Archives for category: Teachers and Teaching

A reader sent this comment in response to the moving post by another teacher:

Thank you Diane. Your blog gives me hope.

As a student, I often had to read books I was assigned. Most of them I disliked but one high school English teacher require my class to read Viktor Frankl’s, “Man’s Search For Meaning”. This book moved me greatly. The author, a survivor of four concentration camps, describes his experiences in honest detail.

Whenever I have experienced the effects of oppressive authority, I find a connection to the contents of this book.

Here’s is a compelling excerpt:

“One evening, when we were already resting on the floor of our hut, dead tired, soup bowls in hand, a fellow prisoner rushed in and asked us to run out to the assembly grounds and see the wonderful sunset. Standing outside we saw sinister clouds glowing in the west and the whole sky alive with clouds of ever-changing shapes and colors, from steel blue to blood red. The desolate grey mud huts provided a sharp contrast, while the puddles on the muddy ground reflected the glowing sky. Then, after minutes of moving silence, one prisoner said to another, “How beautiful the world could be…”

Thank you to you and those who comment on this blog for giving us reform weary teachers a glimpse of “how beautiful teaching could be …”

A reader sent the following comment:

For the past twelve years I have been a pre-k teacher in a public urban inner city school.  I also owned a business for twenty-five years.   I attended a public elementary school and a private high school.  I attended public, private, and online universities.

I know the difference between public good and free market. 

When I returned to teaching twelve years ago things were just starting to change.  In my district a lot of early childhood supervisors who knew a lot about early childhood retired and/or moved to other states.  The staff developer in my building told me they had seen the handwriting on the wall and were getting out while they still could.  Truthfully, I did not understand her comments.  Pre-K had been separate from the rest of the NYC DOE and I couldn’t imagine that it would change.  Teachers were supported and encouraged to use solid, child development research in creating the best atmosphere for our students.  My staff developer said, “Wait.  When they get through mucking everything else up, they will focus on pre-k.” To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention because I was free to create my own curriculum based on my children’s needs. I wasn’t worried about performance tasks and rubrics.  My students thrived. 

I did notice that in Kindergarten and other grades teachers and students were being asked to do things that, to me, didn’t make sense but it didn’t impact on me, so I more or less ignored it.  I figured I would be exempt.

Teachers would complain during lunch but since I was not immediately involved, I didn’t comment.  At first I thought they were just complaining.  Then I noticed some of the work that was being produced on their bulletin boards.  The work didn’t seem to fit what I knew were developmentally appropriate activities. 

My parents started asking for homework notebooks.  At first, my principal defended my position of no homework notebooks and encouraged family projects.  A year or two later, my principal asked if I could use a homework notebook and request projects.  That seemed reasonable so I complied.  The next year my principal asked if I could do a few worksheets just to make the parents happy.  I resisted but in the end acquiesced.

It was such a slow process that I didn’t immediately realize what was happening.  Looking back I think I was the frog in the pot of water on the stove.  If the water is boiling, the frog jumps out.  But if the water is cold and increases in temperature, the frog gets cooked.  That was me; a cooked frog.

At the same time, the Mayor decided to eliminate the Universal Pre-K umbrella that had more or less protected us from the whims of curriculum changes over the years.  Suddenly my principal had complete control.  Now I was expected to have my students reading and writing legibly by the end of the year.  My principal said my students didn’t need to nap.  It took away from academic rigor.  The fact that some of my students fell over on the carpet after lunch was ignored.  I was to wake them so they could learn.

By accident I read “The Death and Life of the Great American School  System”. I didn’t read it because I was trying to raise my voice against the system.  I had read “The Language Police” and wanted to read more about what Diane Ravitch had to say.  For me, much of what is in the book is my history.  As I read, I remembered living through much of those times.  I just didn’t realize back then that it was a carefully planned attack by people with money and power to manipulate the system for their own agenda.  Clearly, this assault on teachers and education had been going on for quite a while.

I remembered back when Sputnik went up and the battle cry was more math and more science.  How are we going to beat the Russians?  I made my mother go to a PTA meeting against her will where she spoke up for more classes in ethics and civics and fewer classes in math and science because she felt that if people couldn’t be human to each other, all the knowledge in the world wouldn’t help.  She was asked to leave the meeting and not bother to return anytime soon.

