TLN Teacher Voices

Do Class Size Initiatives Lower Teaching Quality?

A member of our Teacher Leaders Network discussion group wrote:

Recently, I read an article by Chris Whittle, the founder/leader of Edison Schools — that's the private group that is taking over public schools in some systems. He made a point that I found intriguing.

He said that we should INCREASE class sizes to 30+ and reduce the number of teachers that we have in the classroom. He said that until you drop to 15 kids per class, lower class sizes don't make a significant difference, and you can take the funds you would use to hire more teachers to meet class-size reduction requirements and spend it instead on pay raises for quality teachers.

Jay Greene, the conservative author of the new book Education Myths, argues that the more you reduce class sizes, the lower the quality of teacher you are putting into classrooms. It's a simple math thing to him. There aren't enough high-quality teachers available, so the more you need, the lower the quality will be.

Do you think class size initiatives lead to fewer and fewer qualified teachers in our classrooms?

A TLN colleague in Virginia replied:

When I read things like, "until you drop to 15 kids per class, lower class sizes don't make a significant difference," I'm glad I took statistics. While it may not make a "statistically significant difference" to have 20 students versus 30 students in a classroom, I argue that it does make an "educationally significant difference."

I do agree that one of the reasons California's reduced class-size initiative didn't show a corresponding increase in student achievement is that there weren't enough qualified teachers to teach the smaller classes. This is kind of a "duh" — if you put an unqualified person into a teaching position, chances are probably pretty good that student achievement will not increase in their classrooms.

I don't think there's any easy answer to the class size versus teacher supply issue. I know I am much more effective at individualizing instruction when I have fewer students, and I believe that individualizing instruction results in maximized student learning and achievement. But, where are the additional teachers going to come from if we don't provide sufficient monetary incentives for people to enter and stay in the profession?

A TLN member in Miami wrote:

Do class size initiatives lead to fewer and fewer qualified teachers in our classrooms?

It was certainly true at my school that class-size initiatives made it harder to find qualified teachers. In hiring additional teachers, the candidates for the job were not what we would hope for, and the administration "settled" for warm bodies v. quality teachers. This often led to kids in "double dipped" classes of math and reading being taught by incredibly ineffective teachers.

One of the other issues (at least here in Miami) of lowering class size is WHERE to put the increased number of classes on the schedule. What this led to at my school was that every space was shared. A dozen or so teachers "floated", which was awful for them. They were the newest hires, and the most insecure in the art of teaching — and here they had to change environments every class period. For those of us with classrooms, we lost all access to our rooms during non-teaching times. As I look back, this was a huge factor in my being open to the opportunity which led to my job change.

A Michigan teacher commented:

This is one of those excellence vs. equity questions where everyone wants to believe you can have your cake and eat it, too. But maybe you can't. In that case, give me excellence over slightly less personal attention—if "slightly" is the operant word.

When you spread class size initiatives over a large district, you have to hire a LOT of teachers, just to reduce average class size by one or two kids. Now I know that early childhood teachers will tell you that the difference between even 20 and 18 kids is enormous, but if I had a choice between 28 kids and an experienced teacher vs. 18 kids and a marginal one, I'd go with Door #1, every time.

Which Should Come First – Increases in Beginning Teacher Salaries or Peformance Pay?

For the last several weeks, the TLN discussion has explored whether performance pay might benefit teachers, how it might fairly work, and whether the issue can even be addressed until the average starting salaries for teachers are improved.

At one point in the conversation, Tom shared some recent national teacher salary data:

The national average is $46,752. That is not the starting pay—it's the average! To put this all in perspective, these are the starting salary averages for the following professions: Accounting - $44,564; Industrial Engineer - $49,432; registered nurse $38,775. And guess what the national average for teaching is? $29,733!

Then Tom asked:

How can we even entertain performance pay when we are woefully underpaid to begin with? How can we attract the best and the brightest with these kind of salary options?

In NC, where I teach, in order to even keep up with the average teaching salaries up north, we have to have a master's degree, and National Board Certifcation—in addition to working 10 extra days! You also have to work in a district that pays a decent local supplement.

I say we stop even considering performance pay scenarios until we demand a decent starting pay and significant increases along the way. Then and only then should we succumb to any type of performance pay!

Susan B. replied:

I think the "either-or" question (starting or performance? which one?) is a red herring, which serves to divide and therefore weaken our position as professionals. It sounds like a reasonable question, but, while teachers debate "which one?" neither gets accomplished. Why should either one have to be put on hold for the other? Do you want good gas mileage, or safe transportation? Well, actually, both! Either-or debates should be reserved for mutually exclusive options.

The red herring technique was used recently in Florida to sidetrack the debate about class size v. teacher pay. The governor insisted that Florida could not have both: either class size reduction, or better pay. Choose one, teachers. If you want better pay, teachers, help me get rid of this class size thing. Many teachers bought his line, although Florida is one of the richest yet least taxed states in the nation.

Anyway, so far our governor hasn't yet been able to get rid of the class size mandate, which the voters put in as a constitutional amendment. And, yes, it's been very expensive to implement. But, at the same time, the shortage of teachers is forcing districts to improve their starting pay to compete for the diminishing supply of teachers. In my Florida district, the bump in starting pay raised all teachers' pay between three and four thousand dollars this year. Guess what? The district is not broke, and the tax impact of salaries is minimal.

Tom mentions the average salaries of several other professions. Hospitals perhaps correspond most closely to schools of the professions listed, yet hospitals routinely differentiate pay depending on duties. Or, for that matter, depending on desireability of the job, e.g. extra pay (shift differential) for working nights – perhaps the equivalent of teachers teaching in high-need schools?

If I did have to choose one over the other, I'd ask for performance pay first, because the resulting differentiation of pay has a chance of pulling up beginning pay. We know from experience that the opposite has not been true; that is, focusing on beginning pay and step increases has not led us to performance pay.

What do I want? Actually, I want a restructuring of teacher pay, abandoning the blue-collar assembly line worker model for one like other professionals expect: payment based upon qualifications, performance, and work setting. We won't be perceived as professionals as long as we cling to a system of pay that treats us as interchangeable commodities.

Why Do Professional Learning Communities Fail to Develop?

The concept of the "Professional Learning Community," widely promoted by Richard DuFour and others, has reached the evolutionary stage (as so many good ideas do) where some principals and district administrators are imposing the concept from on high, ignoring the key word "community" as they proclaim, "We're doing PLCs." Here's a tale recently shared in the Teacher Leaders Network discussion group.

Nancy wrote:

I recently was hired to lead a "team-building" session for 150 teachers from 12 schools as part of a 3-day technology training. The idea was that the teachers (and principals, who were also present, with their teachers) would learn new technology skills, then take them back to share in their buildings.

I began the session by saying that (in spite of what it said in the program), we weren't going to do any team-building exercises. No duct tape, or marshmallow-and-toothpick structures. Instead, I suggested that the work they were doing was really beginning little learning communities around the idea of integrating technology in elegant ways in their work with all the kids in their buildings. Their collaborative inquiry into how to best do this in their own situations, for their own kids, was the goal.

Immediately, a woman stood up and said "If you're promoting Professional Learning Communities, I can tell you that they don't work. We had to do them in our building all last year, and I know they're the hot new thing, but they don't work. We got rid of that principal, thank goodness."

Talk about being derailed. Wish I could say that I had the perfect response. I spent about 90 seconds talking about the real purposes of PLCs and that they have worked very well in some places —honest!—but I didn't want to lose momentum by getting into a big argument with an audience member. I was also wondering if her new principal was present and what effect it might have on his/her leadership decisions.

For those of you who do extensive work with PLC formation and nourishment, do you run into this often? How do you handle it?

Mary replied:

The idea of PLCs is great. I attended a Rick DuFour conference and was really inspired. However, as I mentioned long ago, some districts want to do them on the cheap—not give teachers time to meet, dictate everything that should go on, pre-do the parts that build buy-in for the teachers, etc. That's what's happened in my district, so now PLC is a dirty word.

Once PLCs have been misused and/or shoved down a faculty's throat you have a tough road to hoe to get teachers to go for them. It sounds like that may be the kind of thing that happened in that school, Nancy.

Mary Anne, who supports a group of schools working on change, added:

I agree that when district's implement PLC's incorrectly, things can go bad quickly!

One of the most powerful lessons I learned over the past two years is that when the "district" implements "programs" without teacher buy-in, things go bad even quicker!

Right now I have two schools iimplementing Critical Friends Groups. They are small, grassroots beginnings that a group of teachers are trying to put together. I believe these groups will be stronger and more powerful than any PLC begun by forces outside of the school. I have lent my support with their administrations—found trainers and support systems for them—but it belongs to them!

That's the key. It has to belong to the teachers who are part of the community. If the community belongs to "the administration" and teachers are merely invited to attend, things fall apart.

Jane replied to Nancy:

Ouch! Sounds like you handled the incident very well. Last thing you need is someone drawing you into an argument. I wonder if her old principal was there with his/her new school too?!

Mary Anne said, " I agree that when district's implement PLC's incorrectly—things can go bad quickly!" Me, too. But my thought here is implementing correctly versus incorrectly. What exactly does a successful PLC have that an unsuccessful one does not?

Do the successful ones work ONLY because the teachers buy into it OR because they buy into it and also tailor it to their own environment? Do the unsuccessful ones fail JUST because they do not buy into it, or is it also because they take the 'DuFour model' and try and replicate that exact thing into their environment, without adjusting for their needs? (I hope that makes sense.)

I recently switched schools for two reasons: modified calendar and PLC. My old school was trying to embrace it but didn't really want to. The impression was given that we were told from above we had to 'do' PLC. I was one of those invited to attend the DuFour seminar and then share with the faculty, so by default I was seen as one of those saying 'this HAS to be done'.

It didn't work and wasn't going to work because the group that didn't buy in outnumbered the group that did. I tried staying on a second year after the introduction, but there are times you have to admit you are flogging a dead horse. As Mary Anne put it, the community belonged to the administration. The administration oversaw it, and attended meetings even though they knew that was contrary to the concept. There was no trust.

My new school has truly embraced PLC. They are not always comfortable with it or each other. There are some who resist, but I've noticed one major difference. Basically, there are still two groups, the yeahs and the nays. Although the number that are resistant are fewer, they are accepted. The larger group listens to and discusses issues with the smaller group. The administrators observe and contribute when invited. I suspect that over time the resistors will either come around or move on. But everyone understands that this is a community owned by the teachers, who are going to take the time to build whatever works best for them in their own setting.

Creating Islands of Hope in a Sea of Resisting Teachers

During a conversation about building trust and professional community in schools, Marsha wrote:

Having left a school that was mid-way in building a community of professionals and having been launched earlier from a school that had a very strong professional community, I now find myself in a school that just doesn't "get it." They are so stuck in what "we've done" for the last (fill in the blank) years.

I am watching our brand new prinicipal struggle. Her assistant principal is a jewel, albeit new to administration. The AP has street credit with the faculty, but it would take a million dollars to turn them around. This school has run off three principals and two APs in three years.

The last principal did make some bold moves as a lame duck and broke up some of the old teams that had been together doing the same thing for 15+ years. I think this has created an opening for success. Before he left, he moved some of his brightest young teachers to new grade levels and put them in pairs so they'd have each other to lean on. They need that, because in this school who teach to the standards, love kids and believe all kids can learn are RARE.

But there are islands of change in every grade level. They are simmering along right now, and it's having an effect. You can see it in the status-quo teachers' faces. We sit in grade level, departmental or faculty meetings, and they chat on and on about what they are doing and how things have always been. If a new voice tries to raise a concern or suggest something new, they shoot it down in midair. But when the meetings are adjourned, the "islands of hope" go off and work together. These are the folks who offer lunchtime help, give before/after school help sessions, differentiate to the best of their ability and so on. They are focused on learning. It's not about who thinks up the idea — when someone thinks up something good, everyone just uses it. It's not about credit. It's about the kids.

I'm beginning to see a glazed look come into the eyes of the entrenched. They see these islands working together and not having their backs broken. I would say that the islands are getting stronger and stronger. And now the status quos are talking about how they could take retirement. (Keep your fingers crossed for us!) They know there is an undercurrent of change.

But the poor prinicipals are hanging on by their fingernails. I don't see how they can lead this effort with articles, or book talks and/or team building exercises. But the AP privately supports and works hard to make resources available to those who are collaborating. For example, she allowed 2 teams to mix up their kids for reading labs based on pretesting, and to continue to shuffle them as needed. This really rattled the cages of the old timers who just don't do pretesting, flexible grouping or mixing.

We'll see how it goes. Hope tells me that possible the islands will become emboldened as the year goes along.

Linda E., who works as a professional community support person in several schools, replied:

I agree that articles and book talks and (especially) team building exercises won't do it.

What has the most promise is where Marsha mentioned the principals' support of the teachers who are doing the kind of substantive collaborative work you hope to grow more of. That both strengthens and emboldens the "islands" and sends a pretty clear message to the entrenched bunch about what kind of efforts will garner support and respect.

Build in as many opportunities as possible for the "islands" to grow and connect to other "islands", eventually forming "continents" of ideal practice. Talk about their learning in public ways and places. That's how it grows! The holdouts then become uncomfortable, which is a good thing.

Some of them may actually test the waters of change. Others will leave. Both are okay choices. A few will cross their arms and dig in their heels, but their power is definitely lessened. The trick then becomes to minimize their effect of kids.

Differentiation in High School II

Our TLN conversation about the need to differentiate instruction in high school (that is, match teaching to individual learning needs) keeps cropping up during our daily discussions. The contention is that many high school teachers have the attitude that "we put the information out there, and if they don't get it, it's on them."

Here are some comments from our most recent round of discussion:

Mary Anne wrote:

I had the privilege of working with a group of high school teachers last year who were trying to find new ways to get struggling readers involved in content area text. I learned a lot about how hard high school teachers work at passing their passion for their subject matter on to their kids—and how hard it is for them to accept when their students don't share their enthusiasm.

The teachers I worked with all stretched themselves to find different ways to help kids construct meaning. I think about the two integrated science teachers who had three full classes of 10th graders who had an "opportunity" to take integrated science a second time! Trying to get them to understand the periodic table and the elements themselves led to the creation of a 12-sided "ball" that each student made based on the element they pulled from a hat. It was a very low level project—but the kids took the "balls" when they were finished and used them to show how the elemnts interact with each other and suddenly things began to make sense to them. It was amazing to watch the teachers as they realized what was happening to their students' level of understanding.

This year I am working with two different sets of high school teachers. Each of the schools were graded "D" by our state, but for very different reasons. One of the groups is backing up and working on lesson design; the other is working on using their data more effectively. But in all three schools they are realizing that differentiation of instruction is the key to getting kids to a much more sophisticated level of learning. And that goes for high school kids!

Elaine wrote:

Dr. Howard Gardner says, "When students cannot learn the way we teach them, we must teach them the way they learn." That kind of quote could be the impetus for some epiphanies. Differentiation is very closely linked with Herbert Walberg's findings also, which make clear that "student learning is directly impacted by the teacher's ability to understand, know, and plan effective instruction."

But even if we know, in theory, that differentiation is an important key to success, in practice it does become more challenging. I think high school teachers can often fall into the trap of teaching content instead of children. Many of us have the attitude that "we put the information out there, and if they don't get it, it's on them."

We tend to be resistant to the whole idea of differentiation. I believe that it all starts with the teacher's attitude and his or her expectations of all the students. We've got to be willing to entertain the idea that not all students will learn the same way or at the same rate, nor will every student respond every time. We‚ve got to be willing to keep trying to reach every student.

Susan B. wrote:

I think the "trap" we're discussing — teaching content instead of children — is also common in elementary schools. "I covered that." "I don't know why they can't divide; I showed them three times." "Those kids..." "I did my job." Differentiation requires analysis, reflection, and reaction (Did they get it? If not, what should I do next?) It's hard work!

I think the teachers who are caught in that paradigm sort themselves right out of our high-needs schools because the undeniable reality of the varied needs of the class in front of them is too upsetting to their belief system. Working out of one's comfort zone requires a painful change. They seek comfort in a more homogenized setting, where the handful of outliers can be set aside (often literally; think of desks facing the wall, the "bad" kid living in the office) or failed (it's their fault they don't get it) without attracting undue attention. Those strategies just don't fly when virtually every member of your class is an outlier.

One factor that does make it easier in a high school setting to maintain the paradigm/trap you describe is that high school kids caught in the "trap" can and do just go away; i.e. drop out, when they perceive of things as hopeless or unbearable. In elementary school, we do see truancy as a response, but more typically the "failing" kids "only" melt down behaviorly and deteriorate emotionally; we still have to deal with them, because they don't just go away.

I've known several HS teachers who actually encourage kids to leave school. When a troubled student drops out, it makes their job easier. It also confirms teachers' beliefs that they were right about the kid: yes, he/she is indeed a failure. Their action or lack of action is also validated: Why waste valuable time and effort on failures?

Why does this mindset happen? Teachers don't set out to be this way.

Nancy replied:

I just finished a great book, Inside Teaching by Mary Kennedy. Kennedy watched real, garden-variety teachers in an array of settings to find out why they do what they do, and why reforms so often fail.

She details what a complex activity teaching is — dozens of competing and conflicting intentions (Do I move the lesson forward, even if I know I'm leaving some kids confused? Do I deliver instruction in a non-engaging, even boring, fashion if that's the only way to keep kids quiet and on task? etc.).

Kennedy points out that teaching seldom has any lengthy apprenticeship or structured induction, so novice teachers (who are desperate to succeed) often fall back on ineffective patterns of practice they remember from their own schooling, reinforcing the old ways and rationales even further. I liked Susan's word — "validated". We unconsciously seek explanations that validate these ineffective practices we've fallen into by default.

I am reminded of something I heard Ellen Moir, wisewoman and induction/mentoring guru (of the New Teacher Center at Santa Cruz), say: "If we're only about inducting new teachers into the status quo, we're lost." If we're resistant to differentiating instruction for all kids (especially at the ultra-complex HS level), we look for ways to validate our beliefs first, rather than accept the new challenge.

A "Chicken or Egg" Question about Teachers

Susan G. asked this "chicken or egg" question in the TLN discussion group:

Does teaching shape us so that we have a hard time saying "no", or is it that people who have a hard time saying "no" gravitate to teaching?

Bill replied:

I think teaching shapes us so that we have a hard time saying no. We are all committed and dedicated professionals, and when there is work to be done, we do it regardless of circumstances.

In schools, there are always "unfunded mandates" like sponsoring the student council, serving on the textbook adoption committee, and offering after school tutoring. These are jobs that we know have to be done, so we do them without question.

I also think that teachers are starving for "leadership" opportunities, so when we're asked to serve on committees, we jump at the chance—regardless of whether the committee has any real power or impact. I sometimes think that the "leadership opportunities" created for teachers are simply pseudo-roles—giving administration the right to say that "teachers have a voice in my school."

Does anyone else see some of the leadership opportunities available to teachers at the school level as less than inspiring? Do they ever strike you as "just another task," rather than something that is truly meaningful and worth investing your unreimbursed time into?

Nancy replied:

A great "chicken or the egg" question, Susan. Bill's right when he says people take on extra roles and duties because they're hungry for leadership roles that teaching doesn't otherwise provide. We get a lot of satisfaction in working with kids outside the normal instructional mode (like coaching or student council), and there's a subtle power/influence attraction in being on a curriculum committee or school improvement team.

I also agree that a lot of those positions are less powerful and influential than they might be, at the bottom line. (Ever chosen a textbook, only to have the School Board shoot it down? Ever sit in meeting after meeting, only to have an administrator say "we can't do this innovative thing, because..." ?)

I'm going to come down on the other side, however. Teachers tend to be rule-followers, nurturers, selfless, conscientious, go-along-to-get-along types with maybe even a touch of martyrdom. I read a study long ago (and can't remember where—does this sound familiar to anyone?) about students who were high achievers in school gravitating toward teaching instead of more enterpreneurial, risky careers. People who are successful in school LIKE school, feel comfortable in school, and think that school would be an ideal place to work. The authors of the study posited schools' notorious inability to make substantive change to the fact that the people who run schools were pretty successful there and don't see a whole lot of reasons for a change in the school paradigm.

So—just for the sake of argument—I'd say that it's the people that shape the culture, not the culture that shapes the people. I'm not clear on which is the chicken and which the egg. Hmmm.

Miami teacher Linda E. replied:

Bill asked: "Does anyone else see some of the leadership opportunities available to teachers at the school level as less than inspiring? Do they ever strike you as 'just another task,' rather than something that is truly meaningful and worth investing your un-reimbursed time into?"

I think they can be, and it strikes me that, once again, the quality of school and district leadership is at the heart of whether the teacher leadership opportunities are for real or for show.

Miami-Dade County's "school based management" initiative in the late 80's is illustrative of this. In the majority of schools, where the administration either didn't know how to share decisions or didn't want to, the teachers on these committees experienced a lot of wasted time and frustration. In places where administration was genuinely interested in involving teachers in meaningful ways, teachers like me were able to see new vistas open up in our professional life we had not previously imagined. My principal was explicit about decisions that would remain with him—the budget for staff, for example—and which ones were genuinely open to debate and collaborative decisions.

Whether intentional or not, when teachers feel their time is wasted again and again (choosing texts that are never adopted, developing innovative solutions that are dismissed out of hand), they stop offering to serve. And they become cynical about the potential for teachers to assume leadership roles of any substance.

Much of the answer, I think, lies with administrators who are trained and understand the concepts and processes of collaboration. And I guess our role in that is to be able to hold an honest mirror up to situations that are less than they are presented to be. As well as to celebrate the times when we are engaged in truly meaningful ways with administration.

A tricky piece of this, I think, would be to participate when we have a sense going in that true leadership isn't being asked of us, but we think we should do it anyway in hopes of being able to shape the experience from the inside. Boy, have I been there! With mixed results, I might add—but enough on the positive side that I don't dismiss this approach at all. The questions then become: Can you tell at the onset when you have a shot at reshaping the leadership role? Will you know when you should just cut your losses and write it off as a lost cause?

NOTE: As the conversation progressed, TLN members shared additional thoughts about uncompensated duties, differentiated pay, and the stress of doing too much for not enough.  Read the entire conversation here.

Differentiated Instruction in High School

During a discussion of differentiated instruction (the practice of offering individual students instruction tailored to their specific needs), Gail R. asked: "Is differentiation not valued in high school? That's the message I'm getting from my adult students who teach high school."

TLN member Rick Wormeli replied:

Just a quick thought on this: I'm at a point in my career in which I get to train teachers on differentiated practices, and half the requests that I receive are from high schools. When I go to these schools, sure there are some hostile folks, but the majority of them are really into DI.

It's almost like learning about differentiated instruction gives them permission to be effective teachers again, to do what's right, not just what gets through the day. This isn't to say they don't already do great and wonderful stuff with their students, but the training in DI seems like a breath of fresh air to many of them. It's liberating. And because it works with their diverse populations, they are relieved.

NOTE: Rick is the featured teacher in the first tape of ASCD's video series, At Work in the Differentiated Classroom.