April 2010 Archives

April 30, 2010

The Union Label


I hate writing blogs about the unions.

There's the obvious fish-in-barrel comparison, to begin with--it's easy to whip up a snarky, razor-sharp critique about pathetically bad teachers who follow the buses out of the parking lot, keep the ditto machine alive and entertain lunch colleagues with stories of the good old picketing days. But the truth about teacher unions is far more complex.

Unions are sometimes the only bulwark between ill-advised policy and the little-understood complexities of good teaching practice. Unions unabashedly insist that teachers' skills and contributions are worth a great deal to society--and should be remunerated in kind. They do serve a purpose. Most of the hackneyed clichés about the evils of teacher unionism are muted by comparing academic outcomes and programs in strong-union states and right-to-work states. A non-union workforce may be more compliant, but they're not necessarily more professional.

What drives me crazy is all the things that unions could do--or do better-- but don't. Teacher unions don't promote genuine leadership and innovation in curriculum and instruction--unless it comes with a title or salary bump. Unions have not taken control of continuous professional learning and improvement for their members. Unions have not used technology tools effectively to build cross-state, cross-discipline learning communities. And unions have not encouraged teacher members to develop their own unique and powerful voices to inform policy and change.

I'd love to see the NEA version of "The English Companion," a teacher-created virtual staff lounge in heaven, for English teachers, filled with killer lesson plans, great literature suggestions, research synopses and robust professional conversation.

Instead, the NEA sends its members "Works4Me," a weekly newsletter of the "best tips culled from readers, a vehicle for instructional staff to share their ideas with other instructional staff."

Samples of your NEA dues dollars at work:

"I use my sandy nail files to clean the erasers on the pencils I keep for students to use during their standardized tests. I save lots of pencils this way and students turn in better electronic answer sheets."


"At the end of the school year, have this year's kids write letters to next year's kids. Give them suggestions on topics to include such as behaviors to avoid so they don't get in trouble or make the teacher mad, some great treats to look forward to that are annual events and what cool projects the new students can expect. It's great practice on letter writing skills for your current kids as well."

"I have a chant that we do before we take a test, to relax my students. It's a little silly, but the kids do ask for it if I forget:
We're going to take a test [clap, clap] We're going to do our best [clap, clap]
We'll do the ones we know and we'll try on the rest [clap, clap]."

"My class planted bulbs in little peat pots and covered them with plastic wrap until they sprouted shoots and roots. We are so often tempted to skip these fun projects while striving to cover the curriculum. One of my first graders made the extra time and money I spent on it worthwhile when he hugged his newly sprouted bulbs and exclaimed, 'This is the BEST day of my LIFE!' "

"We have a pep assembly a couple of days before standardized testing starts. Two teachers pretend they are cheerleaders and shake pompoms as they give a 'pep' talk about doing a good job on the tests, getting a good night's rest, etc. We have three teachers sit in desks and pretend to be examples of how not to take the test. One keeps turning around and bothering his neighbor, one cries, and one is not paying attention to directions. Breakfast is provided for students, teachers and classroom helpers on testing mornings. We also borrow an archway from the local hardware store and put Christmas lights on it with a sign that says, 'Entering Testing Zone'. The lights are on whenever we are testing."

So--what's wrong with these homespun suggestions? Don't we want first graders to plant bulbs in little peat pots? Sure we do--in fact, there's a nice little science lesson embedded in that activity. At least I hope that was a science lesson. Week after week, academic content and instructional ideas take a back seat to great treats, fun projects and not getting in trouble.

I also find the test-prep chants and rallies--not to mention the Christmas-light Testing Zone marquee--a more than a little schizophrenic. If we're besieged by endless, low-level testing, and railing against inappropriate use of test results, why would teachers be enthusiastically highlighting them as a special part of the school year?

As a teaching professional, this stuff doesn't work 4 me.
[Clap, clap.]

April 28, 2010

Back to the Future

The Teacher in a Strange Land is moving. Not from this felicitous home at Teacher magazine--but literally. Out of a nice house, into a small apartment--and eventually, into our new log home in northern Michigan, the manifestation of a life-long dream.

