In the hallway, she muttered about teachers who spend too much time cutting out elaborate bulletin-board decorations or chitchatting at “morning meetings” with their third-graders before the real work begins.

This is the problem with so many articles on education for the general public. Most everyday-readers do not know what morning meetings are, and here their purpose is compared to bulletin boards and chitchatting. Yes, it’s a throw-away quote in a sense, used to introduce the person being written about, but it invites the unknowing reader to think, “Oh, yeah, she must be a no-nonsense woman who has some good, controversial ideas I might like – that call for ‘real work’.”

The “she” in that quote is Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of Education, and the quote is from a brief piece Time magazine published on her last month, making me aware of her name and existence for the first time. And I must say, the article left me uneasy. Not simply because of Rhee’s beliefs and approaches but more so because of the article itself. Rhee is portrayed as a rebel, and her ideas are constantly pitted against teachers in an oversimplified “heroic” way.

There’s always this morality play that unfolds in articles like this – the veteran teachers who just want to love the kids and let them do arts and crafts because she instinctively knows what’s better, and the ambitious, research-focused and data-driven authority who is trying to save students from a “touchy-feely” education.

In my first read of the article, I drew the conclusion that it is the kind of philosophy she espouses that has landed so many of our public schools in this factory-producing-the-best-products approach to education that is deadening and sickening. A philosophy that demands teachers differentiate but then re-mold the students through undifferentiated standards and standardized tests that insist on and reinforce inequality and setting students up for failure. And then giving raises or pink slips to teachers based on those same test scores.

Back to the quote above. I agree that there are teachers who spend too much time on maintaining appearances and not enough time on creating challenging lessons (which requires a lot of time and effort, in my opinion), and Rhee probably agrees the problem does not rest solely on the teachers but on principals who put things like bulletin boards as a major priority on already over-taxed teachers.

However, then I began to think about students like ELLs or Non-ELL Special Ed students who have language delay issues and need exposure to oral language use. Who need the morning meeting time as a way to settle into the class that day and readjust to the classroom community they’re trying to create. Who decides how much time those kids deserve? The teacher who knows them or some outside force like Rhee that knows those kids more as numbers than individuals?

Are there unengaging teachers who are always watering things down and consciously simplifying complex material for students she/he thinks won’t “get it”? YES. But Rhee’s approach* to solving this problem is inadequate and only hurting the children – largely because the principle problem has been misidentified.

The problem is not simply bad educators. The problem is that we have seen a large shift in who makes up the student body, and their needs are very different from student bodies of the past. We are not solely teaching content anymore – we are all teaching academic language to students who are either new to the country, or who lack exposure to academic language at home.

As Rhee points out, the concept of a data-driven education is new, but how it’s being implemented is pitting teachers against research – again because teachers in and of themselves are being identified as the problem. I get the sense that, from the point of view of some veteran teachers, there always seems to be new data changing what was insisted upon before (which was based on other data or accepted ideologies), and there are teachers who are resistant to what, to them, feels like arbitrary changes. I am a new teacher and right now there are new philosophies coming into my school, changing the way our ELLs are taught. Personally, I revel in this – in learning something new and expanding my tool set because I do believe what is taught in classrooms should not be decided by one person. But I can imagine being a veteran teacher who has witnessed so many ideological shifts that it becomes to feel like a joke.

I blame this largely on the dogmatic way the research is given to teacher – it’s an approach that says, “Here – I have the new solution based on new data. Don’t think about it. Just implement it.” In some schools, like mine, this is translated into cookie-cutter lessons with cookie-cutter Teaching Points that are so far removed from what most of our students need it is comical (and bloggable ha!). Not only is the data seen as for administrators to analyze (or even people above them), and no one else (unless, of course, you have been part of an Inquiry Team – I imagine that is different), but it’s as if there is only ONE kind of data based on ONE kind of research. There is plenty of research that challenges the whole notion of standardized tests as culturally-biased, for example – which doesn’t mean, “Awww, it’s too hard for those ELLs, so we should make it easier” — NO, culturally-biased means it’s an inaccurate measure of students from other cultures (including right within our own borders). So much more can be said on this.

This is partly why, in my opinion, teaching gets reduced to a pretend-science. The practitioners are themselves not enough doing the research. Or being asked to think about the new data and techniques as researchers would. Of course, I know plenty of teachers who would say, “Don’t give me the data. Don’t lecture me. Just tell me what you want me to do and I’ll do it.” In my opinion, that reinforces the dogmatism but *shrug*. It reminds me of the kinds of activist organizations I used to volunteer with.

