Let me address you all as teachers, teacher leaders, and people vested in the future of education on a serious, progressive level. Any day now, my Teacher Data Report should be coming out. This daunting reality is juxtaposed with some of the experiences I’ve gained as a teacher.

For instance, I just got back from a trip to North Carolina, home of the Tarheels, the Dukies, and the Center for Teaching Quality for a Board of Directors meeting. Without revealing too much, I had the honor of sitting with colleagues whose efforts in the education sphere have made some of the discussions we have possible. In today’s world, the opportunities for regular teachers to get personal development from people who have a similar vision for our students are few and far between.

Neglected in the spectrum of growth available to teachers is the necessity for teachers to see this thing we do daily as less of a job and more of a career. The modal experience in years for teachers now is 1 (!) whereas in the mid-80s was 15 (!!!!). Thus, one might assert that the chipping away at the professionalism of teachers has worked on a large scale. While efforts like the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards have continued to push for pedagogical expertise (and implicit leadership) amongst teachers, we’ve seen silent darts thrown at the idea that teachers have even footing with other, more respected professions.

Ostensibly, one of the targets for these darts is me.

When the news dropped that the United Federation of Teachers (my union) lost the court case to keep TDRs from the public eye, I knew I had to bite the bullet. Hard. Thousands of teachers who teach 3rd through 8th grade English and mathematics will find themselves in the back pages of yellow rags like the New York Post, and some teachers have already conceded to their lack of power about these faulty reports. The biggest irony about this is that the latest opponent of this teacher evaluation system is none other than Bill Gates. With conditions so hostile, and a system so flawed, who will lead the charge towards a profession that in effect makes teacher data reports irrelevant?

Me.

And you.

And you, too.

For, if my teaching should be rated so publicly, I prefer people ask my kids about me, which seems to work to measure teacher effectiveness.

If my teaching should be rated so publicly, I would rather people ask me what I do with my colleagues across the city, across the school, and even with my co-teachers.

If my teaching should be rated so publicly, I hope that my students’ scores not be the only measure that matters for my teaching, since 40% is practically 100%.

If my teaching should be rated so publicly, I understand I’m not the greatest teacher, but it’s a great thing to aspire for such a title.

If my teaching should be rated so publicly, I don’t sleep well at night comforted in knowing that I’m an average teacher in a below-average school system, because there are thousands of children seeking teachers who want to do well by them.

If my teaching should be rated so publicly, I only strengthen in my resolve to help usher in a new education system that believes in its teachers without caveat, pretense, or platitude.

if my teaching should be rated so publicly, I won’t leave the profession any faster because I love what I do. I can’t promise that for the rest of the 12,000 teachers to whom this apply. Bless our hearts and minds.

I have been preparing for my plunge back into the kiddie pool since last Tuesday when I learned I would be teaching again. Tomorrow is the big day. As I have been preparing I realized I had lost much of the knowledge and skills I used on a daily basis when I was teaching. I have never felt the truth of the statement that administrators lose touch with the reality of the classroom within three years more purely than right now. I decided to give myself a dry run on teaching today by visiting another class. As I sat in front of 15, 3 year-olds I realized I didn’t remember how to play even my most basic of songs for kids. I hit the wrong note, sang badly, and even had to ask the kids if it sounded right.

But, I did it. I can see how an administrator could lose touch with the reality of teaching. I can especially see how it could cause them to really change how they interacted with the teachers in their charge. I had forgotten how hard it is to motivate that many young children to move in the same direction of learning. As I rediscovered my knowledge in skills I felt like I was finding things I had forgotten I needed.

Its been like digging through my old toy box.

I also found some things I know I won’t need anymore. I won’t need to feel that pressure to make children conform in order to drive instruction like I did when I was teaching before. I won’t cut children off if they are talking about things that aren’t in the curriculum. I will be present, in the moment, responding, leading, challenging, encouraging, and loving the children right in front of me.

Maybe that is what happens to administrators who leave the classroom. They forget about all the knowledge and skills in their toy box and just throw the whole thing away. Maybe that is why the line between those who teach and those who lead schools should be blurred. If the the administrator re-learns what was important to them about education (and gets to keep their toys) and teachers learn what really matters in the bigger scheme (and realize that some toys are necessary) we have a more balanced learning environment.