TIASL Log.jpg

Blueprint Mania, Testing Angst and Teachers' (Impassioned) Letters to Obama are bubbling around me, and I'm stuck in the basement, boxing up books --books! so many books!--preparing for the obligatory garage sale, and sneezing--dust! so much dust!

Packing up also means clearing out. I've spent many grubby hours pulling earnest, typewritten-on-onionskin term papers out of filing cabinets and trying to decide whether my adolescent wisdom is worth schlepping to still more filing cabinets. I also have two entire drawers filled with clippings from 1975 (when I started teaching) to the early 1990s (when I got a computer)--pieces I saw as (clearing throat) seminal to the discourse. Either that, or I'm a total packrat.

Fascinating reading--but what's startling is how little has changed in the past 35 years. We're still flailing around, trying to find the quick-fix remedy for academic deficiencies of students who live in terrible poverty. We're still suspiciously eyeballing schools in other nations, wondering how they get better results (then, the Soviets--and now, Finland). We're still fretting over incompetent teachers. If my clippings reflect the prevailing perspectives, a severe "crisis" in American education has been going on for at least five decades. That's a long time to be in crisis.

We're still trying to frame the issues by sharing anecdotes:

In a speech to educators in Tennessee, [Reagan] lamented "the abandonment of compulsory courses." He remembered a science class in his boyhood: "It didn't appeal to me at all, but I was forced to take it...I had to do it, if I wanted to play football and if I wanted to get a diploma someday." With the national blackboard filled by pet theories of politicians who have never taught school themselves, Reagan is emerging as the leader of the knuckle-rappers. To prepare kids for life-- and the school of hard knocks-- just hit them hard with compulsory subjects. If the students don't like them, too bad. As president, Reagan is better at subtraction than addition. Since taking office, he has cut $1 billion from Department of Education programs. (Colman McCarthy, Washington Post)

Best article, hands-down, in my collection: The Great School Reform Hoax by George Leonard (Esquire, April 1984), which could easily have been written last month. His eleven prescriptions for truly fixing American education need no updating--they're as relevant today as they were 26 years ago: Don't hit the panic button and make rash policy decisions. Individualize education. Get parents and community involved. Improve curriculum and instruction. Pay teachers more and treat them as professionals. Don't increase the school day--and don't assign more homework. Make school exciting and vivid.

Here's my favorite suggestion from the Leonard piece (remember, written in 1984): Use computers to teach students more than just how to use computers. Some schools in 2010 still haven't figured that out.

Dan Willingham and others have now written a series on "American Education in 2030" for the Hoover Institution. Willingham's piece centers on the "Limitations of the Teacher's Mind"--not what you'd call a flattering lead-in to commentary that's supposed to be about change and progress in our classrooms. I can't speak for all American teachers, but none of the "mental obstacles" that Willingham believes all teachers wrestle with has been a particular problem for me. When he suggests that national standards, tests and curricula--as well as moving disruptive kids to "special rooms"--will finally cause us make that Great Educational Leap Forward, he enters the Reagan zone: rhetoric over reality.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

April 23, 2010

Talent, Leadership, Blah Blah Blah

I'm a sucker for books and articles about leadership. Especially teacher leadership, my personal life passion. Teacher leadership is an admirable, promising concept--but it's also pretty muddled in practice. Stakeholders see teachers who want to lead through significantly variable perspectives: model instructor, union hack, principal's pet, outspoken veteran, kid-focused go-getter.

I do workshops on teacher leadership, and often open the session with this question:

Do you have a be a good teacher (in the "mastery of instruction" sense) to be a teacher leader?

Surprisingly--to me, anyway-- opinion is often split on this question. Some teachers (especially those who label themselves leaders) think that the "coach" model works here: many top sports coaches were marginal players themselves, therefore coaching and playing--and, similarly, leading and teaching--are entirely different skill sets. Ergo, being an effective teacher leader is not necessarily correlated with being a superb classroom practitioner.

