone survey of 800 AFT K-12 teachers from March 27 to 30, 2013. Respondents were selected randomly from AFT membership lists. This process of random selection produces a representative sample, allowing us to generalize from the survey respondents to the larger population being sampled (in this case, all AFT teachers). There is nothing unusual or controversial about this method.
A sample size of 800 teachers is appropriate and common. Schneider notes that “AFT/Hart only surveyed nine one-hundredths of a percent of the AFT membership (.09%),” and adds for emphasis: “Please don’t miss this. AFT did not survey even 10% of its membership before forming an opinion of teacher acceptance of CCSS.” In fact, a survey sample size of 800 is reasonable and quite common: for example, most national media surveys interview between 800 and 1,000 registered voters. Moreover, researchers understand that survey samples are not properly evaluated as a percentage of the underlying population. By randomly selecting respondents, a relatively small sample can provide an accurate measurement on a much larger population. If Schneider’s 10% standard were correct, pollsters would need to interview 20 million U.S. voters to conduct a single survey of registered voters. Needless to say, not many surveys would be conducted.
1724 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 202-234-5570 http://www.hartresearch.com
