This aspect of school reform has been lurking around the edges for some time-- the notion that once we find the super-duper teachers, we could somehow shuffle everybody around and put the supery-duperest in front of the neediest students. But though reformsters have occasionally floated the idea, the feds have been reluctant to really push it.
Now that the current administration has decided to bring that federal hammer down on this issue, you're probably wondering what they have in mind for insuring that the best teachers will be put in front of the students who have the greatest need. I'm here to tell you what some of the techniques will be.
Before Anything Else, Mild Brain Damage Required
Any program like this requires the involved parties to believe that teachers are basically interchangeable cogs in a huge machine. We will have to assume that a teacher who is a great teacher of wealthy middle school students will be equally successful with students in a poor urban setting. Or vice-versa, as you will recall that Duncan's pretty sure it's the comfy suburban kids who are actually failing. We have to assume that somebody who has a real gift for connecting with rural working class Hispanic families will be equally gifted when it comes to teaching in a high-poverty inner city setting.
And, of course, as always, we'll have to assume that teachers who are evaluated as "ineffective" didn't get that rating for any reason other than their own skills-- the students, families, resources and support of the school, administration, validity of the high stakes tests, the crippling effects of poverty-- none of those things contributed to the teacher's "success" or lack thereof.
Once everybody is on board with this version of reality, we can start shuffling teachers around.
Financial Incentives
Schools with great need and challenge often have trouble attracting top teachers, so let's throw money at them. And since an underlying problem for high needs schools is that they don't have money to throw at their problems, we'll have to use tax money from the state. Which means that wealthy school districts will fork over extra tax money to help convince the teachers at those wealthy schools to leave and go elsewhere. I don't anticipate any complaints about this at all.
Bait and Switch
Simply tell new teacher grads that they have been hired by Big Rich High School and drive them over to Poor Underfunded High School instead. With any luck, you can get some work out of them before they figure it out.
Indentured Teachitude
The federal government will pay for your teacher education, but you then owe them seven years of teaching at the school of their choice. As I type this, I'm thinking it has actual promise. Sure, they won't know if you're great at first, but once you've taught a year or two, they'll have an idea and if you are a really great teacher they'll ship you to one of the underfunded, collapsing schools with high populations of students who are at risk, but if you turn out to be lousy, they'll stick you in some cushy already-successful school where...oh, wait. Never mind.
Rendering
Teams visit the homes of excellent teachers in the middle of the night, tie a bag over their heads and throw them into a van. Days later, the excellent teachers wake up in their new classroom.
The Draft
All the teachers in the state go in a giant pool. The schools of the state will go in reverse order of success last year and draft teachers. We could also do this as a Chinese auction. Chinese auctions are fun.
The Lottery
All the effective teachers' names go in a giant drum, from which they are drawn for assignment. May the odds be ever in their favor.
Note
For both the draft and the lottery, no teachers ever buy homes or settle into communities. Under these systems, states may want to offer teachers good deals on nice campers, fancy Winnebagos, or modified school buses. At last, every teacher can live like a rock star (I'm a Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem guy myself).
One Other Alternative
States could take the actions necessary to make sure that every single school had all the resources it needed, that it was fully staffed, fully funded as well as clean and safe and fully functional. States could take the actions necessary to make teaching an attractive profession with job security, great pay, and the kind of autonomy and power that makes a profession attractive to intelligent grown-ups. States could offer incentives and support for college students who pursue teaching. States could provide support and assistance for teachers, so that great teachers were free to be great and teachers struggling to find their way could become great. State and federal government could reduce the burden of dumb regulations, destructive mandates, and wasteful, punishing tests (reducing to "none" would be the best goal here). In short, states could invest the money and resources to make all schools so attractive that so many teachers want to work there that every administrator in every building in the state gets to choose from among the best and the brightest to find the very best fit for the students.
Fun Puzzle
Among these alternatives I have included one that nobody in power is even remotely considering right now. Can you guess which one it is?
Wow, can I be Janice in your Dr Teeth band? What an awesome reference! Since we know "they" aren't going to choose the best and sanest option and we'll all be at-will, yearly contract employees soon; no teacher will ever qualify for a mortgage again. I guess the Winnie option may start to look rosy...Heaven help us. Thank you for another perfect dissection of our leaders' stupidity - or evil master plan.
