Job Protection... Is This The Real Priority of Schools?

The edu-industrial complex likes to tout their dedication to kids.  This trumpeting of priorities can be found in mission statements, goals, educational theories... pretty much anywhere.  Are kids REALLY the top priority? 

I would argue it is impossible for kids to be the top priority.  The entire system is designed to create and foster internal conflict.  In theory, everyone associated with education would be working toward the common goal of always doing what is best for children.  In practice, every hand in the cookie jar of education is eternally struggling for power, influence, or personal gain.  The federal government, state government, local government, school boards, superintendents, building-level administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, unions, and business owners all work to secure their own interests, usually in the form of securing their livelihood.  They're protecting their jobs. 

This focus on job protection ultimately creates problems within the system simply because this focus supersedes what should be the real goal- doing what is best for kids.

If you work within the edu-industrial complex, start paying attention to the decisions made around you.  You begin to see this unspoken focus on protecting jobs versus truly doing what is best for children.

For the really brave, start considering your own decisions.  How many times do you make a decision that prioritizes your own employment over the welfare children? 

Of course, it takes bravery to admit this as humans are very adept at justifying our actions.  We're experts at relieving cognitive dissonance.  Therein lies the problem- we're too good at convincing ourselves that our decisions really are in the interest of kids. 

It's Not The Test That's Biased, Damn It!

I have several pet peeves as a teacher.  One major pet peeve is the fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of tests.  Let's use the ACT as an example.  

Note- I am not arguing about actually using the test... generally I feel standardized testing is one of the major problems of the education system.  We'll save that argument for another day. 

Back to the ACT.  Critics often charge the test is biased, usually racially.  They point to the fact that racial minorities score lower than white test takers.  Their conclusion- the test is biased!

The ACT is a carefully crafted test.  It is meant to measure students' aptitude for college-level work.  This is directly from the ACT site:

"These tests are designed to assess students' general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work."

 The test is developed by professional test developers.  It is meticulously designed to be both reliable and valid.  It asses students' abilities to succeed in college.  Indeed, higher ACT scores are correlated with higher first-year GPA in college.  The test measures what it is supposed to measure.

If the test measures what it measures, why do racial minorities score lower?  Ready for this one- the system is biased, not the tests that measure the system.  That's right.  WE'RE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE TEST!  

Our entire education system is set up by white relatively affluent decision-makers.  It should be no surprise white relatively affluent students fare well under the system.  Any other group, whether that group is a racial minority or a different socioeconomic group, will not do as well. 

The test doesn't have to change.  In fact, the test cannot change.  Changing the test would simply ignore the obvious- if we want to put an end to discrepancies in test scores, we need to fix the underlying system that caused the inequitable scores in the first place. 

Why is that so difficult?  Logistics aside, it requires us to face a truth we don't like to face- all of us have biases.  Don't believe me?  Check this out.  It affects how we teach.  Until we admit that to ourselves, no amount of test tweaking or school reform will fix the achievement gap as measured by standardized tests. 

School Improvement Roulette... is it Designed to Keep Us Busy?

Pick any teacher with more than a decade of experience.  Ask that teacher how many educational theories (or "fads" if you will) they have been exposed to over the years.  Ask them how many programs, ideas, or philosophies their district has tried.  I will guess the average district tries something new about every three years.  My district certainly fits.

Proponents of this constant change will claim it is the natural outcome of improvement.  Each new idea contributes to the greater good.  This, of course, ignores the fact that no single one fix has contributed to any statistically significant improvement in any measurable variable.  None of it works.

So why do we bother?  Why do we seemingly develop a perpetual "flavor of the day"?  One reason could be economics.  It would be exceedingly profitable for these third-party program developers to "train" our school faculty and staff.  They make grand promises, back it up by some limited research that isn't as generalizable as they make it seem, and set a reasonable time frame to measure success.  A district will commit to their services for a year or two.  At the end of the two years, the district doesn't see significant improvement, so they move on.  If they DO get a statistically-significant improvement in some district, they have an immediate case study they can use to market the services.  It's a great business model.  Hell, maybe I'll do it one of these days.