I started thinking about how my classroom had changed and how I had been slowly brought around to doing educational practices which were against what I knew to be wrong but did them anyway to keep peace and my job.  I still didn’t fully understand the big picture. 

Then I started speaking up and colleagues would just look at me and tell me it was just a small thing I shouldn’t make waves.  I read the papers.  No one was speaking out.  The dominant media had fallen in love with charter schools and public education was under fire.  I followed the stories.  At first an article spoke about how charter schools were the answer to schools that were failing.  I didn’t know any failing schools but figured there must be some and thought the charter schools might take on special needs students for whom a public school was not working.  As time passed I read more articles about how unions protect teachers against bad teaching and if only there were no unions principals could fire all the bad teachers and we would have wonderful schools.  I never saw an article opposing that reasoning.  I knew there were some teachers in my school who were not as knowledgeable as other teachers but in every profession there are some who excel and some who are just adequate and some who should find another career.  But no one talked about that.  The news stories featured only teachers.  Then the articles got bolder.  In some newspapers it seemed that reporters were given assignments to find dirt on a public school teacher and make it a front page headline.  Politicians sensing there was power and money to be made jumped on the bandwagon and reassured the public that they would do everything in their power to root out bad teachers so their children would soar academically. There was no more hiding their agenda.  It was out in the open.  Shakespeare was being rewritten to “Let’s kill all the teachers.”

I noticed after quite a while; sometimes I process things slower than most, that all the vitriolic rhetoric towards teachers was aimed at schools and teachers in low income communities.  Schools in affluent areas didn’t seem to be affected at all.  It didn’t make sense.  There must be ineffective teachers everywhere; why just in poverty pockets?

Then it dawned on me; those areas were easy targets.  Parents everywhere want the best for their children.  Poverty, crime, sometimes inadequate nutrition, family issues were not in play.  It was the teachers to blame for their child’s poor performance in school.  The politicians were going to save their children.  It was a slick marketing campaign and it worked. 

By then my voice was just a whisper against the massive voice that had been created.  I was very depressed. It saddened me because I love teaching and I want the best for my students and I see how the reformers are looking at them as OPC (other people’s children) and creating curricular that is damaging many of them to the point that they will simply drop out of school when they can rather than face continued frustration and failure. 

Then I remembered.  When we liberated the death camps after WW2, everyone said “how come no one knew?” People knew but the dominant voice made it dangerous to speak out.  Many who challenged the politicians  disappeared.  After Joe McCarthy was dethroned, people asked, “how did we let this happen?”  There were voices but again the dominant voice made it dangerous.  Those that spoke out often lost their jobs and careers were destroyed.  They sent a clear message to those who would challenge the agenda of the day.  Be quiet or risk your career.   

I hope that when this dreadful period of time in American history comes to an end it has not destroyed one of the pillars of democracy; that of a free and public education.  

In the end, historians and social psychologists will study this era for many years just as they study Nazi Germany and Joe McCarthy to try and understand how it happened.

It seems to be in our nature not to learn from history.

However, I have not given up hope.  My daughter, whom I had been asking for years to read your book (she is also a teacher) read it this summer and said, “WOW”  If she has finally found her voice, there will be others to follow.  When it’s all over people will say they knew nothing about it and how could it have happened.  Some will say, “Never Again”.

Carol Corbett Burris posted a critique of the Relay Graduate School of Education here. Robert Pondiscio questioned Burris’ metaphor about “lighting a fire” rather than “filling a pail,” on the assumption that she does not care about the content of the curriculum.

My view: Curriculum matters; resources matter; poverty matters; and teachers should be free to use the teaching style that works best for them. And I still doubt the validity of a “graduate school of education” that has no scholars on its faculty and no curriculum other than data analysis and classroom management.

