Umbrella of professionals

In class my professor recently discussed many of the professional development issues for teachers. One issue was the idea that teachers lack a group of professionals considered the best of the field from which others can draw ideas. Many other industries have this. Good medical professionals are known in their field, top business leaders often become executives, and top political figures often give seminars and produce publications. Teaching lacks this structure particularly because professionals are often moving in or out of the field and even those that are in have no promotion to look forward to. Supposedly good teachers may have the option to become administrators, but then they have entirely different job responsibilities which move them away from the children. As my professor pointed out, when a teacher needs to defend a lesson-plan they often can only say “relying on my best judgment, this should work” instead teachers should be able to say “top professionals in my field say this will work.” It would benefit society if good teachers could be promoted in a way that they could dispense their technique and ideas to others.

Similarly, this lead my thoughts towards the flat career structure in teaching. I have often thought I will be in teaching for the rest of my life. It can be disappointing to think that on day one I will begin with a class and on the final day, many years later, I will be doing much the same as I did in the beginning. Yes my approach will be more effective, but I’m still working in a classroom only affecting those children around me. It would be great if teaching had a career ladder not reliant defiantly on seniority. We need to recognize free market economies illustrate the benefit of competition. The outdated approach for finding good teachers is reliant on the false premise that more training and education for teachers is the answer. Teachers earn more money the more schooling they attend. It would be better if the career accepted everyone with the desire to teach, and only kept those most effective. Don’t ask for more credentials and training, take a large pool of potentials and keep only those that can perform. Give pay-raises to those teachers most effective in the classroom.

The difficulty is figuring out how to determine what constitutes an effective or great teacher. Test scores are not the answer. Tests do not reflect the complexity of learning and teaching. Perhaps the answer is measuring the growth of the student. How do other industries determine who is the best, who is worth giving pay raises to? I don’t want to go down this road. It is tempting to discuss inadequacies of pay, but let’s look towards what is important- the effectiveness of teachers.

Teaching is not a passive pursuit. It is a career requiring growth and dedication to your craft. This is important because teachers are meant to prepare children for the world, of which it is ever changing. Perhaps one response is to create an interdisciplinary approach to education.

Interdisciplinary education is one way to target different learning styles and potentially increase excitement towards school. An article I read recently by Simpson (1999) Interdisciplinary and interthematic curriculum designs discussed several types of interdisciplinary approaches. I found the distinction made between content correlation, content fusion, and student driven core curriculum. Content correlation basically means English, math, history, etc teach the same topic on a given day or week. Content fusion means these subjects focus on teaching the same goals. Student driven core curriculum means developing shared content and goals and working together to achieve them.

It seems almost commonsensical that children would learn best if they are covering similar topics in each of their classes. Children would be approaching learning from multiple angles, probably developing a holistic view. On the contrary an argument can be made for the importance of math, English, etc on their own, and that different subjects may suffer from interdisciplinary approaches. However, school is not about the subject. School is about the child/student. If a particular approach promotes knowledge more than another, it needs to be implemented even if some feel it takes power away from a particular subject. It is important to note that basic skills in all subjects would still be developed.

Caring and belonging

First to implant a thought- When children feel they belong and the educator cares about them, learning is facilitated.

Now the explanation-
The concept of ‘belonging’ permeates many of my readings. Merriam-Webster defines belonging as- “close or intimate relationship.” Also Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines to belong as- “to have a proper, appropriate, or suitable place. To be naturally associated with something. To fit into a group naturally.” In education, this relationship may take several levels- with peers, with teachers, with administrators, with the student body, and with the overall school environment. I’m using school environment in this context as the ethos of the institution. Interestingly, the articles I’ve read discussing belonging have wrongfully omitted this final level. Consider the impact a school’s reputation can have on the students. In a horrible scenario let’s consider a school is known to be racist and considered a ‘white school.’ I doubt many would feel they belong at such an institution. Now consider a school known as ‘troubled’ or ‘low-performing.’ Likely not all students may feel they belong. I’ve only considered different labels schools can carry, what about the building layout? Structuring a school to look like a prison can impede developing belonging. In contrast, structuring a school like a comfortable college may serve to facilitate.

As for my readings, they document the importance of the sense of belonging to peer and teacher relationships. Middle school students seem to share a common belief that having a place to sit at lunch is reflective of whether a child belongs. In fact, they appear to attach a substantial amount of concern.

Similarly, my readings provide evidence that children learn better when they perceive their teacher cares about them. This seems commonsensical for me. With a study of sixth and seventh graders, I found it interesting they associated poor grades with the teacher not caring about them. It seems for a student, the grade may be seen as a reflection of student effort and teacher effort. A teacher would likely argue the grade is only a reflection of student effort.

