We (educators at all levels) should have some of the best intellectual minds in education. We should be swimming in the deep end of the vision pool in academia. We should have teams of experts who can thoughtfully, critically, and wisely suggest and implement the missions and goals of our profession (and thus, the future), through best policies and practices equally accessible to all students. But it’s not working that way, so, what’s going on (or not) in education reform?

Who’s running education in the United States? I honestly can’t tell you. Is it politicians, businesses, state and/or local governments, school boards, local districts, or unions? And, what are they using for information or experience of K-12 education? It seems to be people far removed from my classroom, people who have no clue about my daily rigors, challenges, needs, fears, or successes. As my students and I are put through yet another crisis management strategy that we can’t make sense of, I will joke that they never check in with a regular teacher. I wait for the call, but it never comes. Who is making these decisions?

We can’t fix education overnight. No politician can make it right in her/his term in office. No single name will be associated with education reform. It will be, and should be, a collaborative effort of professional people, including and at the forefront, teachers at all levels of education. If you wouldn’t call a plumber to do your taxes or an accountant to do your triple bypass surgery, (or a politician to do either of them), maybe you should consider whom you would call on to reform education.

This country has shown incredible vision, creativity, and determination in facing adversity, solving problems, and achieving great successes. Why can’t we fix education? We are concentrating on conformity instead of creativity. We are looking for one absolute solution to a multitude of diverse challenges. We have too many people from too many places outside the education environment trying to ride in and save the day, but it’s much bigger and complex than saving the day — we’re trying to save the future.

Is good teaching an elusive art with some sort of genetic connection, or can it be taught?

Here’s what I think makes a good teacher: a passion for learning; great imagination and creativity; a desire to explore and discover; an insatiable sense of wonder and curiosity; a willingness to be a co-participant in the process of learning, rather than a detached leader; the ability to see the forest and the trees; the divergent thinking that allows you to deviate from the norm, and the organizational skills and subject matter knowledge to know what the norm is in the first place; and the confidence to not know. Good teachers are not disseminators of information, but rather, facilitators of knowledge.

I have to claim my position here. I absolutely believe that good teaching can be taught, but I believe our teacher training programs are inadequate. I don’t believe the inadequacies are the result of poor teaching or lack of effort on the part of universities, colleges, or work places, although some programs are far better than others. The inadequacies in teaching teachers are the same for teaching students – State and Federal regulations that mandate rote, pedantic means that are supposed to somehow equate to brilliant and creative ends, and a lack of vision for the big picture goals and objectives of education. We have to stop just handing out information. We have to stop thinking that selecting one of four or five letters on a standardized test demonstrates knowledge. We have to stop believing that it’s in the packaging and actually understand that it’s in the package. By this I mean that we teach different (and often creative) ways of packaging what we want students to learn, but if we don’t examine what’s in the box, then when the wrapping is torn off, we are left with an empty box or contents that prove useless or unnecessary.

I’ve been reading a lot lately about the “magic” that seems to be a genetic part of good teachers. Experts are challenged to believe it can be taught, and they’ve done studies to suggest it’s unrelated to experience, age, graduate degrees, etc. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be a good teacher. I’d find a way to label my students as they walked in the door, classify them into affinity groups, and move them along according to their aptitudes. Instead, I know that my students can be accomplished at whatever they put their minds and hearts into, and that they can choose to succeed (by desire or necessity) at anything they do.

As I stated in my Education Mission blog: The goal of education is to create life-long learners and to facilitate learning that leads to students finding a viable place in life (locally and/or globally). A good education is one that helps to create responsible, accountable, and successful individuals who contribute to the sustainability of their community (local and/or global). I define success as the ability to solve problems, think critically, create wisely, make informed choices, and (here’s the Pollyanna part of me) find happiness. Life is unpredictable, and that may mean I’ll need the ability to be good at any number of jobs, careers, vocations, along the way. We can’t believe or teach that each person can only be successful in a limited number of ways. We must facilitate the belief that each person can be successful at anything that’s needed, but will find the greatest happiness if that is also something s/he loves to do.

We are all, innately, teachers, but some have cultivated the basics into an art and enjoy the process. Can it be cultivated in any willing participant? Of course it can, but we need knowledgeable facilitators to guide the process, and we need a broader, more informed vision of the desired outcome.