Burris responds here to Pondiscio, followed by Pondiscio’s response to Burris:

If Robert is a believer in enriched and challenging curriculum, he will find a great friend in me. This year every 11th grader in my school with the exception of the severely disabled who need life skills training, took IB English….our special Ed students, Black students, Latino students and White students (we are 22% minority). The 16% who receive free and reduced price lunch with the majority who do not, sat side by side, without tracking, to study the rigorous curriculum of the IB. At the end of the year they tool the Regents. All but one (an ELL special education student) passed. 77% reached mastery.
In our IB English classes, No fingers wiggled, no responses were cut off. The conversation focused on analytical questions and challenging literature. I watched many videos on the Relay site and others on Doug Lemovs site. If a teacher used that regimented drill style in my school, they would be asked to leave. If they did a demo lesson like the one on the site, they would not get a job. The idea that the ‘urban’ (which is a polite code for Black and poor) child cannot thrive with respectful instruction that includes thank yous, think time and open ended questions horrifies me. Every prospective teacher deserves an enriched teacher preparation program that exposes them to a variety of teaching styles.

 

This is from Robert Pondiscio:

Good morning, Diane. Thank you so very much for your warm words and the civil tone of disagreement on your post. It is deeply appreciated. Diana Senechal’s series of responses in this thread cover much of what I would have liked to say, particularly her observation, “Carol Burris conflates two issues, and that’s the problem with her piece. She equates the RGSE pedagogical style with the principle of filling a student’s head with knowledge.”My object was principally to dismiss the false dichotomy between knowledge and skills (the fire/pail homily that I abhor). I thought I was quite clear in noting that “dichotomies don’t get more false than between knowledge and thinking.”Thus my purpose was less a defense of RELAY, that a defending knowledge against those who see it as arbitrary, insignificant, or otherwise fail to grasp its fundamental role in reading comprehension, critical thinking, communication and all the outcomes we prize so highly. That said, I do see value in many of the techniques championed by RELAY, especially for new teachers who struggle first and foremost with classroom management. But make no mistake, there is a lot of daylight between “I see value in this” and “I want everyone to do this and nothing else.” I have often quipped about what I call Pondiscio’s First Law of Education, which holds “there is no good idea in education that doesn’t become a bad idea the moment in hardens into orthodoxy.” This is to say I don’t believe in a single correct approach. I believe good teachers vary their approaches based on the kids, the subject, and lots of other factors.

For Carol Burris, I am indeed, as Diane knows, a believer in enriched and challenging curriculum, and I’m earnestly delighted that I will find a great friend in you. I’m a Long Island native and live probably 30 minutes from your school. May I come for a visit this fall? There are lots of paths to good outcomes. I look forward to learning about yours. Email me at rpondiscio@aol.com

Lastly, I’m sorry (but, alas, not surprised) to read the standard litany of complaints about Don Hirsch and Core Knowledge. Not long ago, Dan Willingham, the brilliant cognitive scientist out of UVA, described Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy as “the most misunderstood education book of the last half century.” I share that view. I would strongly recommend viewing Dan’s YouTube video, “Teaching Content is Teaching Reading (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc), which isn’t about Hirsch or Core Knowledge, but the cognitive principles underlying why knowledge and vocabulary are essential to comprehension. Seen through this lens, it should be clear that Hirsch’s work is not now and never has been an attempt to impose a canon. It’s an attempt to *report on* a canon–or more accurately, the background knowledge that speakers and writers take for granted their listeners and readers know.

As an educator that, in the end, is the alpha and omega of my agenda: to make sure that kids like my former South Bronx 5th graders have access to the knowledge and vocabulary that their more privileged peers have, and which is the engine of language proficiency. I may have some ideas about the best way to achieve that and you may have yours, and that’s fine. Those are honorable differences. What I can’t abide (and this is why the lighting of the pail vs. kindling of a fire metaphor so badly irritates me) is any suggestion that we must choose between knowledge and skills, or that knowledge is somehow the enemy of engagement.

Knowledge is the kindling that feeds the fire.

Susan Ohanian reports what she describes as possibly the best lesson ever.

Read it for the sheer pleasure of watching a master teacher inspire his students.

Hey, Mike Petrilli and Robert Pondiscio, this is great teaching, great curriculum, and great student engagement.

The teacher is not snapping his fingers, the students are not waving their fingers, and no one is expected to do that SLANT thing about total attention. The teacher has authority because he is teaching a great lesson.