I once had a Michigan teacher use Scotty Bowman as an example of this (shaky) argument. Bowman's own nascent hockey career was cut short by a head injury, but he went on to become one of the winningest coaches in the NHL. Resisting the urge to ask if there was a connection between teacher leadership and taking a puck to the forehead, I pointed out that what makes coaches great is a deep understanding and love for the game--plus a passion for developing and sustaining talent in the field.

The standard literature around organizational leadership is misaligned with the way schools are run. In the evergreen arguments about why schools should/should not be run like businesses, it's impossible to ignore that fact that school leadership is almost never about nurturing human capital and initiative. I was very struck by this piece in the WSJ: The Five Mistakes You're Making with Top Talent. I tried to imagine school principals giving their "high potentials" special perks and assignments-- extra attention to build their leadership capability and guide their career path, designed to foster satisfaction and forestall their exit for greener pastures. Doesn't work that way.

There's a huge disconnect between early-career leadership development in business and industry and the traditional, one-size-fits-all management of novice teachers. What would happen if, as a nation, we created policy incentives to carefully select teacher-candidates for their high potential and aptitude for leadership, then dedicated efforts in their first few years in education trying to capitalize on that promise?

Oh, wait. That's the premise of Teach for America, isn't it? Competitive admission, presumption of excellence, continuous attention to the development of talent and leadership--as well as the belief that "high potentials" would be not be satisfied with a long-term career in the classroom. Tania Harmon, Indiana Teacher of the Year in 2009, reported that a classmate in her graduate cohort in educational leadership said, when introducing herself, that she would be embarrassed to teach for 20 years: "I'm much more self-motivated than someone who would do that. And, I'm far too good to limit myself to that."

Well, there you have it. Teaching as low-rent career that no self-respecting "high potential" would pursue over time. Maybe everybody wants to be Scotty Bowman, getting credit for winning games while keeping all his teeth.

I'm going out a limb here to say that you can't truly be an educational leader until you have experienced standing in front of a classroom, panicked because you have no clue how to get your students to do what you need them to do. And you can't be an excellent, effective teacher leader until you've had some on-the-fly success in that same situation. The rest is just blah-blah. Right?

April 14, 2010

Money for Nothing

Sign of the Apocalypse?

Cover of Time Magazine: Should Schools Bribe Kids?
Answer: Maybe. (Because it "works." Sometimes.)

Well. My first thought is that it shouldn't take a team of hip Harvard-based researchers and a $6.3 million payout (you read that right) to know that when you bribe kids, they'll generally do what you want them to do. For as long as you're paying them, anyway. Kids aren't crazy. Adults will also do lots of things they're not comfortable with for money, although the plan occasionally fails when some ratfink grows a conscience. (See: Enron, et al.)

Before we get on our moral high horses here, however, it should be noted that bribing kids is standard operating procedure in pretty much every school, fully supported by parents, teachers and the principal. Popcorn parties for kids who pass the statewide assessments. Lunch with the superintendent for being Student of the Month. Gold medals for winning the spelling bee. And my personal nominee for cheesiest reward: junky plastic prizes for kids who sell the most sausage and candy in the school fund-raiser.

The fact that economist Roland Fryer seems to have pumped this technique up exponentially, then promoted it as rigorous, scientifically-based research shouldn't change our reservations about paying kids for test scores, attendance or good behavior. I am sincerely hoping that Fryer's funders are equally interested in what happens in test-case schools when the payoffs for showing up at school or reading books are withdrawn.

I also hope they're watching news stories on the kids joyfully returning to school (usually in tents, often with unpaid teachers) in Haiti. You know, so they can learn. And have a better future.

Time describes the results of studies done in four cities, as having no effect, mixed effects, positive effects (in Washington D.C., where middle schoolers can earn as much as $200 a month for attendance and good behavior)--and very positive effects. This sterling example--in Dallas, using 2nd graders--was also cost effective, as researchers only had to cough up $2 for each book read. Average payout was just under $14 per, and the "dramatic" result was a jump in reading comprehension scores.

Let me just say--Duh! If I'm getting the math right, that means kids read seven more books than they would have otherwise. And reading more books--not those $14 checks--caused reading comprehension to rise. In other words, an elaborate Harvard research project featured on the cover of a major newsmagazine caused roughly the same effect as the Pizza Hut "Book It" program. Except that kids didn't have to bug their parents to cash in their Personal Pan Pizza coupons.

