Ariel cross-posted her blog entry in our TLN Forum discussion group. It sparked a LOT of conversation, some of which we share here. To get the most out of this dialog, read Ariel’s blog post first: Can Teachers Be ‘Senior Education Leaders’?
In her conclusion, Ariel writes:
…Coming from the opposite angle, could a classroom teacher--or group of classroom teachers--become a major force in education reform? I think yes…
I'd love to see a group of teachers enter Harvard's doctoral program and graduate having created and prepared themselves to take on hybrid roles--splitting their time between actual classroom teaching and working closely with senior "educational leaders" to help transform education.
If Harvard won't, can we create that program?
Anne replied:
That's an excellent suggestion, Ariel. I do some curriculum writing for middle schoolers. No matter how carefully and thoroughly I think it through, until I get in the classroom and teach it I don't know just how many changes I need to make! Nothing takes the place of the classroom reality check.
I especially like the idea of education reformers living and teaching the changes they recommend. Either that, or get out of the education reform business and let teacher leaders be in position drive the necessary changes. Actually, I like the last idea better, anyway!
Bob wrote:
Our educational system is yet to be widely structured in a way to tap into the leadership of classroom teachers or financially compensate classroom teacher leaders who remain in the classroom. I am unsure as to whether we are going to win over politicians and central office administrators in sufficient numbers unless some of us move into those positions while staying grounded to the experiences of the classroom.
I have a principal certification and am not tempted to use it right now because I love teaching. Financially it is a stupid move because I spent $15,000 for a second masters that did not increase my salary. I am not jumping in because when I went up to the front office and was a principal for short periods of time during my internship, I thought I was doing work that was far less rewarding than teaching. Part of the reason is that internships usually touch on discipline and procedures much more than instructional leadership.
I find far fewer administrators passionate about their job than teachers. Once exception is a principal I met by the pool at a San Diego principals' conference last year. He gave a passionate endorsement for becoming a principal. I remember his words clearly: "If you are a good teacher, ok that's something, but what does it amount to in the big picture? …But if you are the principal, you can really do anything. You can change a whole school. You want to teach a class, no problem. You’re the principal.”
Some experienced teachers need to become the prominent politicians, superintendents and principals in a way that they are still grounded to the classroom. Those that try will likely be criticized because it is not a common practice right now. I am looking forward to stepping into my classroom tomorrow morning. That is where it is at for me at this moment. So I do not know if we need to draw straws and have those that lose pursue the prominent positions, but we need more teacher perspective in those positions.
Ariel replied:
I keep thinking that principals are not really the education leaders that Harvard is thinking of--or many people think of when we say policy makers. I see principals as much closer to teachers because they are in schools every day and in contact with students every day. Superintendents probably do count as policy makers, but there are lots of other players in the game. Foundation people, leaders of organizations like TFA and New Leaders for New Schools, etc, and also politicians like Arne Duncan and Joel Klein and everyone who works for them. It would be very interesting to see how many have teaching experience and if they do--would they be interested in teaching in a public school classroom once a week, for example.
Chances are it would have to happen the other way, where teachers lead the way by moving into hybrid roles.
Marsha, who teaches in a suburban district in the mid-West, wrote:
I'm with Ariel on this viewpoint. I don't believe principals are the policymakers or are even asked for their input very much.
Parents have a much larger voice in our policymaking and the political process of electing the school board keeps those people in line with those that elected them. The supers do go out and hire layers of insulation...and those people seem to have never taught or it has been an eternity since they were in the classroom.
I think prinicipals are much closer to managers. They guide the ship, they implement policy and they interpret policy that has been given to them. Very little of what they do is inspired by what their building needs.
Marti wrote:
I think many of us make the conscious choice to be "Teacher/Leaders" rather than administrators. Perhaps because we love kids, and perhaps because we recognize the power (or lack thereof) which principals truly possess. I'd far rather deal with recalcitrant students than difficult teachers who lack the motivation (and/or ability) to do their job well.
Thus, each of us, it seems, in such a wide variety of ways, is seeking to lead from within: teaching courses, working with novices, publishing, gaining National Board certification, and writing, writing, writing...
Kathie wrote:
I also have an administrative credential I will never use. I didn't think it through because I needed units when I returned to public education. If I'd thought about it, I'd have a degree in curriculum and instruction! One thing I took away from my administrative credential program was this, written by a high-level district administrator on one of my papers, "People go into administration for one of three reasons. Money, power, or they hate kids." Boy, did that stick with me! Of course, what we need is administrators, policy wonks, and doctoral candidates who've been in the classroom and know whereof they speak.
TLN Forum member Mary Tedrow wrote about the new Harvard degree in her blog Walking to School.
Ariel commented on Mary’s blog post:
You make a lot of good points in your blog, especially about the problems with school systems being run like businesses.
School needs to be reformed, but I balk at using business as the model for that reform. How can we continue to use that paradigm after what has resulted in the current recession and what has been revealed about the corruption in the business world? When Wall Street demanded that gains appear on spreadsheets every quarter, the gains showed up. Who cared how they got there just so long as this narrow measure of success continued to build (unsustainably, as it turns out).
Education is NOT a business. We are NOT producing products. My complaint is the same one doctors make in the current health care debate.
Bill, who has a long teaching career in independent schools, wrote:
I will readily agree that the business model is being over-promoted and mis-applied to classroom practice. I will readily agree that someone who lacks classroom experience is also lacking a vital piece of preparation for being an educational leader. I will also readily agree that an educational leader who stays in touch with kids by remaining in the classroom in some capacity…brings an extra and important dimension to the job.
But I do see value in the School of Business contributing to Harvard's new Ed.L.D. program... A school is not a normal business in many ways. In particular, the business model has no place in classroom-level policies. Kids are indeed not widgets. But at the same time, an independent school that continually spends $500,000 more than it takes in will eventually fail. And anyone administering a public school into the same situation will undoubtedly be fired. So I do see the need and value of the School of Business partnering in this degree.
John, a nationally certified pre-school teacher, wrote:
I am going to school to get a PhD so that people will listen when I tell them what my four year olds taught me over the past 13 years…
As a current student in a doctoral Ed Leadership program I am a little frustrated because I can't apply for this free program at Harvard. That said, I think we may have missed a key point. This initiative is funded by the Wallace Foundation. This organization has been funding educational leadership (not teaching) for years. Supporting and researching high quality leadership is their mission.
Will there be a bunch of teachers who apply? Yes. How many will get in? We'll have to wait and see. I think this initiative is aimed at folks who want to go beyond the superintendency. I think they are expecting to get TFA kids who graduated from Princeton, not teachers like myself who attended a state college and spent the past 12 years playing with kids.
Emily observed:
Concerning the new Harvard degree, click here for a listing of their partner organizations. Very telling.
John added:
I am looking forward to seeing the details of the new leadership credential from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. I see that teachers and principals are being lumped together more and more by policymakers. Truthfully I think it is better for kids, teachers, and leadership if we see ourselves in the same boat.
Comments