When taking down an education system, it is important to know which areas are crucial and will cause the most future distress. Once you have targeted that, you will be able to take down an education system in a few easy steps.
STEP ONE: Realize the system. Before you get too zealous, your actions and time are valuable so consider first those things that do not hold much potential to upset the system. For starters, school supplies. Sure, items like butcher paper and photocopies and vis-a-vis pens are important, but the capable, strong teacher will find a way to impact his or her students without these items for it is this teacher who will teach through thoughtful and posing higher-level questioning strategies. This type of teacher can teach with little.
And it is just this area that you should target. The teacher. Specifically, the development of the teacher's skills. Take away the teacher's ability to evolve and grow to meet the needs of the students and you have destroyed the system; and destroyed it quickly, at one point of attack.
STEP TWO: Take away that which matters most. To do this all you need to do is underfund, or, better yet, don't fund professional development. Create a proposal filled with many, many (many) words and simply leave out any plans to continue the development of strong professionals within the education system of the state.
When the professionals are held back from improving their ability to impact students, it will only be a short time until the system is substandard, or, better yet, ruined beyond resurrection. Bonus–the collateral damage will be great.
This is the crucial spot and to overlook this weakness would be grim.
Realize that it is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provisions for the education of its children. However, without capable, strong, enthusiastic teachers, this duty cannot be fulfilled. When it is not fulfilled, the system collapses.
STEP THREE: The creative spin. Are you worried about the negative press? Don't be. Teachers have historically taken a great deal of abuse in the press. You can easily displace the problem from a lack of a plan to develop strong teachers, to how much money it will cost. Always talk in terms of money saved by not doing this and, if you can, throw in a few stories about how a certain amount of saved money from not funding professional development (i.e., developing strong teachers) will allow for Such-and-such-President-Named Elementary School to be able to fund an after school reading program, BUT move on quickly before someone asks the one question you do not want: from where will the highly trained reading teacher come?
Everyone is worried about money now. Make their personal worries the reasons for tearing down the state education system.
You will likely only have a few months so you must act fast.
.
(Point of View Change)
Washington state is currently looking at several proposals for funding its education system for the years to come. They are all long, involved and have a vision. I do not claim to be an expert on proposal reading, but I do understand what works for a school and students. Some of the plans are more visionary than others. Some are downright scary. There is one Proposal by D. Grimm that has absolutely no professional development written into the plan. That scares me.
I agree with Tom's post that The Full Funding Coalition report is a good place to start for a successful education system. It is not without faults. Rep. Hunter asks that you go to his site, What It Takes For Kids, read the proposal and comments, and share your thoughts.
To read more about the the future funding, or lack of, in Washington, I recommend Washington State Legislature. Here you can read the various proposals. Have a voice.
Want more, read Tom's post, The Good, The Bad and The Grimm.
Kelly's post, Funding: Is remediation what disadvantaged students are lacking??? Check out the comments. There is some great back-and-forth. Join in on the mix.
Richelle's post, How Will this Education Funding Proposal Impact You??? I
think her hope of having a state education system is neither impossible, nor outlandish. There is the saying that you can judge a man by his friends. Well you can judge a state by its education system. What is ours saying about us?
@Annette, I concur. It would be nice if the time were paid, as it is above and beyond. However, just being able to have the professional development opportunities is crucial for educational success. A school or district that supports teachers and their learning will have loyal and strong teachers.
I have felt very blessed to have a principal and a Career and Technical Education Director at the district office the last few years who were willing to look at professional development proposals I brought them and usually find a way to fund my attending them. They always appolagized for not being able to pay me for my time. To further this, they have helped to pay both mileage, hotel and meals if that was called for to attend the professional development.
I know there are educators who look down on me for going without pay, but there is still so much to be learned that I can bring to my classroom that I have a hard time staying home and not taking advantage of opportunities when they are offered to me, even if I have to put a little of my own self out there.
As always Travis, wit and wisdom. I like it. It reminds me of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. Different perspective, irony. I wonder how much flack Swift got for his article? Any way, even in my work as educational director of my AISL school, I did not take offense to your post. It could offend people, even policy makers as was suggested. But I like to think that the people making policy are smart and have a sense of humor. Best to you.
(posted by Travis at Ben’s request from his email to Travis)
There’s training, on programs or equipment or protocols–and there’s professional learning, staying abreast of issues and leading ideas in the field. The two examples given are good illustrations–if the school is rolling out a new reading program, then of course they’re going to use paid time to train teachers–whether that’s a supplementary check, using paid PD days or other pre-determined agreements about when necessary training will occur. I can’t think of any business where employees would be expected or required to get training essential to their work on their own time and dime. Even fast-food restaurants train their workers and pay to update them on new products or skills.