I just interviewed a wonderful teacher who gets reluctant teenage readers--a very different group of test subjects than impressionable second graders--to read widely and deeply, every day, for all the right reasons. She shared some of her secrets for achieving that small miracle: finding the right literature, being a good audience for kids' ideas about what they read, sticking with them as they resist the habit of sustained reading, creating a culture where reading is pleasurable. Maybe Harvard should be giving Claudia Swisher, and teachers like her, a few million to spread these simple ideas. But that would mean investing in long-term growth, rather than pursuing yet another silver bullet.

April 11, 2010

...And Read?

Wondering about the value of individual silent reading during the school day? Meet Claudia Swisher (known as "Swish" to her students), who teaches in Oklahoma. Swisher is in her 36th year of teaching: three states, all twelve grades and nearly a dozen different assignments. She now spends her entire day teaching a class called "Reading for Pleasure."

[NF] You have what seems like the world's greatest teaching job to me: reading and Claudia.jpgmore reading. How and why was your reading class created, and how did it grow?

[CS] I'm an English teacher, school librarian, and reading specialist. I was trained by professors who believed whole language was the way to best reach struggling adolescent readers, not more phonics or worksheets. Even in remedial classes, I used a lot of SSR with some kind of written response.

We were changing high school configurations and schedules, requiring kids to take eight classes a semester. We needed electives, and my "dream elective" was Reading for Pleasure. I teach the class full time. Once a student takes it, s/he is usually interested in taking it again. I fought for the right for students to repeat the class for credit, and many kids do. It's also used as an alternative for remedial reading for a small group of ninth graders who haven't yet reached the magic 8th grade reading level, which kids in OK must demonstrate in order to get a driver's permit. We find those kids, and plunk them into R4P. They are not happy--but most of them take the class again as upperclassmen as a self-chosen elective.

[NF] In this era of strict, standardized test-based "accountability," has there been pushback against the idea of high school students simply reading for an hour a day? How do you address that?

[CS] None at my school. I've done presentations around the state, and that's one of the first things principals will talk about. I have my kids regularly reflect on their own growth and test scores. Kids who take the ACT tell me they are able to sit and read the selections more quickly, staying focused as they read. Kids started taking the class in hopes of raising their ACT scores before I even thought of that as a recruiting tool.

This class has affected the literacy climate of the school-- library circulation is up, and those assigned English novels actually get read! My seniors are working on the books they'll write their senior papers over.

[NF] Because we're Goodreads partners, I know that you read a lot of young adult books. Do you genuinely enjoy reading young adult literature? Any authors or trends in YA that stand out as particularly worthy or groundbreaking--or harmful?

[CS] Great question! I've always read YA lit - Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, Cherry Ames, Student Nurse. (laughing) My mother thought I should be reading "good" books. Her books! The library bookmobile stopped literally right in front of my house all summer. I am proof that wide, indiscriminate, "undisciplined" reading is not harmful. I read comic books, too.

So, YA books don't scare me. By nature - and some definitions - they are more intense stories about really big issues in people's lives: death, love, grief, self awareness, forgiveness, friendship, family. They are short and accessible. Some kids in my class cannot sit still at the beginning of the semester for 20 minutes, and YA books are perfect. My kids have found the best authors: Laurie Anderson writes really interesting historical fiction about pre- and post-Revolution America. Chris Crutcher is my go-to author for reluctant guys. His characters are smart boys with a strong sense of right and wrong. Walter Dean Myers is another male writer who tells the truth and writes powerful novels of young people trapped in wars. Sarah Dessen, Jay Asher, Sherman Alexie, Alex Flinn, Melissa de la Cruz...

I read with my students every day. When I ask them to read, I read. My rule is when I'm reading with students in class, I must only read books that someone recommended to me. I read it, they watch me laugh and cry (yes, I cry in class!), then someone else gets the book. I don't think there are harmful YA books, but some are better than others. I don't mind a kid reading "pulpy" YA books-- as we read more widely, we begin to see what's quality and what's not.

