Pages

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

TeachStrong's Nine Steps (To Teacher Awesomeness)


We've already discussed who and what the new #TeachStrong campaign might be. But I still think it's only fair to look at their nine points, their nine steps to building a better teacher, and consider their validity.

Yes, it starts with the premise that teaching needs to be modernized and elevated. Teachers have certainly been beaten down over the 1.5 decades. But modernized? A bad sign that once again, some policymaker is operating under the assumption that schools haven't changed since before they were in one. There's not any real evidence for that, but let's ignore it for the moment so we can move on to our nine steps on the pathway to awesome!

1. Recruitment

Identify and recruit more diverse teacher candidates with great potential to succeed, with a deliberate emphasis on diversifying the teacher workforce.

Diversity in the teacher workforce is a critical need, although the research tends to suggest that the problem is less about recruitment and more about retention (of course the general tanking of college teacher programs means we have recruitment issues across the board). But teacher diversity is a critical problem. The racial makeup of the teacher pool is wildly out of whack with that of the student pool. So, yes-- this is a critical need, though the devil is absolutely in the details, and in the recognition of the retention issue.

2. Teacher Prep

Reimagine teacher preparation to make it more rooted in classroom practice and a professional knowledge base, with universal high standards for all candidates.

Again, what details? Universal standards is probably a dumb idea-- exactly which universal standards would fit both a high school biology teacher and a first grade teacher? Just how vague and meaningless would standards have to be in order to cover both?

Also, "more rooted in classroom practice" than what? Here the group of TeachStrong partners starts to color my perception because I know, for instance, that when it comes to teacher preparation, neither NCTQ nor TFA know what the hell they're talking about. Classroom practice and professional knowledge base are absolutely essential, it's true-- but if you believe, as some of the partner groups do, that Common Core represents a critical piece of professional knowledge, then you are chock full of baloney.

So here the details make all the difference between a useful piece of teacher building and an utter waste of time.

3. Licensure

Raise the bar for licensure so it is a meaningful measure of readiness to teach.

Sure. How about we start by declaring that people with five weeks of training, no meaningful classroom practice, and no background in the professional knowledge base be allowed to set foot in a classroom? Because I like that idea, but I'm betting partner groups TFA and TNTP would not support it.

Exactly how will we raise the bar. Because if we're talking about something like edTPA, a high-cost profit-generating "exam" process operated by non-teaching corporate stooges, that's not raising the bar-- it's taking the bar and bludgeoning future teachers about the head and shoulders with it. Here's the problem with this idea-- nobody at all knows what a meaningful measure of readiness to teach looks like, exactly, so anybody who says they do is selling snake oil.

I have heard the claim that lawyers and doctors have to pass licensure exams, and I see a slight bit of value in that-- if such exams were developed and administered by working teachers, selected by other working teachers and not policy makers or bureaucrats or corporate lobbyists. In fact, let's have an accrediting board for college teacher programs also run by teachers without any input at all from policy makers and bureaucrats or corporations. Do I think that's what TeachStrong has in mind? No, I do not.

4. More Pay

Increase compensation in order to attract and reward teachers as professionals.

Oh, that word "reward." I'm dubious, because I know many of the partner groups like the idea of scrapping the traditional teacher pay ladder and replacing it with a system that only gives you a raise when they decide you've earned it. That way they can still fund schools cheaply by giving big pay to some few teachers and tiny, little pay for the rest. Again, I would be more impressed if we were talking about retention or supporting the idea of teachers who are supported in a lifelong dedication to a teaching career. But there is no language like that anywhere in TeachStrong.


5. Support for Newbies

Provide support for new teachers through induction or residency programs.

Almost spot on. The great missing link in the teaching profession is some sort of support, development, and mentorship for beginning teachers. That said, "residency" in reformsterspeak means, again, low paid positions that help offset the better-paid master teacher spots. The concept directly contradicts the idea of better pay for recruiting, but hey-- I didn't write it.

