Finding the ideal environment--solitary or collaborative, active or passive--for each student's optimum performance, when you see them four and a half hours in a week, if there's no pep assembly? Not likely to happen. Not that teachers don't try. That's what bothers me most about these "if schools would only" articles: the assumption that teachers are blindly plowing ahead, happily adopting "fad" educational trends, heedless of the needs of individual students.
Wherever you are tonight-- aspiring educator, in the field teaching, studying the field as researcher or teacher educator--it's really easy to push big philosophical questions away. There are hundreds of other things to worry about. But-- if you don't get in the habit of keeping Big Questions like these bubbling on the back burners of your mind, the magic and moral purpose of teaching will fade or even be lost. Here are four questions for you to consider.
Here's the truth: "Schools"--and the people who work in them--have always understood that they only have so much time with students and only some of that time is prime learning time. Start and end times are part of a massively complex system of overlapping needs and goals, not contained in a single district.
Education is not simply about constructing efficient delivery systems for the transfer of information--books and computers can do that. Education is about the building of relationships--between students and teachers, and among learners themselves. And schools, in all of their messy, noisy, confusing chaos, do this spectacularly well.
Most teachers who blog do so to share their well-honed opinions and experiences with being the object of policy, rather than partners in creation of the policies that shape their professional work. A lack of firsthand information from the front-line school workers--teachers and school leaders--is what has gotten us into the policy mess in which we're currently swimming.
I have to say I'm grateful that I taught for 30 years in a district that did not try to help me "understand my weaknesses"--a process that all teachers go through, with varying degrees of introspective pain and effort, even those (perhaps especially those) who have long-term careers in the classroom. The implication here is that teachers' own assessment of their effectiveness is worthless--they're oblivious to or ignorant of their shortcomings. This is patently absurd.
For all teachers who say they have only one rule--which might be something like "Respect all people and things" or "Think before you act"--I have this comment: You can't mandate kindness and consideration through rules. You may, however, have some success via doggedly modeling these qualities, over time. You'll have the most success by genuinely liking your students and demonstrating authentic warmth.
The teachers' union helped us to obtain a living wage by doing what we do best; teach. It is not a perfect entity. It is made up of fallible parts. However, we each contribute the best of what we can--and that is what has made us strong advocates for our students and this educational system.
It's important for educators to read widely, about common issues--with a kind of radar for books and articles written for general audiences that contain important nuggets of wisdom, related to schools and learning. Why? Because general audiences aren't reading your favorite teacher blogs or books on the Common Core. Education takes place in the middle--between research-based expertise and unexamined habit.
Does "differentiating" teacher pay (beyond the usual salary schedule) result in Better Teaching and More Learning? Can we use financial incentives to build the teacher force every school leader dreams of: bright stars relentlessly pursuing the all-important data, working 60 hours a week, cheerfully compliant?