I see Harry Potter books as "gateway drugs" to more serious fantasy: Tolkien, Herbert, Card. If I can get a kid reading "Twilight," maybe I can move her into literary fiction and classics. There's a short YA novel called "Peak" about a boy who attempts to climb Mr. Everest. I read that with my kids, then recommended "Into Thin Air" (Jon Krakauer), about his real-life climb. YA is about storytelling, about young adults seeing themselves and their struggles reflected in print. Kids can see they're not alone in this world.

[NF] How would you describe the difference between young adult literature, quality fiction and "the classics?" What value do these genres offer to high school students? And what about the canon--the books we were all compelled to read in high school? Still relevant?

[CS] One of the strengths of my class is that students aren't forced to only read one kind of book--but they are forced to read books. Students won't really strengthen their reading skills by reading short selections like magazines. Books make them work through the initial confusion of the first chapters, live with the ambiguity of not knowing who the good guy is, not understanding every word, not stopping! If my students read on, they learn the whole is greater than the parts. The difference between genres is intended audience, plus reading levels, length and complexity. Kids will start with YA, and become interested and motivated to read serious adult work. My students read best sellers, literary fiction, nonfiction, and classics. I encourage them to read their assigned books in class and write about them. I can help them read--and respond as reader first; then their English teachers can help them analyze as student of literature.

YA is a path for alliterate teens who haven't read for pleasure since elementary school. If I can't convince them to find some kind of pleasure in reading, then they won't read anything. Literary fiction and nonfiction are the prize for working through YA and realizing you're smarter than you thought, and you want more. Sometimes it's a hard sell.

As a student, I struggled through some of the classics I was assigned. I probably only read half--I was one of those good students who could get enough context within the class discussion to look like I'd read the books. As a teacher, I despaired when kids didn't love "Animal Farm" as much as I did. I wanted them to cry with me as I read "To Kill a Mockingbird."

I've watched kids get angry, resentful and lose confidence in their ability to read when we give them these books. Kelly Gallagher wrote a magnificent book called "Readicide" that challenged teachers to think about the fact we over teach novels, giving kids 30-page packets of worksheets, or under teach by never telling them what they should be caring about. I get to respond to their ideas, to tell them how I felt as a reader about Gatsby's death, or Victor Frankenstein's abandonment of his creature. You'd be surprised at the number of times the kids will bring up symbolism or thematic connections on their own. When we give them time, and an appreciative audience for their reflections, they bloom.

One second-semester senior made it his goal to read (in R4P) all the books he'd been assigned in English classes, and hadn't actually read: "Catcher in the Rye," "All Quiet on the Western Front, " etc.. He loved them! Take away the sledge hammer of the grades, give them time to read and an audience for their reflections, and you've got an independent reader.

[NF] Given the lure of image-based media and 140-character communication, how do you get "wired" teenagers to sustain the old-fashioned narrative reading of books?

[CS] Kids who are avid readers enter middle school and get distracted by friends, social lives, technology, sports. It doesn't take long, then it's just easier NOT to read. I know they're reading online and texting, but short bursts don't allow interactions with story, with ambiguity, with suspense. Kids are surrounded by text, but it may not be helping build stronger, more responsive, discriminating readers.

If I tell them I value their reading, and then I surf the web, what's the message?? I think this is the reason some attempts at this kind of class fail: teachers see it as another planning period. We build up stamina slowly; some of my kids haven't sat still to read in a long time. And we write. I give them those sentence starter-prompts we've all seen for years. Everybody writes. Kids turn in their Reading Logs, and I read and respond to everything the kids write. I respond as a reader--the way you and I would talk about books.

I encourage students to share opinions, reflections, predictions, questions. Sometimes I have students find a quote from their book, copy it into their Log and respond. It's crucial that they know I read every word they write, and know I'll respond. They learn they're writing for an interested audience, and their logs get stronger throughout the semester.