Professional learning, on the other hand, is supposedly covered by compensation for graduate hours. Some teachers genuinely benefit from graduate coursework aligned with their teaching responsibility–for others, however, it’s collecting credits to move up the salary schedule. National Board Certification is a more effective option, IMHO, for professional learning–far more focused and likely to impact practice.
Another kind of professional learning happens when colleagues share ideas or collaborate on instructional goals and strategies, each contributing expertise. The best on-site PD for me happened when I had the same lunch as simpatico, enthusiastic colleagues. Kind of like the book club–talking about ideas. This is what’s behind the PLC movement. It’s rich and wonderful and happens seamlessly, that compensation is almost beside the point.
The worst kind of PD is the “one size fits all” program that is imposed with little input from those being professionally developed.
Should all of these be rewarded or compensated in some way? Yes. But the reward should be tailored to the PD, and may not always be pay for time spent.
Readers….just for clarification, what about provided development, without pay, for educators? Where is your stance on that? Here are operational definitions: the development would have to be organized by some district or state person to fulfill the vision of what the district or state wishes (which makes sense that the one with the goal sets up the training) for the educators. This state/district organizing person would likely have to be paid for his or her work from the district or state. Is it okay for that district/state person to get paid in that way?
I ask because, I think the training is important. I think it is important for an organization to say We Want This and We Will Provide the Means for You To Do This. For me, training and development are a primary point that may be getting lost in the talk of money.
Money is the second issue. But one at a time.
Good points. I recognize and respect your reasoning for pay for time. I’ve benefitted from the same argument.
Let me press the issue a step further. So we’re clear, I’m not an attorney and no longer work with them on schooling matters.
People do not agree about what constitutes fair compensation (including for professional development) for public service employees.
I know educators (yes, plural) who entered public schooling to make and have made themselves and a few others around them very wealthy through public schools.
However, I’d argue, at its core, teachers are paid by the state to fulfll the state duty to increase student learning (“education”) through public schools.
I’m not aware that the state holds a duty to provide professional development time for teachers to make those increases happen.
It appears easy to build a case from teachers’ public comments to argue that teachers choose not to develop their professional skills sufficiently on their own to meet demands for students to learn at least minimum state standards.
Following this line of reasoning, teachers appear to have called a ministrike. They appear to justify a collective claim as victims of some new expectation beyond their control that they will not handle without state sponsored subsidies.
I’m uncomfortable describing this reasoning, but from a view of a traditional public educator as a public servant, it’s plausable.
It seems to me a reasonable reflection of thinking teachers must overcome in order to stake a persuasive claim for taxpayers to pay more for teachers to do what they’ve been hired to do.
In turn, that claim will open the door for state legislatures to ask for evidence that addresses the generic question, “What does it cost for Student 1 to learn “a”.
Oh my! Yes?
@Tom, you articulated the situation well. I hope the readers take your comments and chew on them. Again, it is not about, as you state, “striking it rich”, but it is about making the most out a the situation. I will add another example to your list: if a district wanted to push the techy side of things (many do), and have teachers create web pages; interactive classrooms; lap top usage in the classroom; and the use of projectors and computers (tablet PCs of a sort)…I would recommend that the district set up some training. The training does not even have to be paid, although that is a bonus, but to not train is certain doom. In this situation, some teachers will strive and excel, but many will feel frustrated and confused and not pursue techy-town. In the end, this hurts the classroom, the students, the school and district.
If someone wants something, they need to set it up so that the development is there. When I want my sons to learn how to vacuum, I provide the necessary training. I do not expect, and then get mad. Sure I would love to just say, “Hey, here is a vacuum cleaner. Clean”, but that is not realistic.
Analogy done. Back to the teaching. It is in the school’s/district’s best interest to train and grow the people it already has; create loyalty, develop the teachers they want. It is more efficient this way than constant turn over.
Bob: Let me give you two examples from my context that speak to the issue of compensation for professional development.
I was on a joint committee of association (you can call it a union if you want) members and district administrators. My district was rolling out new levy-funded technology for the classrooms. It was clear that many of the teachers would need some training in order to maximize the benifits of this equipment for classroom use. The district decided to withhold the new equipment until teachers received the training. Our association president agreed, but insisted that the teachers be paid for the training, since it would constitute worktime beyond the contracted school day or school year. So that’s how it went down. Every teacher got the gear, every teacher got the training, and every teacher was paid for it.