ReplyDeleteI call "Animal"
DeleteYer "Other Alternative," while more sensible than the rest, would be quite expensive, and everybody knows NOT all children are worth that kind of investment.
ReplyDeleteMuch better to restrict that kind of education to the children of the higher classes.
EdReformers would tell you that *children* are worth the investment, but not schools because that would mean paying more adults more - and that is a big non-no.
DeleteEducation Deformers have long been asserting that teaching shouldn't be considered a profession; it's something recent graduates do while they're trying to figure out what they want to be when the grow up (or while they're waiting for the "real job" market to clear up and allow them to find decent jobs). This is why they're so emphatically in favor of Teach for America and recruit their leadership directly from it so often.
ReplyDeleteOf course, one implication of de-professionalizing teaching and, especially under this plan moving teachers around like checkers (not even chess pieces--that's too dignified!), is that it makes likely that nobody is around a particular workplace long enough to become a threat to the bosses. And if somebody does, they can just get moved elsewhere.
Neat!
What was truly hauling about Obama's and Duncan's announcement was that they held a round-table event "At a roundtable after lunch, Duncan heard from 10 teachers and principals who work in high-poverty schools around the country. The teachers voiced frustration at the lack of resources at their schools and the regularly changing demands of their jobs.But they said they stayed because of good working environments, with supportive principals and time and opportunity to collaborate with colleagues. Three of the seven teachers on the panel work at public charter schools." Does that sound to you like they were asking for more money - that they want chess piece teachers who will move into their schools? Don't they already have that with TFAers who are the true change agents. I hear they want Peter's not-to-be-implemented alternative. But the hypocrisy of these politicians is beyond the pale.
ReplyDeletewapo.st/1rUe3H0
Duncan's an idiot and his "plan" is loony tunes. That said -- and I say this as a firm supporter of education and teachers -- your "other alternative" suffers from more problems than just "they'll never go for it." To wit:
ReplyDelete"States could take the actions necessary to make sure that every single school had all the resources it needed..."
All the stuff about teacher altruism aside, it is simply a fact that no government organization (or any other organization not facing the discipline of competitive market pressure) ever -- EVER! -- has all the resources it thinks it needs. That goes doubly for a situation like a school serving poor kids, many of whom are unmotivated students, because no amount of spending is ever going to raise their academic performance to the level of the suburban college-prep kids.
"States could take the actions necessary to make teaching an attractive profession with job security, great pay, and the kind of autonomy and power that makes a profession attractive to intelligent grown-ups."
Yes, that would be great. But remember that what is driving all of this reformster stuff is the failure of our worst students to be "college-ready." Nothing you are proposing will fix that, thus your plan, if enacted, would eventually be deemed a failure. Plus, many of our best teachers will simply not teach in neighborhoods where they feel unsafe with kids who don't care, no matter how much you pay them.
"State and federal government could reduce the burden of dumb regulations, destructive mandates, and wasteful, punishing tests (reducing to 'none' would be the best goal here)."
Amen to that.
"In short, states could invest the money and resources to make all schools so attractive that so many teachers want to work there..."
See above comment. This just will not work with some schools.
"every administrator in every building in the state gets to choose from among the best and the brightest to find the very best fit for the students."
This isn't happening unless we also do a lot of reforming of society. In addition to low pay, low morale, and crushing paperwork loads, you know and I know that one of the things making teaching unattractive right now is the general lack of discipline in the schools. Our standards of behavior are so lowered these days that teachers have to put up with an unbelievable amount of crap from students, particularly the older ones, and the principals will rarely support you. This goes doubly if you are a white teacher teaching a class with any unruly minorities, because then you get accused of racism and the principal is afraid to back you up for fear that central office will hammer him for having unequal discipline numbers for white and black students.
There is also one more thing that your plan will not fix but which is an unfortunate reality, particularly in certain communities: The use of schools as a jobs program for friends of the local politicians. Not sure how you reform that.
You are discussing the "Master Teacher" idea. Here is another view on that topic.
ReplyDeletehttp://teaching-abc.blogspot.com/2014/07/master-teacher-update.html