Here are some other choice quotes from the article:

“The thing that kills me about education is that it’s so touchy-feely,” she tells me one afternoon in her office. [...] “People say, ‘Well, you know, test scores don’t take into account creativity and the love of learning,’” she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. “I’m like, ‘You know what? I don’t give a crap.’ Don’t get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don’t know how to read, I don’t care how creative you are. You’re not doing your job.” [emphasis mine]

(This really pissed me off because it insinuates the opposition to test scores is solely based on an artsy, unchallenging approach to education and NOT based on OTHER actual research and data, which it can be.)

“Rhee is convinced that the answer to the U.S.’s education catastrophe is talent, in the form of outstanding teachers and principals.”

The ability to improve test scores is clearly not the only sign of a good teacher. But it is a relatively objective measure in an industry with precious few.

I’d like to know the reporter’s analysis of these tests’ “objectivity”.

The article then goes on to other controversial subjects like tenure, (which I will blog about later) etc. It’s really worth reading and then mentally-exploding over, as I have in this post.

*I know this may be blasphemous to many, but I am not totally against the idea of “getting rid of weak teachers”. However the definition of “weak” is often too subjective – including when “objective” data is used for witch hunts. As long as education is driven by sweeping ideological shifts, teachers deserve some kind of security in their decision-making. But they also deserve better training.

*****

In the interest of upholding research and such, here are articles that have influenced my thinking in this post:

“Meeting the Needs of English Language Learners“
-by David Freeman and Yvonne Freeman

“English Learners Reading English: What We Know, What We Need to Know“
-by Suzanne F. Peregoy and Owen F. Peregoy (Theory Into Practice, Autumn 2000)

“Necessary and Irreconcilable Differences: Paradigms within the Field of Reading“
-by Sharon Ruth Gill (Language Arts, Vol. 82, No. 3, January 2005)

“Focus On Research: Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk: Researching Oral Language in the Classroom“
- by Karen Gallas, et al (Lanuage Arts, Vol. 73, December 1996)

“Teacher-Researchers Study the Process of Synthesizing in Six Primary Classrooms“
-by Stephanie Harvey, et al (Lanuage Arts, Vol. 73, December 1996)

“Barriers to Meaningful Instruction for English Learners”
-by Lois M Meyer (Theory Into Practice, Vol. 39, Number 4, Autumn 2000)

“Who Is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners”
-by Guillermo Solano-Flores (Educational Researcher, Vol. 37, No.4, pp. 189-199)

“Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners: Is Being a Good Teacher Good Enough?”
-by Ester J. de Jong and Candace A. Harper ( Teacher Education Quarterly, Mar. 2005)

And too many articles by Lilly Wong Fillmore to list

As I’ve said before, I know there are bad teachers. And yet I still find my jaw dropping when people whisper racist, anti-immigrant crap to me as if I’m some co-conspirator. Things like, “That’d be hard enough for normal kindergartners, and these are immigrants, so you can imagine.” I know it’s easy to say normal, when you mean kids who aren’t in “special circumstances”, or who are native English speakers, but trust me, this was not used in that way.

Or, even better — yelling at the kids for speaking their native tongue in class. Yes, we want them to speak English as much as possible, but guess what — bilingualism and biliteracy are good things. I used to think the NYCTF was just telling us things we should already know by teaching us to rely on and bring out diversity in the classroom as a strength. I was like, “No kidding!”, but now I see what they were raising this in response to.

The other day at my seminar for my masters class (it’s only with other TESOL Fellows), we were discussing our expectations about the schools where we’re teaching as well as our expectations about the students, and then what we’re really seeing, any disillusionments, or nice surprises, etc..

One of the Fellows said that she was surprised she wasn’t the worst teacher in the school. Most of the class whooped, like, “That’s great!”, but then someone said, “Actually, that’s kind of disturbing when you think about it.”

(Because we’re new and not yet trained to teach, really)

I must say the same is true with me at my school…

Recently the ESL Department at my school had our first (since I’ve been there) departmental meeting with our supervisor. In the lead up to it, the veteran teachers groaned and warned about how “there’s always something” and were not looking forward to it. I didn’t really know what to expect.

As you may know by now, NYC Public Schools now receive a progress report that rates a school for the percentage of progress students make. Our school scored an A, and this meeting discussed some of the weaknesses and where we, as a school, needed to improve. One was in terms of data, so now we have to carry around the most recent running record for our students, for example.

Our supervisor also detailed some ideas she’d gotten from going for some professional development with Teachers College, with which our school is affiliated. One of the things was the suggestion to “be the kid” — during a read aloud that the classroom teacher is doing, rather than being in the front of the classroom, sometimes we should sit down with the kids and get a better sense of how they’re seeing/hearing/interpreting/discussing things. The other new teacher (more on her later) and I were really jazzed by this. The veterans were kind of like, “more work?”

This seems to be an essential question and crossroads for what kind of teacher I will become. It comes down to why someone I am a teacher and where I see myself in this career.