What does education in the future look like? If I’m going to meet the mission of the Federal government of “promoting student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access” (see Education Mission blog), I will need some sort of vision.

We used to go to school to get information. Before the days of Internet, we counted on teachers to have the information. Some families owned encyclopedias or had large personal libraries, although most of us just had a library card. Television wasn’t a good resource, because it was made up of news, sitcoms, and variety shows. There were only a few documentaries – there were only a few of anything offered. We went to school because that’s where education was found. Schools also taught us how to use information, but we learned a lot about that at home too.

Now, everyone has information. Computers and multimedia offer more than we can consume all day, every day. I literally have the world in the palm of my hand in the form of a cell phone that has internet, email, all imaginable help functions, maps, games, and…it actually operates as a phone too – a phone that can make conference calls.

Schools haven’t caught up to this yet. We still think education is about information. We teach and test as if the end goal is creating Jeopardy contestants. The one with the most information, as demonstrated by answering the most multiple-choice questions correctly or achieving the highest score on a point system, wins. What do they win? The employers of America may agree that they are seeing many graduates with incredible subject matter knowledge. The problems seem to be that they don’t know how to use it, have no work ethic, no time management skills, and have difficulty working together for a common goal. Their communication skills are inadequate, and they don’t seem able to solve problems on their own, without being told how to do it.

Information without socialization, or acculturation, or mediation, is just information. It’s taken in and filed away in the giant (optimistically speaking) file in our brains. It seems that the future of education is in facilitating the transformation of information into knowledge (and one day, wisdom), and then learning to use it responsibly, creatively, logically, and imaginatively to sustain and improve the quality of life (personally and globally). I’m pretty sure we won’t test the success of that by choosing a, b, c, or d. Read the rest of this entry

I don’t have an MBA, but I understand the basics of business, and if we want to treat education as a business, it’s going to take some creativity – from both sides. Here’s how I understand the basics. A business acquires, produces, or transfers a product (things or ideas) or service, and makes a profit for this product or service. If the business is making money it’s operating in the black, and if it’s not, it’s operating in the red. You can also have a non-profit or a not-for-profit business, but those operate by their own set of rules. All businesses have one thing in common – the bottom line, or the end result of the income statement.

How does this work with education? Our product is children. We don’t know how many will be produced, but we will acquire them all. We will hold the product for a minimum of 12 years (unprecedented, except maybe in wine making), before releasing it to the general public. Our product will pass through probably 30 or more quality control workers, but they won’t all work in the same place or under the same rules and requirements. And, the seer number of products will demand that the QC workers may only get to evaluate the product en masse, not really being given the time or resources to work with one at a time. But each worker, in turn, will be solely responsible for the end result, even though they had almost no input into the process.

The final products are sold separately and most will come with a certificate of completion. Individual differences may occur, although the business administrators will try to standardize all products. Vastly varying amounts of money are spent on product processing, depending on national (and local) region of origin. Some products are produced privately, but most will be publicly produced. Read the rest of this entry

It has been my privilege to work with many gifted and dedicated teachers. They teach with their minds and their hearts demonstrating a deep commitment to facilitating learning to the best of their ability. These teachers work extra long hours (mostly without compensation), take on numerous outside activities, and invest not only themselves, but also their personal income in their work. Because of the nature of this work they must be patient, wise, efficient, and available to their students and parents. I don’t know of anyone who is in it for the money. There is no down time during a teacher’s day, and they physically and mentally take their work home with them every night and over the weekends and holidays. They seek to make a difference and despair over even one student slipping through the cracks.

My personal experience of teaching is that I love it most when it is just my class and me, when we are learning and creating and participating together. Often a wonderful diversion springs from nowhere and we learn in a way that can’t be tested and isn’t in books. We laugh, we dream, we discover and explore. We delight in searching and researching. We understand that learning can be a game, and that it can be fascinating. We live in our favorite books and become our favorite characters. We tell stories and make connections. We look beyond the obvious into the far reaches of possibility. We embrace wonder. We learn and practice skills — we memorize and categorize and prioritize curricula. I love to look at the children’s faces and see the first spark of questioning, of making meaning. I love that they are mostly eager to please and willing to try. I dislike that we have made pleasing about performance and trying about tedium.