Currently I am taking a film class that interestingly has me reconsidering the way schools are run. In my class we examine the complexity films need to appeal to the target audience. Think of films as having fast, progressive story lines. In the theater, a viewer has no opportunity to rewind the film to look for details they may have missed. Filmmakers know this and rely on complex techniques when filming. If teachers had similar resources perhaps the lessons would be improved. Students aren’t passive observes of a teacher’s lesson plan. The students bring with them schemata they will use to interpret the classroom, much the same they do for film. If students are excited to learn and are excited to be in school, they may bring positive schemata that will enhance the classroom.

This leads me to another idea. In whatever way teachers address the different levels of learning, whether slow, average, or fast learners, teachers need to consider having all students feel that they belong and that the teacher cares. Debate exists over the pitfalls and benefits of tracking, but whichever strategy schools employ they should not stigmatize any child. In the business world, Google has the motto- do no evil. Schools (in fact everyone) should have this motto. From my reading, Teaching to Change the World 3rd Ed by Oakes and Lipton they document Rockville Centre School District on Long Island, New York (p. 321). I found it amazing the school district found that placing mixed-ability groups in classes originally for high achievers, produced positive results. More remarkably, as Oakes and Lipton document, eventually 30 percent of the graduating class also earned the International Baccalaureate diploma. Reflecting on my own education in a suburban middle-class school, I didn’t hear about the IB program until after I graduated.

I wrap up this week reexamining my perception of classrooms. I have determined classrooms need community and a sense of belonging and caring. Lots of time is requested of teachers. Perhaps the students learn best if they take responsibility of the classroom time. Perhaps teachers should be viewed more as facilitators and advisors, less as dictators and gatekeepers.

April 15, 2009: Reflection Post 2

This week one of my readings discussed inequalities of schools. The article, Other People’s Children: North Lawndale and the South Side of Chicago by Kozol sparked my interest. In my review, I will not look at all the ideas presented, but rather at a few main questions. These include: what is the history of public schools, how public school is funded, what is the drawback to this type of funding, are there benefits, does funding need to be fixed/altered, what should public schools look like in five years.

First, it is important to look historically at the establishment of schools in the United States. Schools weren’t designed to be the romanticized building where learning and growth occurs. The history is rather bleak. United States schools seemed almost an afterthought early on. Children were needed on the farms and at home to help their families. Schools were forced to design schedules in a way to facilitate this. Similarly, the teaching role was somewhat passive. Teachers were not meant to design curriculums but rather be a ‘talking head’ for the professionals running the programs. The classroom was set up with the expectation children would sit, read, write, and regurgitate what is being passed to them.

However, schooling progressed. During the early 19th century high levels of immigrants were moving to the United States. Officials found schools could be used as assimilation structures for the children. The children were a captive audience forced to recite national pride propaganda (e.g. the pledge of allegiance). The progression of schools continued throughout history. To borrow an example from my Professor, the pendulum of schooling would swing back and forth between preparing children for jobs or developing their minds and bodies. I want to identify United States schools were established by white Anglo-Saxon males, and as such this was the group best served.

Second, how are public schools funded? Schools have largely remained the responsibility of states and local communities. The federal government hadn’t taken much involvement until the mid 1900s with the establishment of the Department of Education. Today, most school funding comes from local property taxes and local levies. However, a small portion may come from the federal government for schools in need.

This leads me to my third question, what are the drawbacks to this type of funding. As pointed out in the article, schools in low-income communities are more likely to have less financial resources. Lower property values equal lower tax revenue which equals lower funding. However, I found it interesting as the article points out parents in low-income areas are more likely to raise taxes on themselves to fund schooling than parents in higher-income areas. I suppose one argument for not raising taxes is that it is a perpetual cycle. Every year schools seem to need more money, at which point should taxes stop being raised? Taking a teacher perspective for a moment, should funding go to paying teachers’ salaries or equipment and resources for the classroom?

When thinking about funding, I find it important to acknowledge the shifting role of teachers. Teachers are no longer passive instruments dispensing knowledge. Communities demand teachers to create lesson plans and be actively engaged in the lives of their children. There are few other professions that demand you to be with your client constantly throughout the day. Teaching preparation is expected to be done beforehand and it is expected to be used in a way to connect the developmental needs of the children.

My fourth question is how should funding be fixed? This is difficult and to which I hold no answer, I can merely offer thoughts. Foremost it seems logical that funding needs to be equal. But I ask myself what about the schools in say inner-city which have to overcome more developmental obstacles than rich suburban schools. Perhaps the answer isn’t equal funding, but adequate funding to address the needs of the children. Some schools may get more funds, some less, but all should produce same quality of education. One component of equal quality is having equally well-trained and effective teachers at all the schools. No single school should be attracting the top teaching talent. A second component of equal quality schooling is graduation rates and test scores should be equal among schools. This will be tough to accomplish. Perhaps it means low-scoring schools will receive more funding than high-scoring. But this needs to be done in a way to encourage attaining high-level scores.

