EdTechTrek

Is there a difference between a “good” teacher and an “effective” teacher? The LA Times recently covered an english teacher who made a significant impact on a tough group of students in one year. The story is worth reading, but here are a few quotations that struck a chord with me.

This 35 year teacher veteran coming from a prestigious prep school into a tough urban school is described in the following situation:

“Holmes had nothing unusual planned (for a lesson where a student asked to be excused for what she thought was a good reason). He considers every lesson, every minute of class time, to be important, and, at age 66, he often stays up past midnight preparing for the next day’s lessons.”

No one can say that being an effective teacher is easy. No one can say that effectiveness can be routine. No one can be effective in the classroom without a great deal of dedication, passion, conviction, knowledge, and skill.

The article goes on to describe various attributes of this teacher in his last year of classroom instruction and also reports on a number of anecdotes. The article goes on to end with this statement describing his last class teaching:

“There are no fireworks, no speeches, no round of applause. Just this: As he walks out the door and heads to the parking lot, Phil Holmes knows that today he delivered a good lesson. He didn’t waste a second. He made the students think.”

Now I know some would take up issue with the word “delivered” and take the philosophical viewpoint that instruction should not be “delivered” but rather experienced and socially constructed, but those same folks would often sacrifice “effectiveness” for poorly implemented cooperative learning, differentiated learning, on-line learning, project-based learning, technology-mediated learning, social learning, problem-based learning… The list goes on. All of these pedagogical structures have merit. But, the bottom line is measurable results that validate effectiveness as a teacher. Here is a teacher that perhaps takes an unpopular approach to teaching. The article does not even mention all of the technology-based tools that he uses to reach a digital generation. I suspect that he uses few to none. But, he gets results… excellent results. Students care about him and appreciate his skillfulness in the classroom.

How do you define effectiveness? Is technology really a required prerequisite? Or, should we let effectiveness and results speak for what should be required?

I am reading brain rules by John Medina and love this quotation as it relates to how we learn:

“If you wanted to create an education environment that was directly opposed to what the brain was good at doing, you probably would design something like a classroom.”

He is not saying that one cannot learn in a traditional classroom. We all have. However, he does challenge the notion that it is the best or most effective way to learn.

Oh, what we sacrifice in the name of “efficiency”.

A recent report by the Education Sector and the FDR Group “surveyed 1,010 K–12 public school teachers about their views on the teaching profession, teachers unions, and a host of reforms aimed at improving teacher quality.”

Here is one finding that I think merits serious thought:

Only 26 percent of teachers say that their most recent formal evaluation was useful and effective in helping them to improve their teaching. Seventy-nine percent support strengthening the formal evaluation of probationary teachers. And nearly a third of teachers (32 percent) say that tenured teachers should be evaluated on an annual basis.

I can remember some of my “formal” evaluations. They were typically done by an overburdened administrator who had the monumental task of evaluating every teacher in the building at least twice a year in addition to all of their other responsibilities. Often, those evaluation visits where rescheduled due to unexpected events that arose. And, all of those evaluations where scheduled ahead of time. The result - teachers (myself included) would plan a smashing “song and dance” lesson that included those key elements that we all knew the principal liked and was looking for. Once the evaluation was over, it was back to business as usual. In the evaluation de-briefing (which also had to be scheduled with every teacher), unless there was anything glaringly abhorrent, most constructive criticisms were insignificant at best.

So, it is no surprise to see the low statistic of only 26 percent of teachers reporting that they found their most recent formal evaluation useful and effective. Along the same lines, 32 percent of tenured teachers feel that they should be evaluated on an annual basis. That makes total sense if almost the same percentage feel that those evaluations are not all that beneficial.

So, what to do? Are K-12 administrators perhaps not the best candidates to do faculty evaluations? Are they too busy to really give useful constructive criticism? Is their own teaching craft stale and their own idea pool dry? Can we expect building administrators to really be excellent teachers as well? Perhaps you consider yourself lucky to have an administrator who is still an active practitioner and who is keeping up with teaching innovation. But, my guess is that if you did a PowerPoint, projected a web page, sang a cool song, or did a nifty craft, you would get kudos - assuming your students were well-behaved (notice I didn’t use the term “meaningfully engaged”).

Who said education reform was simple? Are new models of teacher growth and evaluation needed?

Creativity is important, but neglected in schools, the headline reads.

Tell us something that we don’t know. Imagine, a general conclusion was that it is best to foster creativity among students at school, “not only to produce a competitive workforce, but also to help all students succeed in life”. This report is yet one more example of not doing what we know is best - about obstacles that get in the way of best practices, solid learning theory, and curriculum. What will it take to bring about real change… and I emphasize “real” - no window dressing or politically charged policies.

During candidate interviews of employers seeking creative employees, characteristics were ranked as follows, from highest to lowest:

1. candidate’s ability to look spontaneously beyond the specifics of a question (78%)

2. responses to hypothetical scenarios (70 %)

3. elaboration on extracurricular activities or volunteer work (40 %)

4. appearance (27 %).

Also, employers noted that “problem identification or articulation” was of paramount importance in creative employees. Even with problem-based learning, teachers can’t resist defining the problems for their students and guiding them to solve pre-established problems with pre-determined solutions - Neither what employers see as all that valuable… nor realistic in real-world problem-solving contexts. Perhaps the solution is to test creativity (can you see the sarcasm dripping here?).
So, where do these types of reports leave educators. Where to they leave policy makers?

Where do they leave you?

A few weeks back teacher, Carl Chew, made the headlines for receiving a 2 week without pay suspension for refusing to give the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) standardized test in his Washington State classroom. Here is a reposting of his response explaining his actions. It is a MUST READ!! I am going to continue to process his detailed, response. It is not a political response. It is not a research-based or scholarly response. It is a response grounded in reality, in the personal, social, emotional, and physical learning environment.