By Tom
I once had a principal who came into our school as a self-proclaimed "listener." She wanted rich conversations, with everyone participating in the decision-making process.
But she really didn't.
After a couple months, it became clear that her idea of "listening" was actually "hearing people agree with her." She had a set agenda which she would pursue relentlessly. Staff meetings deteriorated into a depressing exercise of hearing her, agreeing with her, and leaving. Disagreement wasn't worth the effort.
That was unfortunate. A lot of bright teachers, with lots of experience and insight, were ignored. The people who were bound to put her policies into practice kept quiet. And you can probably guess the result: Silent, passive sabotage and morale that was so low it actually bounced back up and united us.
That principal finally left, replaced by a new guy who listened. Really listened. A guy who didn't make up his mind before the conversation started. A guy who wanted the voice of teachers involved in conversations about teaching. And our decisions were made collaboratively; which meant they were actually and sincerely implemented. (You should read that last sentence again; it's important.)
Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Governor Christine Gregoire have both invited teacher voices to join the conversations around education reform. I sat and listened to Duncan down in San Diego last month and heard him say, more than once, that he wanted the NEA to work with him on school reform. Christine Gregoire, who arguably wouldn't be in office had it not been for the support of the WEA, has said the same thing in here in Washington State. These two people have called on teachers, the people who know what policy looks like in the classroom, to weigh in on issues that involve teaching.
And what have they heard from this conversation? Among other things, they've been told, loudly and clearly, "No merit pay and no charter schools." Teachers, by and large, see these ideas as faulty, unfair, unsustainable gimmicks that do nothing to target the real problems we face in education, both nationally and here in Washington.
So how well were these leaders listening? You be the judge. After "listening" to the teachers, Duncan flew back to DC and began to give out grants to states with charter schools and merit pay, as part of a new, $4.3 billion "Race to the Top" educational grant program. After "listening" to Washington State teachers, Gregoire flew back to DC, met with Duncan, and announced that the State Legislature needs to take a second look at charter schools and merit pay. This in a state that soundly defeated charter school ballot measures three times.
That's unfortunate. A lot of bright teachers, with lots of experience and insight, teachers who know what's wrong with merit pay and charter schools, are being ignored.
Mark, I love the line “…the people within the system can adapt and change far more quickly than the resources which fuel the system will.”
I truly believe that to be true, if the people within the system are adapting and changing towards goals they have established and believe in. Unfortunately, another problem with so many educational fads is that they are established by people who aren’t in a classroom and forced into place with top-down decision making. Why don’t they get it?
There are numerous power dynamics: teacher to student, principal to teacher, superintendent to principal. I would argue that what Tom has to say should be a wake up call for the “powerful” in each of those dynamics. Teachers ought to really listen to students, too, and respect their perspectives rather than dismiss them. We might say we listen, but many do not.
Further, re: Arne… I have such problems with any thing which claims to be a model of a solution to the education “problem,” solutions such as charter schools, etc. There are so many factors that figure into that success…and particularly, the sustainability of that success.
I work with an intervention program within a medium-sized high school, and we are entering our sixth year of the program. Many programs with similar aims to our last only about three years, not because they aren’t effective, but because they aren’t sustainable or replicable…usually because they cost more than the mainstream education. We’ve tried to build a program which demands as few extras as possible…as soon as you become a line in the budget, you become a line which can be cut! You can’t find my program in the budget because we don’t have one–ours is built on smart hiring of good teachers, permitting teacher collaboration and flexibility, and making the most of what we have, not what we wish we had or what we only have because of short-term bonus funding.
While we’d love to see wholesale reform of everything at once, we need to realize that the reason education fads are mocked by the business world is that whenever change happens, it costs extra, and then with the extra money which fueled the pilot is gone (because when we’re taxpayer funded, it inevitably will leave if we’re relying on grants or special funds), the idea fizzles due to lack of replicability with sustainability…and we’re back to square one with minimal forward movement. Thus, another ed fad has come and passed.
If a principal’s pipe dream or Arne’s list are to result in any change, it must be replicable within the present system. That’s not the answer people want (including policymakers) but the fact is that the people within the system can adapt and change far more quickly than the resources which fuel the system will.
Simply put, if we want real education reform to stick, we need to find a way to do it that will not cost extra taxpayer money. That means focusing on using inside resources (teachers and teacher time) to make the change. The next step? Who knows?
Great post Tom. I can hardly think about the Race to the Top without thinking the Race to no where! If Arne is listening that makes it even worse, he listens and then does exactly the opposite of what teachers say they want. I don’t know what it will take to get him to actually listen, like your second administrator, right now he seems much more like that first person.
Kristin, that tiny paragraph is so vital. It is huge. I found that disconcerting as well. Here is my take, there are a lot of great ideas out there and sound ways to instruct students. However, connecting everything to a test is a sure-fire way to drive the instruction with whatever test is the current model. And while I believe in assessment and timely feedback, and while I have learning targets on which I reflect to see how I need to adapt my instruction to meet what my students have learned, I see connecting everything to a test a fearful future. (Let’s be honest. If this every passes, it will probably a single test that governs everything.)
What about sincere learning, purposeful learning? What about making gains, sometimes small?
Great post, Tom–especially your observation that anytime someone says “trust me” or “I’m listening…” we should wonder why they’re taking pains to point that out. You can’t demand trust–you can only earn it.
In most ways, trust at the local/building level is more important than trust in federal policy and federal goals. I’m thinking here about the perennial finding that people are far more likely to say that their local school and teachers are performing satisfactorily than schools in general. Building mistrust about the current system is the first step in launching a new platform. And pretending to be listening to the people whose lives are impacted is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Tom,
What frustrates me is that in Duncan’s article he lists the things that need to change, and I agree with every single one of them. Then he has a tiny paragraph concluding that the way to make these changes is to connect student scores to teacher/principal evaluations and to increase the number of charter schools, as if the changes can be made no other way.
Where are his guidelines for charter schools? Why is it assumed the answer is to cut away the public schools and start fresh? I have no problem with Charter Schools, my husband and I often dream about getting our favorite teachers and starting a school, but that will not solve the problems in our existing schools, where the bulk of the children in public education are.
Connecting student scores to teacher performance is so problematic. The most simple solution is for administrators and teachers to know what is going on in each classroom, and for ineffective teachers to be monitored, coached, put on probation, and then removed from teaching.
When I taught 7th grade in a high-pressure school in an affluent area, the principal published student scores so that we could all admire the teachers whose students did well. It was a joke. The teacher whose students did best cheated. He examined the wasl booklets, noting with post-its sections the students needed to revisit. The next day, he let them go back and correct their work. The special ed. department put all of the struggling readers in my room, because I read aloud to my students and kids who hated reading ended up wanting to read independently. Those students, combined with my unwillingness to cheat on the wasl, combined with the fact the wasl doesn’t really mean anything to 7th graders, meant that my scores were dismal, and the principal wanted to know what I would do to improve them. So threats of combining student scores to teacher evaluations scares me. I know it’s not an honest glimpse at a teacher’s skills, and I know that the smart teachers will immediately migrate to the schools with the best-performing students.
And that cheating teacher? He’s now the principal at a small private school. I’m sure their test scores are GREAT.