Here’s the other example: Our school had a “Summer Book Club.” We voted on a book to read over the summer that we thought would enhance our professionism. Most of the teachers read it; no one was paid to read it. Those who read it may or may not have actually “put themselves ahead of the curve.” But that’s the reason why they read it.
Why were teachers paid for the tech training and not for the book reading? Because of our contract. A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties in order to clarify and formalize such things as pay and worktime. If you change one end of the contract (requiring more worktime) you have to change the other end. (compensation)
No one goes into education to strike it rich. But that doesn’t mean they have to work for free. Most teachers work well beyond their contracted work day just to get ready for the next workday. Expecting them to engage in professional development on their own time without compensation is unrealistic. My brother is an actuary. They pay him for professional development. A lot. My friend works as a Boeing engineer. They sent him to Stanford, got him a nearby apartment and paid him a full time salary so that he could get his Masters. Find me a teacher who scored a deal like that! Another friend works as a writer for a fish magazine. He gets sent all over the world, along with his family, for the purpose of professional development.
Just because your employer happens to be the state doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be entitled to fair pay for your time, whether that time is spent doing your job or learning how to do your job better. And if your employer is smart, they’ll pay for both. Let’s hope our state is smart.
Thanks for clarifying your point. Yes, I ask questions in order to understand a point. I’d add that assigning responsibility for professional development to a state entity appears consistent with a union position, and not a traditional professional duty of the individual to keep competitive by keeping current instead of becoming obsolete. I’d also add that a school “system” does not exists. That’s another unionism, adopted by some educators, in a Sol Alinsky reorginizing tradition. Nothing wrong with either ism, but also not generally accepted points away from some public schoolers.
@Bob, I find your dialogue to be refreshing, but sometimes it seems like it simply goes in circles. You ask many “whys” or rephrase ideas to show another angle. That is great and creates a higher level discussion that would turn into a dialogue (a more valuable source of change). Yet, the first question you ask, what is wrong with not paying for PD, is self-explaining, either by my beliefs in the post, or by the reader extending themselves to figure out the perspective of the author.
If a state wants the best of some state service and they are in charge of funding that state service, those who want the best should allocate funds to achieve the best.
And I agree, those who stay ahead the curve work and those who don’t do find other employment. But that is an unrealistic expectation for a state service, at least at this time, with the way the system is. I would rather put students first (which I always do).
Thanks for clarifying your point, Travis. Two follow-up ideas:
1. What’s wrong with no professional development time paid by taxpayers? Isn’t PD a function, by generic definiton of professional, of the professional even though unions argue otherwise? Perhaps this topic is a separate post? 🙂
2. Microsoft employees I know keep themselves ahead of the curve others follow, or they seek other employment.
Note to readers: I have noted a change with a PERIOD on the left margin and a parenthetical statement noting a perspective change. The reason I want to make clear where changes occurred is that I want readers to be able to have an understanding of how the text and comments connect.
I have seen some bloggers change the post after a few comments (or even change the order of the comments or delete comments) and what happens is the comments come across as odd or take on a new meaning, other than that which the commenter intended.
While I would have enjoyed the post as is and gotten into a discussion with the author, Bob Heiny’s comment makes clear a flaw the post had. In an effort to plan for a wider audience, I have made the changes. The original text was the same, save the paragraph that summarizes (Washington state is currently . . . ). What was above this is untouched. What is below this was reorganized.
@Bob, I wondered if this would offend anyone. From your sentence structure, I cannot tell if you are offended or confused. I would not peg you for the confused type so my apologies if the writing offended. However, the point was to write from a different point of view. One that is not my own. And through this point of view express what is currently a funding concern of mine for my great state of Washington. In some of the funding proposals there is little, or in the case of one, no professional development in the plan.
I think not having a plan for developing the skills of the professionals is a way to ruin the system. Think about if Microsoft (another Washington system) told its employees, “Hey, just keep doing what you are doing. I am sure that as the market changes, they will still like our skills where they are.”
Again, if the tone did not work for you, sorry. It was a style choice, a risk. Something new. I thought that the perspective would get some interested comments or talk. I will see. I stand by the way it is written as interesting. I would have loved to read it and would have pursued the information further with the links at the bottom.
This all being said, I take a look at the bottom part of the post so that the point comes across more overtly. I will put in a few sentences to summarize, perhaps bring meaning to the post, in the middle. Thanks.
I will make a note of the change within the text.
What’s the point of this post, Mr. Professional Teacher?