Classroom teachers are the essential frontline of education. Because they are individual human beings, they have individual teaching styles, approaches, and methods. This is the gift of education: diversity and variety among good teachers. It celebrates many ways of knowing and learning. Read the rest of this entry

Education is a numbers game. It’s a scientific analysis of data representing combinations of ratios, averages, margins – any statistical information that can pass as our perceived success or failure in teaching. Data is tangible. It allows us to believe that we can actually measure a child’s mind or predict her/his success.

I cannot view education in this strictly scientific way.  If experts can look at a list of numbers representing my students, and believe that this has anything to do with the real circumstances of my work, then I am sadly deluded. From my place within the classroom I see quite differently. I see 30-plus (plus) children seated in desks mostly ready to learn.  Some came to me without breakfast.  Some are on medications that affect their behavior and/or ability to learn. Others might be helped by medications. Some struggle to speak English.  Many are tired. Some are dealing with challenges at home that it’s hard to leave behind: illness, death, divorce, loneliness, fear, abuse, poverty, discrimination…. Most feel the pressure to perform. Thankfully, there are those students who come to school well fed, rested, healthy, and ready to go.

The idea that a room full of children can be viewed as a statistical group in which the main interest of education is to increase test scores, is unconscionable. These numbers do not represent the human beings with whom I have daily interaction. This is especially true of the ones going through the biggest challenges. These children are smart, and bright enough to survive difficult circumstances. The number is demeaning to them and to me. What is worse, that number is worth money. What is a child’s worth without that number? What is their worth if it’s the wrong number? With class sizes of 35 or more students, it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet the needs of each individual. I will leave children behind, statistically speaking. I will also cry in frustration when even one falls through the cracks.

Read the rest of this entry

The discussion of merit pay comes up every so often, usually during election times, and I wonder why no one really thinks this idea through. Merit pay is designed to reward good teachers with salary bonuses based on performance. The problem is that it’s not wholly my performance that is being assessed – it’s my performance judged by way of my students’ performance, most likely on standardized tests. (See Standardized Testing blog.) Before we agree to merit pay, we have to agree that standardized tests measure what they say they measure, or more importantly, that they are the best measure of my worth as a teacher.

Now, merit pay may work in business, and I know it’s used in sports, but then both those groups got to pick their teams. To be fair, teachers should be able to do the same. We would need to start by sorting students according to their merit value.

There is only a small segment of the student population that will show enough growth to make them worthwhile moneymakers. This would be the middle to low middle students with no learning disabilities, no behavior problems, and no disruptive family situations. The very brightest students won’t be viable because it’s tougher to show growth if you’re already in the 95th (plus) percentile. Many children with learning disabilities wouldn’t be profitable either, as they too, may not show the necessary growth and may be excluded from the test. Of course, the behavior problems and the children with disruptive family situations are risky, and I can’t take a chance on not making my quota. I really can’t afford the children who have test anxiety or don’t perform well on standardized tests. I may have to discriminate against parents who don’t have the time to put in at home to help my little money markets grow. And, there won’t be as much time for extracurricular activities and sports. They represent time taken away from study. Extracurricular activities/sports aren’t going to pay the rent. Read the rest of this entry

I recognize the need to create a measure of some sort that demonstrates student success in attaining the mission, goals and objectives of education, as specified by the State and Federal government. The method of measure currently being used is the standardized test, or what I refer to as terminal learning. The tests are given annually and are mostly multiple choice. These tests have created a generation of “just tell me what I need to know” learners. Students no longer need to question, explore, or speculate – they just need to know if “C” is the right answer so they can move on. They measure the human capacity to memorize information and give it back appropriately. They cannot measure the human potential to solve challenging issues, question effectively, or perform in real life. A standardized test doesn’t measure what a student is ultimately capable of doing, it only demonstrates what a student knows on the day of the test, if the student tests well.

I want to speak to the special circumstances of California as it applies to standardized testing, and I want to start with a clear understanding of what standardized means. To standardize is to bring into conformity or agreement, so a standardized test brings into conformity or agreement the knowledge, culture, and mores of the appointed authority.