Also, this would be a good place to step up and say something like, "Judging a new teacher or 'resident' based on high-stakes assessment would be silly, so let's make sure that such nonsense is not part of the program." And who wants to take a newby under your wing when your wings depend on test scores to keep you from getting plucked? The use of test scores to evaluate teachers poisons everything it touches, but arguably nothing is more poisoned then beginning stages of teaching careers.

If TeachStrong isn't prepared to call for the end of all evaluation-by-student-scores, then all nine points are hollow vessels filed with stale, hot air.

6. Tenure

Ensure tenure is a meaningful signal of professional accomplishment.

In other words, keep tenure, but make it harder to get. Because reasons. Seriously-- there isn't a lick of evidence to suggest that such a tough tenure system would improve anything (though it certainly would give prospective teachers one more reason to consider a different career). Of course, many of the TeachStrong partners don't see teaching as a lifelong career in the first place, so who cares about tenure?

The other red flag here is "professional accomplishment." If this is going to be more of that "you can have tenure if your student test scores look good" then you can just wrap it up in VAM rags and bury it in the backyard next to the dead turtles and the rotting leaves, because that is some anti-teacher, junk sciency baloney. The use of "accomplishment" is an oddity-- we won't give you tenure based on your quality as a teacher, but on what you accomplished. Test prep or perish, junior.

I'll say it again-- tying teacher evaluation to student assessment results is disastrous and wrong and if TeachStrong can't say so, I can't take them seriously.

7. More Time and Tools

Provide significantly more time, tools, and support for teachers to succeed, including through planning, collaboration, and development.

How, exactly? Will you create more hours in the day? Will you hire one million more teachers to reduce the workload on those that are already working? If so, how will you manage that when you can't even fill the openings you have now?

And who will decide what "succeed" looks like? And who will decide what tools and support are needed? Because the pattern so far has been for reformsters to swoop in and say, "We've decided that you need this," without listening to teachers for five seconds. Hell, many TeachStrong partners decided that one tool needed by teachers was the Common Core. This item is completely useless, pointless, and worthless without something else that is notably missing from the nine-step program-- listening to actual working teachers.

Saying "Here's the tool I think you'll need to accomplish the goals I'm setting for you in the way I want them accomplished," that is not help. It's just micromanagement. 

8. Professional Development

Design professional learning to better address student and teacher needs, and to foster feedback and improvement.

Again-- who's doing the designing? The problem with PD is not the content or quality so much as it is the underlying assumption that PD is something done to teachers by people who know better than they what should be happening in their classrooms. Or that PD is an opportunity for vendors to make a case for their wares. You want to fix PD? Give us some days to ourselves, a personal PD budget, access to people who know the things we want to find out, and then leave us alone.

9. Career Pathways

Create career pathways that give teachers opportunities to lead and grow professionally.

Again, what this generally means in reformsterspeak is this:

Rather than start at the level you are currently and just staying there, what we'd like to do is dig a hole and start you at the bottom of that. Then by the time you climb up to your current level, it will feel like a real step up in the world. In the meantime, it will let us pay everyone who's starting out down in that hole much less money.

What it generally doesn't mean is that we'll give you increasing control over your professional direction, with more and more control over what goes on in your school and your classroom so that you, in fact, have less and less need to listen to what reformsters and policy makers and bureaucrats and corporate stooges tell you you must do. No, that is not what it means.

The "career pathways" shtick also often masks a belief that of course, nobody would want to be "just a teacher" for an entire career. Surely once you've put in some years as a teacher, you'd want to move on to something better. And why should I take advice about teaching from people who can't understand why I would want to spend my entire adult life in the classroom?

So What Do I Think? 

Many of these are perfectly good goals. A couple are even laudable.

Depending.

Because the devil is in the details, and all nine of these are items that have been used as reformster dog whistles, as ways of saying what folks will assume means one thing when the plan is something else entirely. And given that the TeachStrong partners are mostly a big pile of reformsters, I'm not inclined to trust their intentions.