A reader comments with hard-won knowledge. I would summarize it as being prepared with a variety of approaches and strategies and knowing when to apply the one that is right for the situation. No single approach is right for all.

Diane, I’m an inner city teacher with 14 years of experience.The guiding principle I see for teachers’ practice is to create a teaching style that plays to one’s own strengths as a person and a member of the educational community. I believe that a great diversity in approaches creates a healthy learning experience for all.But this also means that there is a place for the driven disciplinarian.Despite the poorly thought out tone of the excerpt you shared, there is a need for something of an assertive no-nonsense approach to teaching, especially in the most challenging environments. I’m talking about environments with no functioning discipline in the hallways or in administrator’s offices. In some inner city schools, the teacher is truly on their own.

Beneath the Chuck Norris tone, I see the practice of clarity of directions and expectations, immediate and appropriate disciplinary feedback, a commitment by the teacher to infuse the classroom with drive and energy… these are all desirable.

I love my students in that special way that is unique to teachers. Part of how I bring that to my classroom is a willingness to “be the bad guy.”

But this is only an *approach* to teaching. The goal should be the same as that of a teacher who prefers to only catch flies with honey.

They may have a different approach, but the diversity of approaches can– in a well run and supportive school– all be successfully aimed at the same goal.

That teacher must temper their friendliness and fun-loving environment with a willingness to develop a tougher side to balance this. The reverse is also true.

The same applies to the curriculum. Teach your strengths, but make a conscious effort to supplement what you provide the students with areas where you’re not so strong.

This is what kills me about lockstep teaching. The very best of what the most skilled teachers have to offer will be dulled– irrevocably diminishing what it means to be an educated person in our nation.

In response to a post asking why politicians are scapegoating teachers, I received this inspiring comment from a teacher in Louisiana:

Teacher bashing is an integral part of the reform movement. It’s almost as if these republican governors were coached or told that this was the plan. Here in Louisiana it was as if the teacher bashing began almost as soon as Jindal was elected and made education reform his focus. Teachers are the only people in the school beurocracies that have a direct contact and influence on the students. Why disenfranchise this group? Why tear them down instead of build them up? I’m no businessman, but if your employees are constantly looking over their shoulder, in constant fear, it can not help productivity. Even if these reformers are correct that schools should be run as businesses, well, this is a terrible way to run a business.As an aside, I find it telling that he decided to ruin public education during his final term in office and just in time to position himself as a possible VP.It’s tough, I know, but we’ve got to keep our chins up, remain proud, and focus. Ignore the “adults” and focus on the kids. They still love and respect us. They are great judges of character. I’m not saying be silent or not to concern ourselves with these outside influences that effect us, but when I close the door to my classroom, I am in my element. It’s still where I belong. It’s my happy place. Teacher bashes throw out terms like lazy, entitled, union thuggery, but all that gets drowned out in my noisy classroom (yes, my class is noisy, learning is not silent). I still can’t wait for the school year to start. No, I’m not a wide eyed optimist, I’m not a green teacher (10th year of service), I love my job, bust my tail doing it and dare anyone that knows me or sees me teach or had me as a student tell me I’m lazy or entitled. Those that say those things just don’t know. They’ve obviously never tried to teach. Their comments prove their ignorance, not my incompetence.

Ms. Ravitch, thank you for fighting for the children. To those that are ignorant it may seem as though you are fighting for teachers, and yes that may have truth to it, but I sense that you really want what’s best for children. What is best for the teachers often goes hand in hand with what’s best for the student. I believe this is where unions and teacher advocates dropped the ball. Here in Louisiana, teacher groups complained about the loss of tenure and how it effects teachers, but no one said how it effects students. Pick nearly any issue and it was us against them with little to no mention on the effects it has on kids.

As I said in an earlier post, I am not sure if the teaching techniques and curriculum should be tailored to urban students, whether this is a form of racism or sensitivity. I’m listening and learning from teachers who know far more than I do. I worry about the danger of segregated schools and segregated learning styles. But I have heard the horror stories for years about teachers who couldn’t control their classrooms and about disruptive students and students who insult the teacher and think they are heroes for doing so. Back in the 1950s, the disorderly kids were white (think “Blackboard Jungle”). Now they are more likely to be kids of color. Affluence tends to bring decorum in its wings, regardless of race or gender or other factors. One seldom hears of unruly students at Choate or Exeter.