It seemed common sense that we should be trying to see things from a kid’s point of view but, for me, it’s especially crucial teachers try to get a sense of how ELLs (English Language Learners) see things. It never ceases to amaze me that non-ESL trained teachers in a predominantly ESL school (87% of the school are ELLs) wouldn’t pick up a few clues about how to work with ELLs. Like using visuals. Or enunciating and using gestures. Never assuming the kids know the meaning of words or phrases. Speaking slowly or waiting longer than normal after you ask a question. And these teachers wouldn’t have had to simply infer these techniques — there are specialists all around them and some of their teacher guides even provide tips. But, sadly, too many teachers either don’t care or think the kids are simply slow or problematic. (I’m not saying there aren’t teachers who simply don’t “get it” but I think that’d be a rare kind of ignorance in this kind of ELL-dominant school.)

And I’m only talking about younger kids — I realize the average classroom teacher, even in an ELL-dominant school, may not realize reading skills are not the same as language skills or that a student can be an advanced reader and have low language skills. But how about talking slowly? Enunciating? Using gestures? Not randomly yelling or being sarcastic to 6-year-olds — those should be normal things with English proficient kids, never mind ELLs. But that’s kind of a whole other story.

Back to my (first) main point. Be the kid. This is what a good teacher tries to do, no? — looks at a lesson and thinks to his/herself, “how does a 6-year-old think? how might they see this?” — and then observe the kids to learn that. This is an element of the kind of teacher I’m trying to be. I imagine a lot of the veteran teachers may have started out that way, but maybe not. Honestly, I’d rather not think all teachers just become jaded shells of their former selves who are just working toward that summer vacation or retirement. I do see glimmers of good teachers under that rot and rust, and I see solid, if tired, lesson plans and strategies, etc. I don’t want to just chalk it up to age either — I don’t think that’s fair or the whole picture. Most likely it’s a combination of things like age, frustration, not caring about the kids b/c they’re not your nationality, etc., and it’d be dangerous to generalize.

***While it’d be wrong to generalize, I am searching for more understanding on this because it really is frustrating. There are two examples of the kind of teachers who frustrate me:

1. Some of my fellow/veteran ESL teachers just recycle old lesson plans from years ago without differentiating for current student interests or strengths, or using flexible grouping. They group kids by their reading levels (i think) and try to move them forward as an homogenous entity. I know this is likely an “old school” approach that they’ve probably just gotten stuck in, but they show no concern or interest in learning about differentiation, which is discussed all around us, because it’d require more work. Ah, yes, planning. These ESL teachers actually complained to me that the school recently changed things so that they’re in the classrooms more! It used to be the case that they’d pull ESL teachers out of their routine to sub for teachers or proctor tests, etc., but not anymore. They actually were salivating over this one other veteran teacher who was given the option (I forget the circumstances) to go back to being a classroom teacher or become a sub (with full salary, benefits and pension) and he chose to be a sub. “No planning! No responsibility! Just go home! That’s the dream teaching job!” Sorry, but I don’t consider that teaching.

2. Speaking of not teaching. This is an example of the kind of teacher who doesn’t deserve the protection of tenure (I know that’s a complicated issue, but nonetheless…). The reading teacher who goes into the 2nd grade class I’m assigned to really shouldn’t be in a position where she as interaction with children, especially ESL kids. She yells at them, making threats they don’t know aren’t literal (like, “you’re all going back to kindergarten if you can’t remember what we did yesterday!) is sarcastic with them, literally rips books out of the hands of a child new to this country because she can’t “read with emotion” and is simply overbearing, mean and also shirks any requirements to actually teach. I understand teachers lose their patience, but I’m talking about a women’s constant personality. She has no appreciation for the fact that most of these kids sit there and “just stare” at her after she asks a question b/c they’re translating what she just said, then thinking of a response (often in their own language and then translating it back to English), and then formulating how to word it, pronounce it, etc., etc.

I do think it’s really important that the new teachers, myself included, have been trained in looking for ways to differentiate or constantly assess, or set high standards, and “be the kid”. If it was just me that felt this way, I’d be thinking right now that the NYC Teaching Fellowship was the idealist, hippie commune of a program that just wanted to set high goals with no sense of how a real school works. I definitely feel the opposite… even though I do also feel like it didn’t enough prepare me for some of the mechanics of teaching, or about teaching in an elementary school…

***This is only my first full week (I started on a Wednesday and the following week was Thanksgiving), and I’m really still pretty open-minded. I do blog my thoughts, criticisms and what-not, but I still don’t feel like “all the evidence is in” or anything on the teachers I’m observing/analyzing/writing about. And, just to be clear, I’m not one of those new young teachers who thinks “get rid of the old to make room for the new” — I don’t think these teachers are bad b/c they’re veterans.. or are stuck in old ways that are all completely bad, etc., nor do I think I have all the answers.