My final question is what should public schools look like in five years? Public schools should be equal. What does it mean to be equal? As seniors leave different schools, they should all be at the same level. There should be equal numbers moving on to college, and similar test scores. This is possibly a controversial stance. To what extent should we instead focus on cultivating the top talent? Won’t smart students suffer, possibly experience lower performance in a system of equality?

April 8, 2009: Reflection Post 1

This is my first reflective paper. As I write this, I am one week into my teacher certification program. I have been assigned to read To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher by William Ayers. Within chapter one, Ayers delineates multiple teaching myths. He points out the myths have permeated film, literature, and our ethos. Not everyone will agree that these are myths. Disagreement reflects the nature with which myths take hold and are accepted as truth without supporting and fact. While I believe all the myths have merit, several connected with me.

Myth one: “Good classroom management is an essential first step toward becoming a good teacher” (p. 11). I have held this belief. I felt good classroom management was needed and would come before becoming a good teacher. An individual holding this belief is likely to focus mainly on management and forgo spending extra time teaching and facilitating learning. But the teacher should recognize the importance teaching holds over management. Ayers’s rational is similar. He posits classroom management doesn’t precede teaching and it is intertwined with the whole of teaching. He continues, saying that management skill comes with experience. He points out working well with students comes with practice.

Myth three: “Good teachers make learning fun” (p. 13). I didn’t drop this belief until after I read Ayers’s rationale. On page 13 he says, “fun is distracting, amusing. Clowns are fun. Jokes can be fun. Learning can be engaging, engrossing, amazing, disorienting, involving, and often deeply pleasurable. If it’s fun, fine. But it doesn’t need to be fun.” It seems one can take the perspective of either the student or the teacher. A student may hold the myth that fun classes are the good classes. Reflecting on my education, the myth clearly is untrue. A teacher may hold the myth that good teachers make learning fun. Like Ayers’s says, that’s fine, but it doesn’t need to be that way. My current view regarding the role of teachers is that they are to facilitate learning. The importance lies with figuring out how best to facilitate learning. Good teachers are able to figure this out.

Myth five: “Good teachers begin with the curriculum they are given and find clever ways to enhance it” (p. 13). I would like to argue that good teachers follow the curriculum, but I can’t. Good teachers are passionate about their curriculums and find inventive and effective ways to administer it. They hold high expectations and bring their students to higher levels. At the end of the year, the students leave better than how they came. This can be done without following a mandated curriculum. Ayers makes an intriguing point, sometimes the teacher may need to begin elsewhere and occasionally touch official curriculum to satisfy administrators.

With emphasis currently on No Child Left Behind, it is conspicuous to argue teachers can be good without following a mandated curriculum. But, as we have discussed recently in class, roles and expectations of schools fluctuate within history. I argue the importance lies in finding what works best to the development of mind and knowledge. It likely lies in the middle of mandated curriculum and testing, and giving teachers freedom to explore and develop their own curriculum.

Myth nine: “Good teaching can be measured by how well students do on tests” (p. 15). Teaching and acquisition of knowledge is not linear. We are expected to view it as such because we have grade ‘levels’ and ‘primary’ as well as ‘secondary’ schools. But these are labels we have given. Imagine for a moment there were no schools, yet a collection of children wanting to learn. I would want to group children by ability, not age. I would want the students to feed off of each other and walk with each other through the process of learning. Age doesn’t matter. Students will achieve success at different times and at different rates. This seems to be a natural consequence of mankind. Properly structured and administered tests can help gauge the level of students, but they shouldn’t be a measure of good teaching. Besides, tests are inaccurate. They should only be meant for guidance and not heavily relied upon. Ayers points out learning builds over time and connections are made suddenly and I argue often unexpectedly.

These myths serve to clarify my thoughts on the purpose of teachers. I may need to revisit the myths throughout my career as I am likely to fall into believing them again. Regardless, I have extrapolated a key idea- good teaching is active, responsive, and passionate. It is active in regards to exciting students about learning. It is responsive in that good teachers find a way to help different learning styles and struggles. Finally, it is passionate in that teachers commit a large amount of time to their work and students while disseminating abstract ideas.

This week another idea has been floating around my head. Children and adolescents are developing physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. The development may complicate the learning process. Specifically, students may face struggles with learning while additionally struggling with those different components of development. Likewise students may face domestic issues. These issues combine to remind teachers that students may be more complicated than they appear.

I prefer to imagine that students come ready to learn. They may, but they may bring backpacks filled with issues. These issues are not to be ignored or face condescending attitude. My hope is that awareness will improve classrooms and help teachers connect with students. I realize I don’t hold the answers for students. However, a well coordinate school of teachers, counselors, and administers should be prepared and able to deal with any student issues. If schools are going to be equipped to handle this, there needs to be a consorted effort of State and Federal policy. Teachers are in a position to deal one-on-one with students daily.