The video above is one of my favorite stories to read to children. Can’t wait to do it again.

John -

It feels so good to be back! I’ve only been able to differentiate day and night by the amount of buzz I hear outside. With my newborn’s eating schedule out of rhythm right now, we’ve gently tried to encourage him to take the 2-3 hours route so we can get some sleep in the intervals.

In your blog post, “Learning How To Be Principled,” you said:

“if [Matt Damon] met Kilian, or some of the other former TFA fellows like Sophia Pappas, Executive Director of the NYC Office of Early Childhood Education, or Jennifer Rosenbaum, Director of Instruction and Performance, he might think twice about refusing on principle. He might decide to use the recognition by the NEA as an opportunity to express a more nuanced opinion that might make a substantive difference [...] his refusal to accept a recognition from the National Education Association on principle makes his passion in Washington look more like a publicity stunt than a passionate belief. It also casts whatever strides towards teacher voice that were gained in D.C. in the shadow of Damon as just another education advocate against reform. I don’t really think this is the case but it puts my own perspective in relief. How can we have strong opinions without arguing for arguments’ sake. In this case, disagreeing on principle actually made him seem less principled to me because he squandered an opportunity.”

Well, first, let me say that I found him fairly genuine at the protest, and the earnest with which he approaches his work solidifies his solid reputation. Having said that, I don’t believe that all their contentions about Teach for America (and other alternative certification programs) are prudent. As someone who graduated from NYC Teaching Fellows, I don’t consider myself unprepared for the classroom. Frankly, some of us can jump in to the classroom and learn on the job for different reasons. It really depends on whether or not the school has the right staff to supplement the perceived lack of training for our newest teachers.

But that’s the equivalent of pulling hairs. I do believe in the idea of teacher residency as a model for training teachers, and that seems to get the most bang for its buck. I also believe that we as a country can come up with a handful of tenets that we of like spirit can come up with that will generate the best achievement for students. When I was younger, I used to believe that having a really small unit of people who believed in about 95% of the same things can get the most accomplished. I used to believe that all the groups I saw running together all believed in the same things and had the same behaviors.

As I’ve gotten older and seen how different movements work, I’ve noticed that, whether charitable or nefarious, the most effective movements have a small, malleable, and memorable set of core beliefs and tenets for their congregation. Obviously, the core team of Teaching 2030 represents that. The diversity in ed-thought reigned supreme over the diversity of experiences, but we all held a few core beliefs that make our partnership so unique. Items like student learning, teacher voice, and social value on education all matter to us, and we always took our conversations (and disagreements) back to that. We never needed reminders about respect, professionalism, and care because it was assumed that we had those three tenets concretely affirmed for us.

Some of this plays itself out in other venues where the amount of people is inversely proportional to the amount of tenets these people can agree upon. Once we strike a nice balance between those tenets. That’s why, unlike my colleagues who look for ideological purity, I can shake hands with a much broader set of people. Like Art Wise. Like Deborah Meier. Like Diane Ravitch. Like Pedro Noguera.

Like Matt Damon. I don’t know what else played into the decision of dissenting against the NEA award, but I wonder if there was more space to discuss the nuances of the alternative certification discussion. It’s my background and I wouldn’t know what to do myself if, after graduating from four years of undergraduate school, I’d have to go through another four years for education. Then again, Dr. Carlsson-Paige, Mr. Damon, and I agree on about 90% of things in education. Actually, Mr. Betlach might be in that boat as well. The passion for education is certainly there.

Let’s find a way to find those tenets we hold dear to us and build from there. I’m sure we can think of something.

Jose -

One of the pitfalls of writing an education blog is that I am constantly taking a position on an issue only to to find a counterpoint to my position that proves my previous opinion less right. I didn’t say wrong, just less right. I have come to the point of view that only allows me to say with intense conviction that I believe in balance. So here is some TFA flavored balance for the policy table.

I am not a fan of Teach for America as a way to “fix” education. I am a fan of many of the people I have met who actually participated in TFA. One of those was our co-author, Kilian Betlach. I know that he went into his teaching experience for all the right reasons. He wanted to make a difference, he cared about the kids he taught, he learned a lot and likely got quite good at teaching. At least that is what his students might say.