This teacher wants to set the record straight about the differences teaching in different communities:

Diane said: “I understand the importance of classroom management. So does every teacher. The question though is whether a militaristic approach is appropriate or necessary, and whether children who are poor and minority “need” an approach that is militaristic. I don’t know the answer. I worry about having one kind of school for poor black kids and another kind of school for white suburban kids. Should schools for the former be boot camps and schools for the latter be rich with the arts and inspiration? That’s why I am interested in the responses of experienced teachers.”It is more complicated than that.

I teach in Bridgeport CT– one of the epicenters of the failing schools/ ethnic and economic minorities/ privatization efforts. One issue in largely minority schools taught by mostly white teachers who come from out of town (as in many Connecticut urban schools) is that teachers unconsciously permit and expect worse behavior, lesser efforts and lower achievement because that is their expectation of inner city youth.

What I saw as a teacher in New York was different– most teachers went to those schools, even if they now commute in from Long Island. No matter the divide of race, the teacher tended to believe that the students could achieve, just as they did when they were in the NYC schools.

This is not so in smaller cities whose minority residents are so culturally divided from the educated teaching corps who come in to the city to teach.

My solution to this as a teacher has been to be a little bit like the teacher described in your excerpt. But strictness MUST be applied with deep respect and understanding of the students. Content mastery, enthusiasm, respect for dignity, and positivity are essential, but I do not think that teachers’ decades-long slide from a position of respect and authority in the classroom has been a good thing for our nation’s schools.

As an historian of education, you must be aware of this change– I see it as the pendulum swinging too far away from authority (which has definitely been abused by teachers in the past, and still is by some) towards — I can’t find a word for it– lassitude and helplessness.

The ideas of community in the classroom and mutual respect developed in the second half of the 20th century can also be taken too far. The answer is in the middle. Authority tempered with real respect for students. Decisiveness with a willingness to hear other opinions and change one’s mind or admit mistakes.

I must teach differently in Bridgeport than I would in Greenwich or in the Upper East Side private school where I began my career. The social complexities involved in ensuring that this is done with fairness and sensitivity are staggering.

The fact remains, though, that there are these differences. When privatization takes greater hold and experienced teachers are eliminated or chased away from inner cities, many things will be lost.

One of these things is the ability to strike a balance between A.) tailoring the educational experience to the demographics of your classroom and B.) ensuring that this educational experience is on par with schools that serve the most advantaged youths of our nation.

Some classrooms have students that need to be brought from Point M to Point Z. Some classrooms and school systems have more students that need to be brought from Point A to point Z.

Is it institutionalized racism to do this? Sometimes it can be. Sometimes it is racist to NOT do so.

I can see nothing that could prepare a teacher to find this balance but some years of trial and error, successes and mistakes. And hopefully a few “been there for 35 years” teachers to get advice from– ha, even sometimes .f it is to see how it used to be done and what can use improvement.

Homogenizing classroom management, instruction, and curriculum is akin to “trickle down education.” My concern is that cookie cutter Common Core standards and Online Instruction are nothing more than “cake” from Marie Antoinette. There are social strata in our country, and I believe it takes a human touch and some autonomy to best address these issues.

Stand for Children has moved its campaign for privatization and against experienced teachers  to Massachusetts. Stand’s politically savvy, well-connected, and well-funded leader Jonah Edelman threatened an anti-teacher ballot initiative unless the unions negotiated away their seniority and tenure.

Governor Deval Patrick agreed with Stand for Children that teacher evaluation (based to some extent on standardized test scores of students, which is a wholly unproven measure of teacher quality) will outweigh experience.

Stand for Children believes that experience is unnecessary in teaching. Like Michelle Rhee’s Students First, Stand for Children holds that inexperienced teachers are just as good if not better than experienced teachers. Stand threatened a ballot initiative, backed by millions of dollars in spending, to destroy teachers’ seniority and tenure. The Massachusetts Teachers Association could not match the spending of the hedge fund managers who want to destroy teacher unionism and it capitulated.