There could be other reasons.  More insidious, conspiratorial reasons.  Could the calls for school improvement be a distraction?  Could the powers that be (defined however you wish) compel schools to perpetually search for solutions to impossible-to-solve problems to keep them busy?

Let's assume schools serve a useful social purpose in our society.  They keep the lower and middle class pacified so they don't kill the rich.  Yes, it's a bit of a Marxist idea.  Since the upper class ultimately control public schools (via legislation and lobbying among other methods), they have the power to call for continual improvement (NCLB?)  This forces schools to fix problems that are inherent in the system.  The problems cannot be solved.  Keeping the bureaucracy within schools busy in this "pot of gold" search keeps us from coming to the conclusion that the schools are not broken, they work exactly like they are designed to work.

We're hamsters in a glass cage running around a wheel in an attempt to escape.  It gives us a false hope that escape is possible if we try hard enough.  And it keeps us busy enough to avoid asking why we're in the cage in the first place. 

Schools: Do We Cause Our Greatest Problem?

One of the most frequent complains heard among school personnel is the lack of support from families.  I'm guilty of this myself.  We continually complain that our problems within school would be solved if only our students had better parental support.  After all, we know achievement is correlated with parental involvement.  Sounds plausible, right?

Blaming families is easy.  We see absentee parents more interested in earning money than spending quality time with their children.  We see family units that no longer practice time-honored traditions like family dinners, sharing of thoughts and ideas, or any other sort of meaningful interactions.  If we could figure out a way to change families, we could solve all our problems in schools. 

Now think about what we've been teaching in school for the last fifty years.  If you work hard, you will get better grades.  If you get better grades, you will gain acceptance into college.  The better the grades, the better the institution.  A college education will allow you to get a better job.  A better job will afford you a more comfortable lifestyle.  A more comfortable lifestyle will result in happiness.  Boil it down: hard work = collection of stuff = happiness.  This is the lesson we teach; this is the goal we champion; this is the life we idealize.

The absentee parents of our struggling children learned this exact same lesson in school, too.  Why are parents working so hard?  They are chasing a fleeting definition of happiness.  They are trying to provide more comfort, usually for their children.  They are simply doing what they have been taught... in schools. 

A few days ago, I wrote about the evils of homework.  What does homework do?  It monopolizes kids' family time.  Not only have we produced a generation of workaholics searching for an elusive capitalistic version of happiness, but we're adding another barrier to family development by busying our students.  We already take thirty-six hours of their time per week (even more when you factor lunch and transportation time), but we insist on giving them even more outside the confines of the classroom. 

Why do our kids have such weak families?  Maybe we're the cause.

Technology: A Financial Sinkhole?

"Technology" has been a buzzword for a number of years in education.  It was the ultimate teaching tool, supp  osedly.  It was going to make learning fun, supposedly.  It was going to connect our students to a broader world, supposedly.  It would guide our society to a Utopian future where all our problems would fade away, supposedly.

In reality, technology simply does not deliver.  The computer is a perfect example.  It is the ultimate building block to allow kids to create amazing things.  Instead, it is often used as an expensive typewriter.  Or a glorified electronic textbook.  Or a tool to create the single greatest danger to our oral tradition: PowerPoint. 

Computers aren't being used as a tool that will lead to educational revolution.  They are being used as a very expensive Band-aid to hide the fact that our school systems simply do not have the capacity to educate our kids on the skills they need to be productive members of society.

Worse, we teach skills that themselves are antiquated.  We equate "cutting edge" with newer and flashier equipment, yet do the same tired lessons.  Write this paper in a word processor.  Read some websites.  Make a PowerPoint.  Our latest big innovation?  Watching YouTube videos.

Hot damn!

I think I am becoming a bit of a voluntary academic Luddite.  I am moving toward the idea of abandoning technology in schools completely.  Computers in school have become the Ritalin of the new millennium.  They pacify kids.  Kids mindlessly surfing the web do not cause problems.

Additionally, we cannot keep up with the speed of innovation.  We're teaching kids to research websites.  Why?  Anyone following technology trends understands where the Interwebs are going... mobile apps.  Powerpoint?  It destroys speaking skills.  Word processors?  Okay, that's a good one.  Let's do something more interactive, though.  How about teaching kids to blog? Now that could be useful!