I've read enough that I can offer suggestions at the beginning of the semester with types of books that are usually motivating- high interest plots. I know the books with teen drama, vampires, dragons, and lots of coming of age novels, sports books, gang books. My first job is to get kids reading something. They don't have to finish a book that isn't interesting, or is on the wrong "level" for them, although I don't do any formal assessment of reading levels. Finding that first book is huge. I tell kids I'll keep throwing books at them until one sticks. When I find that first book, I can find five more like it. Choice is key.

Kids aren't limited to fiction. One boy read nothing but technical computer manuals all semester...for pleasure! And he parlayed that interest into an IT job that he loves. On their end of semester evaluation, they often talk about how relaxing this class is; I think they value the opportunity to slow down and read. No distractions, no worksheets. I've watched many kids get into that flow that Csikszentmihalyi describes. That's what I'm aiming for: that moment when every student is literally in flow - lost in his or her book, unaware of time passing or anyone else in the room.

[NF] What did I miss?

[CS] In every class I'll have the entire range of abilities, ELL, LD to AP, kids who use wheelchairs and listen to books on tape. Since every student reads his or her own book, the class naturally differentiates itself. Some kids are there because they want to be--they're avid readers and love the idea of getting credit. Many used to love reading and know they need to get back into the habit. Some kids are there to strengthen their skills for the ACT or for college. Some are there because their special ed teacher put them in. It's truly the most democratic class in school--druggies next to cheerleaders next to Goths next to band nerds.

One kid wrote a note to me saying he took the class to goof off, and to disrupt. But then he looked around for who might join him in his mayhem and realized in horror...everyone was reading! I tell kids I know some of them have never used the words "reading" and "pleasure" in the same sentence before, but to give me a chance. Most do.

Goodreads and Facebook have extended my teaching back to former students who are now adults. I get book recommendations every week from former students. I'm having a ball.

[NF] Quick! List Claudia Swisher's three desert island books.

[CS] "To Kill a Mockingbird" - I read that book every year and I cry every time. "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak-- so many layers. And "The Courage to Teach"-- so I'd be ready to go back to teaching when I got off the island!

April 10, 2010

Drop Everything...

Is reading a "joyful" activity? Is there more inherent value in transmission of subject-matter information by text than in getting lost in a ripping good story? Is setting aside time for all students in a school to read a good idea, or a colossal waste of time?

Responding to Dan Willingham's piece in the Washington Post, which says we can't expect improvement in literacy scores until reading skills are solidly connected to actual content, the Core Knowledge Blog strikes up a familiar tune: Teaching Content is Teaching Reading.

Well, sure. Comprehension is built on prior knowledge, just as acquiring more knowledge is dependent on comprehending text. The question is how to keep that cycle continuously spinning upwards for kids. It matters a great deal--our national reading scores show a chronic sag in comprehension as kids get older.

Some schools schedule time to "drop everything and read"--sustained, silent reading (SSR), done (theoretically) by everyone in the building. There is a research base supporting sustained silent reading--and the bright and shiny conventional wisdom is that students will practice reading daily, choose their own engaging literature, and also witness adults joyfully reading.

In theory, I think it's a justifiable idea. We make kids do plenty of things that aren't supported by research (copy definitions of vocabulary words in textbook glossaries, for example)--and nobody blinks an eye. Reading for knowledge and personal enjoyment certainly aligns with the mission of schooling.

The trick is getting all the adults on board as true believers, and setting the program up to succeed. My own middle school did 50 minutes of SSR each week--10 minutes per day, during homeroom. Which meant that the "silent" was inevitably broken by announcements ("Please do not mark students on Bus 23 tardy!"), and half of each brief SSR period was taken up with getting everyone settled in with reading material. I know that many teachers in my building either did not participate by reading, using the time for last-minute prep or grading, or saw SSR as just another annoying rule to enforce.

My own salvation came from encouraging kids to read whatever they wanted. I brought in old magazines from home--and the boys left dozens of old Car and Driver issues in tatters. Music magazines, even Time and Newsweek, were popular. Of course, some kids brought in their own bookmarked young adult fiction for 10 delicious minutes--and others opened textbooks to read what should have been read the night before. But they read every morning. Slowly, slowly it became habit, a tiny oasis in an otherwise chaotic day.