Let’s be clear: Stand for Children and its kind want to put an end not only to teachers’  unions but to the teaching profession. They want teachers to be evaluated by test scores, despite the overwhelming evidence that doing so will promote teaching to standardized tests and narrowing the curriculum, as well as cheating and gaming the system.

An underfunded group called Citizens for Public Schools tried to rally support for teachers and opposition to Edelman’s scheme. Former members of Stand for Children signed a petition against its campaign.

Since Massachusetts leads the nation on the no-stakes federal tests called the National Assessment of Educational Progress, it seems difficult to understand how Stand for Children was able to mount a campaign against the state’s teachers. But the national atmosphere is so poisonous towards teachers, that Stand must have latched onto the sentiment generated by the odious movie “Waiting for ‘Superman'” and the public relations machine of those out to belittle teachers while pretending to care about teacher quality.

This Massachusetts teacher blogger will give  you some idea of what teachers think about Stand’s campaign.

At some point in the hopefully not distant future, the “reformers” who are working so hard to remove all job protections from teachers will be held accountable for their actions. When that day arrives, they will be ashamed of what they have done to rob our children and our schools of the experienced teachers they need.

Diane

Responding to a third-grade teacher who despaired of complying with all the demands pressing on her, this reader asks the best question of all: why is this hard-working, dedicated, conscientious teacher compelled to satisfy Bill and Melinda Gates? Frankly, the same question occurred to me but this reader asked it better than I.

How did the world become so topsy-turvy that these two individuals have become the arbiters of good teaching when neither of them was ever a teacher?

Granted, they are extremely rich. But I’m willing to bet that neither would last a day in any third-grade classroom. Who put them in charge of the teaching profession? How did they get the power to decide who is and is not an effective teacher? What is the source of their presumed expertise? Why should  every teacher in the land feel that they must please Bill and Melinda?

The question of the day, then, is this:

A very interesting, long article in the Washington Post demonstrates how hard it is to determine whether a teacher “deserves” to be fired and raises important questions about teacher tenure.

I often point out that tenure in K-12 education is different from tenure in higher education. In higher education, a tenured professor has a job for life, unless he or she commits a felony or does something else that is truly heinous. By contrast, a teacher in K-12 with tenure has a guarantee of due process if the principal wants to fire him or her.

Critics say that due process–the right to see the evidence, to confront one’s accusers, and to have the case heard by an impartial hearing officer–is too burdensome and costly. It takes too long, and principals will leave a “bad” teacher in place rather than go through the trouble of gathering evidence to persuade an impartial arbitrator.

From the teacher’s perspective, the right to due process is precious. It means that they will be protected against a vindictive principal and will be protected against pedagogical fashion or community pressure to conform. With the recent proliferation of newly minted principals who have little or no teaching experience, teachers may feel an even greater need for protection. Experienced teachers, in particular, may resent the demands of the novice principal, who not only wants higher test scores, but looks at the veteran teacher as a drain on the school’s shrinking budget, as someone who might be replaced by two young teachers.

Think of the convergence of these three trends: One, lots of brand-new principals who are under pressure to raise scores to prove their worth; two, shrinking budgets; three, the spread of a concept called “fair student funding,” or “weighted student funding,” where each school’s budget is tied to the students in the school and the principal is given “autonomy” to make the most of a shrinking budget for the school. In these circumstances, the veteran teacher is viewed as too expensive rather than as a valued professional.

I cannot say whether this context shaped the trial of Fairfax teacher Violet Nichols. What does seem clear is that Nichols was out of step with the pedagogical ideas of her principal. The principal said her methods were obsolete. Nichols responded with evidence to the contrary. Was her dismissal in any way related to her role in the local teachers’ association? Virginia is hardly a state that coddles teachers’ unions or that gives strong tenure guarantees to teachers.

Does the trial prove that “bad” teachers have too much protection and can never be fired (the test scores of Nichols’ students were similar to those of other teachers in her building)? Does it prove that principals should have the power to fire teachers for any reason or no reason at all? Or does it show that teachers need a modicum of insulation from the pedagogical winds of the day?

What do you think?

Diane