Educational technology policy is poor at best.  Schools never did respond well to change... we're just not designed for it.  Our clumsy attempts at trying to integrate technology have and always will be a failing effort. 

Instead of trying to teach kids skills they needed a decade ago, let's work on the basics... the stuff that won't be obsolete in five years.  You know... writing, basic math, talking to others, negotiating, how to change a tire... the skills that really matter.

How Teachers Dress: The Difference Between Professionalism and Authoritarianism

Most teachers dress in a professional manner.  It's what we are taught.  How often do we question this rationale?  What affect does dress have on our students?  We assume it is positive; we assume we're acting as role models.  Is that the reality of the situation?

Consider this: the world's greatest teachers that made the most lasting impact dressed in rags.  Buddha.  Jesus.  Gandhi.  Why were they such successful teachers?  They had a damn good message.

We have a tendency to use clothing as a prop.  We hide behind our clothing.  We think we need to look professional to create a better learning environment.  Perhaps we think we need to be positive role models.  Maybe we just like the order that naturally flows from a perceived imbalance in power between a well-dressed person and a more casually-dressed person. 

Let's examine each of these ideas.  First, does professional dress really create a better learning environment?  Is there data supporting this?  I did a cursory check... it appears as if this is simply a case of "We do it this way because it has always been done this way".  That is dangerous thinking.  What we do is far more important than how we look.

The "we're positive role models" bit is especially offensive.  It is elitist bullshit.  Not all students will go into a profession that champions white-collar uniforms.  If being a role model is our goal, shouldn't we be a little more inclusive?  Shouldn't we attempt to represent all professions?

I suspect the REAL reason many teachers like the professional dress standard is the imbalance of power it creates.  It implicitly sends a message that the teacher is the authority figure; the student is relegated to a subservient drone.  Wearing professional dress will intimidate some kids.  Those kids won't act out.  It makes our life easier.  Isn't this the same reason teachers played such a prominent role in the over-prescription of ADD/ADHD meds?

In my opinion, professional dress is simply a shield people create to hide some degree bad teaching.  Teachers aren't the only professionals that derive some credibility or power from appearance.  It is commonplace in the business world to find an army of suit-clad warriors that use their Armani ties to hide the fact that they really aren't that effective.

How we dress DOES send a message.  We automatically assume professional dress sends a positive message.  Perhaps we should critically examine that assumption.  If we need professional dress to be effective teachers, perhaps we should critically examine how we teach.  Mediocre teachers dress the part.  They look like professionals.  They sound like professionals.  Great teachers are great regardless of their dress.  Their outward appearance is inconsequential to the fact that they are damn good at what they do.

Thoughts?

Why Homework Is Bad

Hey, what a great topic for an initial post!  Here's the deal.  I've been a high school teacher for twelve years.  In those twelve years, I've experienced a lot of crap.  Our entire education system is founded on some pretty stupid ideas.  Today's convention we uncritically accept: homework.

My daughter is a kindergartner.   She routinely has homework.  Kindergarten.  homework.  What the Hell does she need homework for?  Is our school system trying to condition children to accept the idea that their entire lives should revolve around school?  At the high school level, I see kids routinely spending several hours per night laboring away.  Each of their six teachers feel it is their duty to assign at least a hour of homework every night. 

I recently read an article by Alfie Kohn (http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/homework.htm).  It perfectly outlines my own objections to homework.  For brevity, I won't rehash Alfie's arguments.  I'll focus on this one issue.

As teachers, are we really doing such a shitty job in the classroom that we need to supplement our lessons with a load of added crap?  Our ultimate goal should be to efficiently and effectively teach what has to be taught within the time frame of our schedule.  If we need more time, something is wrong.  Maybe we're making our lessons unnecessarily complex.  Maybe we're expecting our kids to do too much.  Maybe we're using teaching methods that are ineffective. Maybe we should look for a simpler solution.

Alfie does a great job of outlining the rationale against homework.  I think this is a perfect example of an ineffective institution we willingly and uncritically accept because it has always been done that way. 

Thoughts?