California is our most diverse state; we are culture rich and strong on diversity. English is not the first language of many of our students. In the education comparison game (among States), California is considered, (put diplomatically), learning challenged. The approach to this challenge has been to standardize education. We have created a system of testing that will set the bar for the entire state. We have a goal, and we have created curricula around meeting this goal. To make sure that all schools will be motivated to participate in the program, we offer a system of rewards for those schools that demonstrate the greatest success in achieving the State standardization goal (and thus punishments for those that do not). We publish the result in newspapers and periodicals, so that we may be celebrated or humiliated by the outcome. But to truly succeed at standardized testing, we need to standardize children. We need to ensure that all children interpret the curricula in the same way. If your culture sees knowledge in a different way, you will be penalized until you fall in line with the accepted standard. California has created its own education oxymoron: standardized diversity. Read the rest of this entry

“You cannot step into the same river twice.” Heraclitus

These famous words by the Greek philosopher characterize what I see as our educational learning disability: We keep stepping into the river of education expecting it to be the same, when in fact, the water is rushing past at such great speed that with each thought, each new awareness, in every moment that learning occurs (and is there a moment when it doesn’t?), the educational river is different, and yet we continue to step in the same way, with the same expectations, demanding the same results.

My purpose in this endeavor is to share my voice — the voice of a teacher currently in the classroom.  My intent is to share my first hand experience of education as it exists now in the state of California. I care deeply about what I do, and I am concerned about the ramifications of our current choices on children. I am aware that I may no longer share much of the vision, philosophy, expectations, or design of education as mandated by my national and state governments. I feel it is important for classroom teachers to speak out with articulate and informed voices.

I am an elementary school teacher in a public school in California.  I chose this profession because I love children, and  I honestly believe that they are our future.  To ensure a successful and productive future, we must cultivate an environment that encourages and supports critical thinking skills, group participatory skills, and very importantly, creativity — a belief that children can manifest a future that reaches beyond what they have been left with by previous generations.  I love teaching because I consider it an exchange in which I get as much knowledge, awareness, and learning as I give. I believe that children are more lamps to be lighted than vessels to be filled. (From a Hebrew Proverb)

It’s good to know where you’re going before you decide how to get there. An education mission gives us the destination, and knowing that, we can then create the journey. It’s an interesting concept referred to as backward planning. It’s a staple in education (pun intended), in that once we know what we want; we can create the goals and objectives to attain it. I’ll work with this concept for now, but challenge it in a later blog. Here are the education mission statements of both the Federal Department of Education and the California Department of Education.

“Despite the growth of the Federal role in education, the Department never strayed far from what would become its official mission: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln)

The California State mission for education is to  “Create strong, effective schools that provide a wholesome learning environment through incentives that cause a high standard of student accomplishment as measured by a valid, reliable accountability system.” (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/vmgoals.asp)

And my education mission: The goal of education is to create life-long learners and to facilitate learning that leads to students finding a viable place in life (locally and/or globally). A good education is one that helps to create responsible, accountable, and successful individuals who contribute to the sustainability of their community (local and/or global). I define success as the ability to solve problems, think critically, create wisely, make informed choices, and (here’s the Pollyanna part of me) find happiness.

I am confused by my State’s mission. It is about measuring human capacity instead of cultivating human potential. Is there the assumption in this mission that a valid, reliable accountability system measurement can also be a predictor of preparation for global competitiveness? Does my State have lower educational goals than the Federal government? Is it the mission of California to just measure student accomplishment to some assumed, but unstated purpose? And what incentives are going to cause a high standard of student accomplishments?

My original intent in blogging on this topic was to make the point that we need to match our educational practices with our education mission. Literally, we need to practice in schools the habits that we will need upon leaving school to join the professional world. With this in mind, we would expect to see in our classrooms:  collaborative learning, challenges that involve critical thinking and problem solving, time management, a work ethic, use of available resources, and all with an emphasis on effective communication skills. What do we usually see? I see an emphasis on lecture style teaching, individual achievement, independent work, memorization, and test taking skills.  But are we, in fact, meeting the mission of our State with the usual methods? Read the rest of this entry