So my question for the Hillary Campaign TeachStrong Team is, "What exactly do you mean? How exactly do you plan to do any of this? Because if this is all about cutting costs by linking pay to student test results while stripping teachers of autonomy in the classroom and eroding job protections, then I'm unimpressed."

It all sounds like more corporate reform drivel. Or the education platform of a corporate candidate. And it's as notable for what it doesn't say as for what it does.

It doesn't call for an end to the test-driven school and profession. It doesn't call for building the profession by empowering teachers. It doesn't call for investing the kind of resources needed to make all schools appealing places to teach, or for elevating community voices over outsidecontrol. It doesn't call for putting professional education under the control of people who know what they're doing. It doesn't recognize the vast pool of knowledge and expertise that exists right now among the seven million experienced teachers in this country (but instead suggests we're all behind the times). It doesn't call for listening to teachers. It doesn't call for an end to micromanagement and punitive control by bureaucrats and corporate stooges who don't know what the hell they're talking about. It doesn't call for preserving education as a public trust instead of a private investment opportunity.

Until somebody with the campaign fills in the blanks, I have to assume this is just deep-fried baloney.

13 comments:

  1. There has been only one candidate for president who supports the public schools and she is running under the Green Party banner.

    "The Green Party is strongly opposed to the dissolution of public schools and the privatization of education. We believe that the best educational experience is guaranteed by the democratic empowerment of organized students, their parents and communities along with organized teachers."

    http://www.gp.org/

    It's time to dump the GOB and the Democrats---at least for me it's time. If you are a teacher and/or a parent with a sound mind and a solid foundation of common sense, then there is no one else to vote for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like your take on PD. I'm a retired, 35 year veteran high school math/science teacher. I would help out anyone, anytime for almost zero dollars. My ideas don't fit in with the current direction of education, particularly the Common Core (I taught night school math with Common Core materials. They lasted a week.).

    I was an administrator for a few years, but had to go back to the classroom to get enough kid time. No fun as an admin. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You want to fix PD? Give us some days to ourselves, a personal PD budget, access to people who know the things we want to find out, and then leave us alone. "

    Not just PD, but teaching overall: just leave us alone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The fact that their website only lists the 9 principles but does not explain what each principle actually means is a big red flag!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nothing else compares to your thoughtful, articulate, effectively snarky commentary on what most may see as innocuous news bulletins in the world of education. Since discovering your words a few weeks ago, I have felt less lonesome in my little world where few of my colleagues seem to have any grasp of what's really going on, or at least don't care to discuss it. (I'm just considered "negative" and "cynical" because I dare to question.)
    But now, through the wonders of cyberspace, I can breathe a cathartic sigh of relief whenever I read your writing.
    Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed analysis, again!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's my take on all of these: #1- What do they mean by diverse? In my book, it means racial/gender/spoken language diversity in staff. In theirs it could be different licensure, staff that has degrees from good colleges, etc. #2- I took that to mean that current staff are not up to their high standards, whatever they are. #3- Another test by Pearson where all of the teachstrong partners get a cut. #4- We all need to get increased compensation as what some teachers are paid is criminal. But as soon as I saw attract and reward, I knew it meant more pay for the cheapest teachers while cutting pay for veteran staff, and rewards for test scores. #5- When I see residency, I think low pay, many extra hours, shittiest work detail, sort of like residency in medical school. Get the maximum amount of work out of a teacher before they quit at 5 years in. #6- there is no tenure. The real term is "Due Process", or not being fired without a valid work related and documented reason. Meaning they want to change what it is currently and you have to earn that privilege by scoring high on their stupid tests. this was the one that freaked me out when I saw that our unions had signed onto this BS and sold out their members. #7- sure, more time in the day but not an increase in pay since they can't pay us now, more coaches that have never taught telling us what to do. Essentially, more work that is useless and a waste of time. #8- the feedback and improvement are what is scary about this one. Feedback from me, or from them. Am I going to be tested on this, or "monitored" to make sure I make progress on their terms? #9- I am with you and have no desire to do anything other than teach. There are already pathways for those that are wanting to lead and that is called school administration: principals and APs, etc. No thanks! And I have to reiterate again how PO'd I am that once again, my union has sold me out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's my take on all of these: #1- What do they mean by diverse? In my book, it means racial/gender/spoken language diversity in staff. In theirs it could be different licensure, staff that has degrees from good colleges, etc. #2- I took that to mean that current staff are not up to their high standards, whatever they are. #3- Another test by Pearson where all of the teachstrong partners get a cut. #4- We all need to get increased compensation as what some teachers are paid is criminal. But as soon as I saw attract and reward, I knew it meant more pay for the cheapest teachers while cutting pay for veteran staff, and rewards for test scores. #5- When I see residency, I think low pay, many extra hours, shittiest work detail, sort of like residency in medical school. Get the maximum amount of work out of a teacher before they quit at 5 years in. #6- there is no tenure. The real term is "Due Process", or not being fired without a valid work related and documented reason. Meaning they want to change what it is currently and you have to earn that privilege by scoring high on their stupid tests. this was the one that freaked me out when I saw that our unions had signed onto this BS and sold out their members. #7- sure, more time in the day but not an increase in pay since they can't pay us now, more coaches that have never taught telling us what to do. Essentially, more work that is useless and a waste of time. #8- the feedback and improvement are what is scary about this one. Feedback from me, or from them. Am I going to be tested on this, or "monitored" to make sure I make progress on their terms? #9- I am with you and have no desire to do anything other than teach. There are already pathways for those that are wanting to lead and that is called school administration: principals and APs, etc. No thanks! And I have to reiterate again how PO'd I am that once again, my union has sold me out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What exactly do you mean?"

