ts2030

Handshake, Black and White

Before policymakers and other key stakeholders can make decisions surrounding educational accountability, they would do well to focus their full attentions on the idea of trust. It’s the characteristic most lacking in every discussion about the word accountability in education, and with good reason. The present economic situation has many afraid that, like most industries, education departments will find ways to cut teaching jobs in the name of efficiency. They become dissonant when leaders will continue to cite faulty research about class size and success. They’re furious that the chairs and employees in the district offices, many of whom have little classroom experience, will solely focus on one aspect of their whole teaching careers (test scores).

Yet, most of this can change, and will, when these very leaders change the paradigm from one where things are done to in-building educators and done by in-building educators.

If we trust teachers enough to create rubrics and measurements for our students, why not let educators have a say in how they should be measured? In our latest book, Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students and Our Public Schools – Now and in the Future, we get dozens of accounts from some of the best and brightest teachers across the nation making a strong case for including the teacher voice in policy decisions all throughout our education systems. We give windows for how we can innovate in assessing our students and contributing positively to our school communities. From re-imagining teacher preparatory programs to the role of teachers, we demand rigor in ways that many of us believe are true to the professional teacher.

In some circles, policymakers claim they do include all stakeholders, but when we look at their processes, we notice that the teachers aren’t asked about anything until the very end, when the decision is 90% complete. Unlike soldiers who hear commands from generals who’ve been corporals, or even professional athletes who listen to coaches who’ve been around the game for years before taking the helm, educators often get talked down to by people who’ve only seen the classroom as students.

We can change that. Here are five quick ideas I thought of that policymakers can do before they construct their next paper:

  • Do extensive research about the district or body in question.
    If it’s about a school, gather up as much as you can about the school. Get as much information about the school’s environment as its assessment levels. If it’s about a teaching standard or practice, let teachers pilot it without penalty or reproach and ask for feedback about the practice in question.
  • Have a clear and transparent purpose behind your policy.
    Come into meetings with no present ulterior motive. Strip the policy of its educational jargon and see if it still sounds as thorough as when you first wrote it. Read it aloud to theorists and practitioners alike and see if the feedback is what you anticipated. Be genuine about your approach.
  • Invest a part of your time in sitting inside a school.
    This goes hand-in-hand with the last point. See how well your policy matches up with what’s actually happening in classrooms. Pick a random school, not simply the favorites. Would you prescribe your policy to that school? Does it need tweaking? Is it really an effective practice? N.B. – Extra points if you do it without media or other personnel around you.
  • Give the students and parents a voice in that policy, too.
    Often, when people present policy, they do it in isolated corners or dusty long tables wondering why there’s little passion involved. Introduce the very people who might be affected by said policy into the conversation and things get really interesting. Do it early in the process, test it, work out the kinks, and present it again.
  • Ask lots of questions; don’t have all the answers.
    Even after all is said and done, and the policy has been enacted, give it a good amount of time before asking for real reflection about the policy. If it didn’t work, don’t be stubborn about it; remove it and go back to the drawing board.

A part of me wants to say that educators can probably write many of these policies themselves, but they’re often busy teaching classes. Therefore, it’s up to the right allies to make the best possible choices for the future of education. Yet, the voices who they should listen to are eager to contribute.

Do they trust it?

Jon Becker recently skewered several arguments about the direction education “needs” to go in. He did it so well, I couldn’t help but respond in a comment to another false assumption about the direction of schools.

On Educational Insanity Kevin commented,

I think the point Mr. Becker is trying to make is that we need to first decide what we want a graduating senior to know and be able to do, before we can talk about the “how” or “why” of school change. If my analysis of his post is correct then I would agree with him. Too often I find in schools that we try to make decisions in a vacuum without ever deciding what it is we are aiming for. As educational leaders we should be asking ourselves first “Where are we headed?” It is the basic concept of backwards by design. Figure out your endpoint and then decide how to get there.

The idea of backwards design, when it comes to the purposes of education is one of those ideas that sounds good on the surface but, I believe would fly apart upon implementation. Backwards design assumes that we are able to know where we want to go based on the information we have now.

Most of the jobs young students will have in the future haven’t been invented yet.

Just watch, as we try to come up with national standards, how narrow we get with the purposes of school. If you try to make everybody (including the USED) happy all the time, it is hard to say anything meaningful beyond common sense ideas like, everybody should be able to read, everybody should have some ideas about probability. These ideas have already been put forward by various national organizations. The national standards will be nothing new, they will only make what we need to teach kids more specific, and less meaningful.

Kevin, I don’t think we need to incorporate backwards design at this point. When we throw the purposes of education up for delineation it actually makes the purposes of school less democratic in our current society. There are so many “influencers” out there that do not have students’ success and welfare at the center of their arguments that by clarifying the goals of schooling we would defacto narrow those goals. The loudest voices in a backwards design would the ones with the most to gain in the process, industry. At least the way it is now, teachers have the opportunity to squeeze in some Plato, or Joyce, Jack Kerouac, or Abbot and Costello into a discussion on language and meaning. In a backwards designed classroom we will always be chasing the lion’s tail, trying to catch up with a changing society. Students will be doing this because of what some policy maker or eduwonk has deemed important instead of what they have decided for themselves. The more specific we make our goals, the less meaningful they will be. The less specific we make our goals, the more opportunities there will be for students to find meaning. Maybe we should start thinking about the shape of the pegs, when we design the holes, instead of the other way around.

Image: http://www.josephnolen.com/images/monk-riding-backwards.jpg

Syndicate content