When he left to work for EdTrust, I figured it was a natural progression for him, he is a brilliant writer with well reasoned and researched arguments that support what he wrote about at EdTrust and especially in our book, Teaching 2030. Then Kilian surprised me. He dove back into the deep end of high poverty education as an administrator. He is currently the AP at Elmhurst Community Prep, a small middle school in the Oakland Unified School District. One of the things I always liked about my talks with Kilian is his passionate belief and defense of his ideas. I remember shooting basketball with him and talking passionately about the unused time after school when kids could be making academic gains. He thought the day should be longer or at least have targeted tutoring. I thought that kids needed a break after school. Many of my high poverty students don’t get to play outside after school. Their only opportunity for play was within the school setting where there was less of an opportunity for random danger or little minds to learn things they shouldn’t have to. We came to an impasse, I said, maybe if I taught middle school I would see it from his perspective, but from my view point it I want more play for my young students. He said, I can see your point but I still think after school programs are an important piece of addressing inequality.

We agreed to disagree while both having learned something from it. This is why I say, thank you to Alexander Russo, when he points out educators and their advocates who are generally disagreeable on “principle” with those in power. I read an essay by Michael Walzer (1973) recently that discussed the problem of “dirty hands”. It brought me to the idea that perhaps, when we refuse to get our hands “dirty” we are really refusing to acknowledge that substantive change happens with compromise or at least, the acknowledgement of disagreement while still  finding respect and a way for contrasting visions to be valued. Refusal to participate on principle could actually less morally sound than “getting your hands dirty” and compromising.

According to Russo, Matt Damon refused the NEA recognition to make a statement. He didn’t think the NEA should be in bed with TFA. But, if he met Kilian, or some of the other former TFA fellows like Sophia Pappas, Executive Director of the NYC Office of Early Childhood Education, or Jennifer Rosenbaum, Director of Instruction and Performance, he might think twice about refusing on principle. He might decide to use the recognition by the NEA as an opportunity to express a more nuanced opinion that might make a substantive difference. I know you met Matt at the SOS march and he gave a great speech in Washington but his refusal to accept a recognition from the National Education Association on principle makes his passion in Washington look more like a publicity stunt than a passionate belief. It also casts whatever strides towards teacher voice that were gained in D.C. in the shadow of Damon as just another education advocate against reform. I don’t really think this is the case but it puts my own perspective in relief. How can we have strong opinions without arguing for arguments’ sake. In this case, disagreeing on principle actually made him seem less principled to me because he squandered an opportunity. Maybe he would like to respond here. ;) I’m just sayin’, its the balance that counts.

Jose -

Teacher evaluation is intricately tied to teacher preparation and the future of education. In a recent interview with John Merrow, Barnett Berry and David Stiener compare notes on who and what makes up the current American teaching force. Barnett makes some excellent points that get to the heart of why teacher prep, teacher evaluation, and education reform are all talking about the same thing, what makes quality teaching. He describes the multitude of “easy button” alternative teacher certification that put inexperienced/under-supported teachers in classrooms to fail and leave teaching within five years.

These people that leave teaching so quickly could be great teachers but, they “leave before they get good at it” as Berry says. I want to make a distinction here, Barnett Berry is not talking about teacher quality, he is talking about teaching quality. I firmly believe that we need to talk about the profession of teaching from the standpoint of determining what makes great teaching not great teachers. When we talk about great teachers we always end up talking about great teachers we have known. Invariably these are selfless “super heroes” who sacrifice them selves to the greater good of society. When we talk about great teachers we should also be talking about the context of great teachers, ie great teaching. Great teaching takes place in the space between students and teachers.

Merrow also recently wrote a Huffington Post blog on the academic background of the American teaching force. It is often cited that teachers come from the least academically proficient college graduates in our country. John Merrow did the math to describe who the teachers are that we are talking about. I converted his explanation into 3 infographics. As you can see, we may not recruit the “best and the brightest” into the profession but the average American teacher is clearly above average before they even enter the classroom. Now lets talk about solutions that address teaching quality, not teacher quality. As Merrow says at the close of his post, “Could teacher training be improved? Could working conditions be improved? Could starting salaries and the bizarre compensation system that back-loads rewards be improved? Yes, yes and most definitely yes.”