    That is the devil in the details. I hear some people advocating for these things, and it sounds like something I can get behind. Then the details start coming out and I start saying “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

    Also when people trot out the old line of school haven't changed in forever, it really bugs me. Look at an car. From some perspectives it hasn't changed since the Model T. From other perspectives its changes a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well written article - and followup comments equally impressive. If Hillary's campaign is aligned/behind this TeachStrong BS, I will indeed take a strong look at 'voting green'. In the meantime, we need to 'Keep Strong' fighting this Wall Street led Deformster/Privatization multi-headed scheme that is undermining the education of our children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought teacher residencies weren't a reformer thing? I went through one (SFTR) that was sponsored by 2 universities, the school district, and the union I'm in now. It was a full-time credential/MA program with an extra seminar per week at the school focused on local education issues, instructional rounds, a full year of student teaching, and then a coach for the first 2 years of teaching, and a service learning requirement that got us an AmeriCorps stipend to. What I liked was that the program in partnership with my school district has former teachers working as coaches full time for its graduates, and my coach was extremely helpful. Everything about my program was the anti-TFA, including its politics and leaders. If this program were replicated around the country I'd be very happy with the state of teacher preparation and induction. Re: More time and tools, I enjoy the time I have to meet with my colleagues right now, but what I would really like is the schedule of an 80% teacher for full time pay so I could actually be paid for the time I spend grading (since all my prep time is currently filled with meetings and setting up/cleaning up my lessons, which involve a hands-on component almost every day) and have time to give more meaningful feedback. That would make my schedule more in line with teachers in other countries. Make it happen. Re: PD, I just wish we'd get a personal PD time/budget per year and we just had to document what we needed and why. And then we could spend that on collaborating with other teachers and finding the trainings we personally needed. I always get the PDs I don't need and have to search pretty hard for PD I do need, especially because it's pretty rare for districts to pay for subject-matter-specific PD. Instead of being able to meet with other science teachers in the same subject, the closest I've gotten to this from my district is about 7 times of the same "How to read the Next Gen Science Standards 101" training. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Goal? Deprofessionalize educators even further.

    Where's the evidence that any of this is necessary?

    Primary reformster assumptions:

    ~Common Core is god. (We don't need no stinkin' data!)

    ~Teachers suck.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Beautifully said, as usual. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete