TLN Teacher Voices

Are Advanced Placement Courses for Everyone?

The recent release of Newsweek's "Top US High Schools" list, which relies on a rating formula devised by Washington Post education writer Jay Mathews, has sparked some lively dialogue in the TLN daily discussion group. Mathews's rating system is simple: the number of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by all students at a school in 2004 divided by the number of graduating seniors. The AP part of the formula dominates, since many fewer schools offer IB. As his formula implies, Mathews believes that most high school students can and should take one or more AP courses.

Quite a few TLN members teach AP. Some worry that an indiscriminate push to enroll more and more students in AP classes will have a watering-down effect. But many others agree with Mathews that, with quality teaching in place, a majority of students can be successful in these rigorously designed courses.

Here are some comments from our discussion.

Mary S., a high school teacher in North Carolina, wrote:

I have shared the recent discussion on AP classes with some of my colleagues, as well as the Top 1000 ranking in Newsweek. Many of you have mentioned the push in your schools to enroll more students in AP. We are jumping on that same bandwagon in our high school—AP for all. We were told in a meeting, "We don't care what they score on the AP test, we only care that we add as many students as possible to as many AP courses as possible."

One of the teachers in my building asked that I post this question to you:

Could the emphasis on AP be fueled by College Board as a way to increase their profits? More AP courses equals more teachers trained in their workshops, more AP prep books purchased, more AP tests taken, etc. She is not saying that AP is bad, she likes it, but wondered about the amount of profit for College Board that will result from increasing the enrollment in AP courses. I thought this was an interesting way to look at this. What do you folks think?

Erica, a high school English teacher in Virginia, wrote:

I have scored AP tests for ETS and College Board for 19 years and have been a presenter (consultant) for AP and pre-AP workshops. The quality of their materials is incredibly high — and I am a harsh critic of most materials for teachers. (I've never met a Teacher's Edition I didn't hate!) The emphasis in scoring (at least in English) is to reward students for reading closely and writing thoughtfully. The emphasis in the teacher training is to provide engaging, challenging materials that will foster critical thinking.

In all the years I've worked with ETS and College Board, renewing training and flying to various cities for the AP reading, I have never seen a profit motive. My understanding is that they make their money with the SATs (that may change with the people-graded essay) and break even with the AP work.

I am also a champion of "AP" for almost everyone — at least in my large public high school. When I came here 10% of the senior class took AP English; 13 years later it's closer to 66% (more than 325 students.) They don't all pass the test, but that's not the goal. They are engaged in good books and discussions. All the students are capable of that kind of challenge, but many choose not to want to think or read. Those are the ones who won't benefit from AP.

Of course, my definition of "AP" in English is not a course that covers vast quantities of material, but one that encourages reflective reading and writing. In English we have the luxury of teaching process rather than content, which is not true in all AP subjects.

In delivering this kind of instruction to any student who signs up, my high school supports the College Board goals of access and equity. But we do it not because it's backed by College Board, but because that's what's best for our students.

Mary, a high school teacher who lives in the Washington area, wrote:

The high school rankings is based on a formula postulated by Jay Mathews of the Washington Post. He (as were many other lay-educators) was blown away by a single success in education — the Jaime Escalante story (and I agree that the man was an inspirational teacher). Escalante was able to make high achievers of poor, Hispanic kids, completely opposed to all expectations, using the AP system.

I think that Mr. Mathews has been a great voice for the education world because he has been able to capture the attention of the reading public. For that I am thankful. I think his formula is no different than any other formula (state test scores, SAT and ACT scores, etc.) in that they do not give a true picture of what an excellent education is, but give the realtors another statistic to use to sell to homebuyers.

Excellent teaching occurs in the classrooms of excellent teachers. As I have told many of my parenting peers: "Your child will receive an excellent education no matter which school he/she is enrolled in if you care enough to be attentive." Jay Mathews has already had his effect on public high schools. Many — like the one I can see from my back deck — have changed their curriculum to meet Mr. Mathews' ranking criteria. The high school in my town now only offers two levels of English. Honors (read AP) and regular. I have no doubt that the change is due to the high school ranking criteria Mathews has devised.

Does that mean that every kid enrolled in an honors course is receiving AP preparation? My guess is no. I am certain that the teacher will be working with the kids who arrive in that room, no matter what level they are. That is, if the teacher chooses to take them from where they are to where they might be able to go. I don't disagree with the idea that we must have rigor for all. Au contraire. I just am highly suspicious of schools that jump in rankings from one year to the next. I don't think true learning has occurred. I just think statisticians are at work and I am suspicious.

Michelle, a high school teacher in Miami-Dade FL, shared her experience:

I have taught AP classes for 15 years, and am of the mind to let any student in who wants in. The rationale for AP classes is the finite curriculum, focused course of study, and high level of critical analysis required to do well. Some students move to Honors after the first marking period, but not many. Even LEP students enjoy the class, and I find that they work very hard to achieve an acceptable grade. I like teaching to motivated students, and like the chance to rachet up the curriculum to get my students to think like historians. I find that they work hard to stay in the class, and we develop a real comraderie in our work.

The down side is that the curriculum is very demanding. Those who will do well on the test in May must have been taught and have read carefully the history they will be tested on. All students are pushed as if they will achieve a high grade, even though some of them do not write well enough to get a high score on the essays. I work with the AP English teacher, especially with those whose English is not good enough, to give them the tools to do well. (We have 124 nationalities who speak 26 languages in my high school of 2500.) There is simply no room for creative work in the syllabus, and I don't get to do the fun stuff I do with my Honors students. I do some of the subject using gifted strategies to keep them tuned in, but have to keep moving at a rigorous pace.

I love teaching AP and love the students who choose the class. It keeps me on top of my subject, makes me constantly strive to stay current, and challenges me to keep them interested in the story of our country. I think, and most of my students agree, that the hard work is worth the effort. It does require a supportive administrator who understands the demanding curriculum, and is willing to buy the 7 books my students read each year outside of the text. I wouldn't trade for anything else!

Teacher of the Year

It's late spring — the time when many districts, states (and the nation) announce the Teacher of the Year. In a recent conversation, members of the Teacher Leaders Network took up the question: why are teachers often ambivalent about such recognition? The dialogue was sparked by a teacher just recognized as TOY in a large urban district.

He wrote:

I know that I'm shying away from the "limelight" of TOY honors because I feel that there are tons of qualified teachers that deserve recognition too. I don't see myself as special or unique at all, and more importantly, I don't want the work of my colleagues overlooked!

Do you think all teachers feel this way about recognition? Are we all reluctant to be percieved as "better" than our colleagues? If so, why? What damage does that egalitarianism do to our profession? With equality being a driving force, will pay for performance or merit pay programs ever be embraced by teachers? Should they be?

I mean, if we are honestly accomplished and have made significant contributions to our schools and our professional communities, why are we ashamed to be celebrated?

A teacher from Virginia wrote:

I, like many of you have received all the "queen or king for a day" kudos. I have felt both honored and fraudulent because there are so many fine teachers. I would much rather prefer ongoing regard than the plaques, pencils, pens, mugs, and "pieces of flair" (to quote Office Space).

What does ongoing regard look like? Including me in the decisions that will affect my students and my working life. Remembering the knowledge and expertise I bring to my content area rather than continually making me jump through bureaucratic hoops. Recognize potential to improve school climate by freeing up some time in the day to tackle problems. (At this point in my life I don't really want money as much as I would like some time so I'm not always running around full tilt.)

A teacher from Missouri replied:

Mary, thank you for so eloquently stating how I feel about teacher recognition. I have been singled out for an honor in my district and I so often wanted to say, "I didn't get here on my own. I am surrounded by wonderful, hardworking educators who passionately care about children and learning." The award may have my name on it, but I accepted it on behalf of my colleagues.

A former state teacher of the year in Michigan offered another perspective:

When we say that recognition for outstanding skill/knowledge in teaching doesn't belong to a specific teacher, we are downplaying the fact that there ARE well-delineated knowledge and skills for teaching, and not all teachers are meeting them. We can't hope to continuously raise the bar, bringing more and more teachers to higher levels of accomplished practice, unless we can clearly define what good, creative teaching looks like, and celebrate it.

Teachers are nice, nice people. We like working with kids. We hate people who are self-centered and won't share — and we teach our students that they are not the center of the universe and must share their good ideas and good work, too. Our problem with recognition of exemplary practice is rooted in our nature as a profession, the tendency toward modesty and nurturing that led us into teaching intially. But false modesty has sometimes led us into promoting the equally false notion that one teacher is as good as another — and lots of bad school policy and mediocrity follow.

I love these words from Marianne Williamson:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.When we let our own light shine,
We unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.As we are liberated from our own fear,
Our presence automatically liberates others.

And a former district TOY and state Honor Roll teacher in South Carolina shared this:

It has been two years since I was selected District Teacher of the Year and subsequently a State Teacher of the Year finalist. During these last two years I have served as the co-chair of my district's teacher forum, participated in state teacher forum functions, and served on the South Carolina Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement Advisory Board — and this just skims the surface of the number of ways I have represented teachers during this journey.

At our district's teacher of the year banquet Monday, I gave my "farewell address" to my fellow teacher forum members as the new teachers of the year were honored and ushered in. Guests at the banquet included district office personnel, administrators, community members and the school board members.

My message that evening was that the best way I know to dispel this "better than" syndrome that continues to permeate this process is to stop talking about "teacher of the year" like it's a title, because it's not. It's a position of service.

Principals and Instructional Leadership

During a discussion that explored the role of principals is helping and hindering school improvement, TLN members considered whether the widely accepted idea that instructional leadership is part of the principal's job really holds water.

One TLN member asked:

Why is it that the principal has to be THE instructional leader in the school? In fact, how many of us see our principals as the instructional leader? With all of the other demands of the principalship, should the principal be expected to be the instructional leader? Should there even be ONE instructional leader in a building?

Kathryn responded:

Where in blazes DID that idea come from? I will grant you, the occasional exceptional teacher, master of his or her own craft, decides to pursue administration, but that is a rare example. Instead, all you have to do in my state is go through an 18-24 month administration program to become certified as a principal. With the recent dearth of principals (major loss through retirements at the principalship and higher levels), people with this certification get hired immediately.

They have not had to show prowess as teachers. They do not need to know the latest research or theory on learning practices, delivery of instruction, or even motivation. Instead, some of these principal preparation programs stress business management techniques over curriculum concepts.

Of my former principals — 1) former JHS social studies teacher; 2) former HS gym teacher; 3) former middle school history teacher and coach; 4) former HS geography teacher; 5) former ES special ed teacher and special ed district curriculum coordinator. Only my last principal had the skills and knowledge to be my instructional leader. But did you notice a pattern in the teaching assignments of the other four?

So I guess my ultimate question is, "Why do principals get awarded the title of instructional leader?" Is it simply because they are now the leader of all the instructors? Or have they evidenced competency in the classroom and then as professional developers? Because I CAN say of the principal who threatened teachers with running laps if they didn't agree with him — I'm pretty sure he never knew which end was up when you were teaching to the conceptual level. I even floored the poor man when he didn't understand the idea of sorting to the second level ("these buttons are not [blue and round]") on a 2nd grade math assessment.

Now, to all the very deserving TLN'ers who will be or are certified for administrative duty, I apologize if I have stepped on your toes. Unfortunately, you are a rarity. I commend you for being the trailblazers and can only hope that many other instructionally sound individuals will follow your path, so that we may make our schools strong as learning centers, for the kids as well as the big people.

Sheryl added:

In my state we are fast at work to push alternative certification through for principals. This would allow them to forego the university courses, attend an approved alternative certification program in a school district, take the $500 School Leader Assessment offered by Educational Testing Service, and be recommended for hire. No prior teaching experience will even be required. In fact, there was a push that the system superintendent should hire the principals, but the state school board association didn't like that idea.

I recently had the opportunity to ask the chair of the education committee from which these brilliant ideas emerged to help me understand why alternative certification for principals was good for kids and good for education. His response was to point to alternative certification for teachers and superintendents — so why not alternative certification for principals? Ah, it makes perfect sense now.

Principals definitely SHOULD be the instructional leader in the building. But as Kathryn points out, the trend seems to be running in the opposite direction.

George wrote:

What does "principal" mean? It means to me a principal TEACHER, not an administrator. Not being sure of the etymology of the heading, I would guess it arose out of a caring community of leaders, a designation of a role, not of a profession. The administrators with whom I have worked most closely and admired most greatly have been those who have been colleagues, not bosses. Again, that means openness and communication, a willingness to admit mistakes, to try anew, to innovate.

Nancy wrote:

I think the concept of "instructional leader" emerged in the literature of principal-think a couple of decades ago, as the focus on instruction and demonstrated achievement replaced running a tight ship as the #1 job. It may have even been another side effect of "A Nation at Risk". Unfortunately, nobody bothered to re-assign the principal's other duties — discipline, work with parents and community, establishing the building climate and some of the other things George mentions. So now we have this person trying to run the building, manage the staff, AND be the instructional guru. Almost nobody's good at all that stuff (and has the energy, creativity and 16 free hours/day).

There's this great HS in Minneapolis where the principal voluntarily gave up an assistant principal, re-organized the administrative work and re-assigned it to a rotating group of teachers, on a part-time basis. One teacher, for example, handles student services/scheduling for two hours a day, another does discipline for two hours, and yet another has two hours to work on instructional issues and mentoring. These quasi-administrative positions change every year or two, and the teachers go back to full-time teaching, with new teachers picking up the jobs. It's distributed leadership in action and the teachers (the ones I know, anyway) love it.

Kitty reflected on principal preparation programs:

In recent years, I have had a double dose of the classes that supposedly "train" future administrators. I can tell you from my own experience that neither of the programs I was in (one at a prestigious college of education) did what I believe to be an adequate job of training administrator want-to-be's on the importance of recognizing that their primary goal is (or at least should be) to work with, motivate, and recognize the people in their building for their hard work, their various strengths, and/or their individual talents that ultimately create the overall culture and climate of a school.

Of the over 60 hours of graduate coursework that I have now taken, only two professors (both of whom were adjunct) really talked in practical terms about the importance of working with people from all walks of life with all sorts of life experiences and perspectives as part of the overall job of an administrator. Both of these professors were, however, not full professors for the university. They were superintendents (both well respected and successful in their respective districts) who encouraged us as future administrators to keep in mind that in the end, we should be mindful of the fact that leading people is much different from trying to manage them; and the effective building leader knows the difference.

Most of the other classes I took, however, were taught by professors who have been out of the classroom for so long that it wouldn't occur to them to engage in that sort of conversation.

The other thing that I noticed is that in both cohorts, the folks taking the courses were, for the most part, self-selected, which means that they wanted to pursue the administrative route for (a) more money or (b) for the perceived "power" of the administrator's job. Some of these people, frankly, were scary in their talk about wanting the "power" to "get rid of the old teachers who were resistant to change." I wouldn't have wanted to work for any of them.

The current training for administrators is all about knowing how to manage a budget, how to evaluate curriculum and standardized tests, how to work under the pressure of the accountability movement, and how to research current educational trends. The "management" styles of administrators coming out of these programs are based, at least in my experience, upon the arrogance of the various individuals who think they have already figured out all of the answers even if they don't know all of the questions yet; or who think that being a building administrator somehow doesn't require them to cultivate higher level people skills. It was, frankly, not only amazing but disheartening to see the quality of the next generation of potential administrators.

High School Rigor and Redesign

America's education movers and shakers have set their sights on high school reform, calling for a more coherent curriculum that is both "rigorous" and "relevant" for students who will pursue careers in a digitized future that's hard to imagine—yet sure to require adaptability.

But what do we really mean by "rigorous"? What are the implications for Career and Technical Education when we "redefine" high school? Is our desire to develop high school graduates who are life-long learners at odds with our current approach to accountability? Policymakers who hope to get teachers on board the High School Reform Express will benefit from perusing a recent dialogue among members of the Teacher Leaders Network, as they try to make sense out of the messages drifting down from the national education summits.

Here's one posting from the discussion. Read the entire conversation here.

Carolyn, lead teacher and math instructor in an urban Florida high school, wrote:

This is a topic near and dear to me. My attempts to develop my own understanding of and ability to implement rigor in the courses I teach was the impetus to my action research last school year. I agree with so much of what has been said by others.

Mary T. said: "...it would be more beneficial to develop a certain kind of thinker/learner who can adapt to many career/learner situations than one who excels at any particular subject."

I agree. This is so important in this technological age where change is a given. We need to be about developing the skills that students can use to solve the problems of the future, some of which we cannot even imagine. We need to develop thinkers, problem solvers, communicators, innovators. I don't equate this with any specific curriculum, but rather believe that a curriculum should serve as the vehicle to develop the habits, confidence, and curiosity that students will need.

I think that curriculum is determined by many factors, but is influenced by social, cultural, historical, and even political trends of a certain time. Thus, it is subject to change. Underneath the specifics of how many language arts, social studies, science, and math courses are currently required, and what vocational technical opportunities are offered is where the rigor comes in. It is my opinion that how rigorous a course is will be determined by:

— how deeply we require students to delve into the subject matter

— how independently we require them to think and work

— whether they are required to integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge and apply this sum in new settings

— whether they are required to be evaluative of their own learning and performance

— whether they are required to weigh and judge the veracity of what they are told/taught, and

— whether they are required to examine knowledge and issues from a variety of points of view.

These requirements can be implemented in almost any course. However, I suspect this is not what the policymakers have in mind when talking about rigor.

Nancy said: "Achievement is just not that important to some (students); hard work and education are not universally valued, and many of them are distracted by material desires and pressure from peers."

And then she asked: "In all the writing about toughening up our high schools, is anyone writing about that? Or are we trying to solve the problem through reorganizing their coursework (again) and criticizing their teachers?"

Excellent points, Nancy. And since this is so widespread, those who do value hard work and education, and who try to avoid the materialism of which you speak, often feel like they have a third eye in the middle of their forehead. It's really tough to go against this tide.

What is going to be necessary to change this trend? These days kids and families are bombarded in all forms of media with pressure to conform, pressure to consume, pressure to seek that immediate gratification. In this age, these are some of the social and cultural trends helping shape the curriculum. If we educators allow ourselves to focus on what is the curriculum de jour I don't think we will ever truly have rigor. If we allow ourselves to be distracted by the specific content we must teach and let that be the focus rather than the vehicle for teaching the more essential lasting skills, then our students lose.

Does Shuffling Teachers Improve Learning?

Members of the Teacher Leaders Network have been discussing the pros and cons of shuffling teachers within a school. The dialogue was sparked by a teacher who is being transferred from fifth grade to kindergarten without much explanation and no input.

Bill wrote:

I've read this strand with great interest, but purposely kept myself quiet because of some personal bias about the issue. After percolating for awhile, I've got some thoughts that I wanted to share.

In every situation where teachers are moved without input, it seems that administration uses the argument that by "shaking things up," they are stimulating professional growth and change within a building. They claim that stagnation results when the same people work with each other in the same grade levels for long periods of time without change, and that this stagnation results in poor teaching and poor results. It's the whole "Who moved my cheese" approach to organizational reform.

This thinking was reflected in the comments of one administrator (who I trusted completely) who told me, "If I don't switch up assignments every now and then, where are the new ideas going to come from that challenge your thinking as an individual and as an educator? If you are constantly surrounded by the same people, you will eventually fall into a rut, doing the same things year after year without question."

I think this belief shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how schools interested in reform should operate. The "challenge" in our teaching assignments shouldn't come from new people in new grade levels.

Instead, it should come from data on the new students that we teach each year. As many educational writers and reformers have said, "The emphasis shouldn't be on the teaching that is happening, but on the learning that is taking place."

If we truly focused on the needs of students, my guess is that there would always be new challenges to face and stagnation would rarely be an issue for teachers. Each year, our students would present a different set of strengths and weaknesses. This year, my students may struggle with vocabulary in context. Next year, they may struggle with identifying author's purpose.

As a team, teachers would then focus on those identified weaknesses. We'd research best practices, adapt them to our teaching situation, provide instruction, collect data, revise our plans, and move on in a cycle of instruction until our students had mastered the skills that we were hoping to address.

There would always be new challenges because there would always be new students. And in a true professional learning community, improving on results is a constant focus—so even if two groups of children presented similar weaknesses, teachers would be driven to refine and revise their instructional approaches to those weaknesses.

Administrators who hope to "shake up" their faculties by moving teachers are missing the point. Their efforts should, instead, be focused on encouraging teams of teachers to function as PLC's with an emphasis placed on student learning. When teachers function in this manner, the needs of new groups of students will provide constant challenge.

Susan added:

I remember the first time I went to a teacher event and was told "Change is good. We are redefining our paradigms." It occurred to me that good can come from change, but that there was a major logic flaw in:

GOOD CAN COME FROM CHANGE, THEREFORE CHANGE IS GOOD.

No, not necessarily. I will acknowledge that education as a profession is often resistant and suspicious of change. In many schools change does need to occur and only fools keep making the same mistakes without attempting new solutions. But if you have three pairs of dirty socks, changing one dirty pair for another will not fix your problem. You've got to wash them or get new socks. And if you have weak administrators or ineffective teachers, chances are moving them around will not make them better. You need to either fix them or replace them.

Bill mentioned that sometimes what happens is that a really weak teacher gets paired with a really strong teacher. That seems sort of like putting on one clean new sock and one dirty holey sock. You can say you took action, but it really just doesn't fix the problem.

Meaningful change needs to be made thoughtfully and deliberately. And if individuals are being asked to be part of that change process either as agents of change or products of change, it seems obvious that they should be advised as to the reasons for change and the anticpated outcomes of change. To do less is not reform, it's shuffling the cards and hoping for a better hand.

"Who Am I to Lead the Teaching Profession?"

Tammy King is a policy associate at the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, the sponsoring organization for the Teacher Leaders Network. A former high school teacher and North Carolina Teaching Fellow, Tammy recently spoke at a Teacher of the Year forum in Virginia Beach, VA. She was asked to share her thoughts on "why it is important for teachers to step out of the comfort of their classrooms and lead their profession." Here's some of what Tammy said:

I'm often asked, "Who am I to lead the profession?"

My response to this question is always the same — who do YOU want leading your profession? You are being recognized here today for your accomplishments as a teacher. Why do you think you can be given a classroom of precious children to teach every day but you're not qualified to lead your own profession? If you don't think you do great things for children every day then not only should you not be leading your profession, you shouldn't be teaching children! Doctors lead the medical profession; lawyers lead the legal profession; accountants lead the accounting profession — why shouldn't teachers lead the teaching profession? There will always be an ultimate authority, and there will be many, many decisions you don't get to make, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't help inform those people who make the decisions and share with them the knowledge and expertise you have.

You have power as an accomplished teacher that you could not dream of. People around the country (and our Center works with a wide range of policymakers and policy influencers) have tremendous respect for your knowledge and skills. If you only realized how much people value what you do and what you believe about your own profession, you would not remain fearful of speaking up and speaking out. You have to believe in your own abilities and the value of your expertise.

I'm also asked, "Why do I have to become involved? Why can't I just do what I was hired to do — teach my children?"

The stakes are too high: You don't have the luxury of staying in your classrooms with the door closed. The world outside is coming into your classroom. If things aren't coming in the door, they're being shoved under the door. And while "the world outside" encompasses many things, accountability is obviously one of the biggest pieces. It is imperative that your experiences and knowledge come to bear on the decisions that will ultimately have an impact in your classroom. I ask again, who do you want leading your profession?

The demands on policymakers are too great for them to be experts in every area of public policy. I really do believe that they come to the table with the intention of doing good things for children. They just may not know WHAT to do. Policymakers (at every level) have to make decisions about many issues, and they can't possibly be experts in them all. They rely on staffers, other policymakers, and constituents to give them advice and ideas. Take a state legislator, for example. The typical legislator has to make decisions about banking, agriculture, transportation, and a thousand other things. How can they possibly be experts in all of this? The bottom line is they can't — that is why it is so important for accomplished teachers to give them the information they need to make good decisions.

This comment from a member of our TLN discussion group is a powerful statement of the importance of teacher leaders advocating for their profession. It's the observation of Virginia teacher Mary T:

"I have come to realize how important it is for excellent teachers to step out of their comfort zones and use their credibility in ways that can positively impact our schools and our profession.

"If teachers remain silent and concede vital decisions to people with no knowledge of our classrooms, how can we blame policymakers when they make poor decisions?

"They aren't teachers. How will they know unless we teach them?"

NCLB II: Maybe We Won't Require the Hammer Next Time

The TLN moderator commented: "To me, the question at the heart of the NCLB debate is this: Are there ways to drive meaningful school change that are not so coercive?"

Dayle replied:

I have seen schools with challenging demographics rise up and change what we once thought was impossible. I visited a school in my state with 99% minority, 98% f/r and 56% mobility — an "A" school! One of the great joys of serving as a state Teacher of the Year is to have that opportunity to see the best in your state — to see those schools that are beating the odds. I saw quite a few in my own state last year. It changed my perception of what could be done. I can no longer accept in my own large county that it is okay for us to have failing schools, "because they just can't do any better."

One of things that keeps me awake at night is the fact that all of this could have been done before NCLB, but it wasn't. I'm certainly not saying that teachers didn't care before, but what I do think is that the mechanisms weren't in place before to set teachers up for success. I'm not talking about the punishments if you didn't achieve. I'm talking about the research, professional development, principal leadership that set up a roadmap for success. Now we have models of schools that have done it, especially at the elementary level, all over this country.

Would this all have happened without the coercion of NCLB? Do we have to have coercion for meaningful school reform? You're right. That is the question. Can we do it now without the hammer over our head? If all the reinforcers and punishers were removed tomorrow, what would happen to school reform?

Maybe next time, Linda says, educators will be smart enough to take the initiative for school reform.

You asked, "Are there ways to drive meaningful school change that are not so coercive?"

Yes, of course there are ways. And how did we get into this mess? We didn't use them on our own to address the fact that some schools are failing almost all children, and many schools are failing some.

So, while we could have developed ways (and certainly there are stories of those who did), there wasn't the national will to do so. That almost always takes some sort of outside pressure, because the work is really, really hard.

Most of us who have worked in schools for many years would argue that we went from very little pressure to pressure that is all wrong, and in fact, pressure that is making things worse. But there it is. Now, we need to pay attention to helping all students succeed — not because the hammer is over our heads (and it's really hard to act courageously and creatively in that context!), but because it's the right thing to do for kids.

And maybe if we're smart enough, some "lessons learned" will emerge about taking responsibility and developing workable methods to maintain quality control over our work — who does it, what the work actually is, how we know when kids are really succeeding, and how we know what and who is helping them, and why and how.

And if we're REALLY smart, we may develop ways in which we routinely learn from the good work being done in other places outside our own classroom, school, district, region and nation.