The discussion over at CK Blog is not so sanguine. Are we supposed to agree that reading The Far Side for 30 minutes is part of a rigorous and coherent educational program? Why would we allow students to fritter away time reading for pleasure when there's so much core content they don't know? Do students benefit from a constant diet of mere...stories? How do we know if they're really reading, anyway?

There's a scolding undertone to some of these comments that bothers me. I love to read, both fiction and expository text, and believe I learn a great deal--and am intellectually enriched--from both. So yes--I do see "joyful" reading as a real and important goal. Students' most frequent interactions with text are vastly different these days, given delivery of information via Google and cell phone; spending time in sustained reading is a mark of thoughtfulness (as opposed to getting the answer, as quickly as possible).

But don't take my word for it. Tomorrow, this blog will feature a teacher who does SSR all day long--an interview with the reading teacher's reading teacher, Claudia Swisher of Oklahoma. Stay tuned.

April 05, 2010

The Devil, the Details, and National Board Certified Teachers

Three years ago, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) commissioned a policy brief on the impact of National Board Certified Teachers (NBCTs) on teaching and learning in America. Measuring What Matters was created using the Teacher Solutions model: a panel of recognized classroom teachers collaborated over several months to examine the existing research and develop policy recommendations and implications, from the perspective of the classroom.

As principal co-author of the report, I read several dozen research reports on National Board Certification, a brain-numbing experience. What I found most fascinating in this literature review was the variety of explanations, from the research point of view, of the purpose of National Board Certification--the mission. More than a few of the reports (including some written by Famous Researchers) mis-characterized the process and assessment goals--which is not surprising, given the very complex and nuanced nature of the evaluation process. Figuring out why teachers would voluntarily sit for national certification (a laborious process with no guarantee of payoff) was a genuine enigma for most researchers, however.

Lots of the reports simply quote language from the NBPTS website, and many mention the financial incentives that are in place in some--but certainly not all--states. Very few investigators thought much at all about the concepts of teacher professionalism, expertise and advocacy embedded in a national certification for teachers.

The original mission of NBPTS was three simple goals:
#1) Creating, from within the profession, standards for accomplished practice
#2) Developing a reliable, valid means of assessing practice, measured against those standards
#3) Using the expertise of accomplished teachers in school and policy reform

Not among the goals:
Comparing, sorting or determining who the "best" teachers are, co-opting high-functioning teachers to reconstitute troubled schools, or using national certification as means of improving individual teaching (although over 90% of teachers who have been through the process say it was great professional development).

The idea was not to fix, select or reward teachers, but to draw on their accumulated knowledge and proficiency.

What would it look like to actually use the expertise of NBCTs and other demonstrably talented teachers to reach our national education goals?

What if we:


Asked teachers with a track record of success in our toughest urban and rural districts how to build more successful classrooms there?

Captured the wisdom of teachers who have been effectively managing student data since they got their first computer?


Created new school governance models using the guidance of those who recognize effective--and ineffective-- school leadership and organization?

Involved knowledgeable veterans in creating recruitment and mentoring to bring exceptional talent into classrooms--and keep it there?

National Board Certified Teachers even have to show evidence, as part of their certification score, that they have built solid and workable school/home/community partnerships--shouldn't we be asking them how they do that on a national basis?

Evidently not. NBCT bloggers who took part in the USDOE's April 1 webinar for board-certified teachers on the new ESEA "Blueprint" came away disappointed, yet again. It was another "Don't Ask--We'll Tell" situation.

If NCLB should have taught would-be education policy creators anything, it's the hard fact that intentions are one thing, but outcomes are something entirely different. The devil is indeed in the details. Those best positioned to predict what any policy will yield are those who will be living under it.

Over 82,000 teachers have successfully--voluntarily--accepted the challenge of proving that their practice meets high and rigorous national standards. Don't we owe them more than a PowerPoint presentation and a pro forma back-pat, in return for their compliance? NBCTs are a resource, not a cheering section.

Views expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author and do not reflect the endorsement of Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education, which take no editorial positions.

Follow This Blog

Advertisement

Most Viewed On Teacher

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories