TLN Teacher Voices

Ravitch Book Well-Argued, Thought-Provoking, and Short on Solutions

The Death and Life of the Great American School System
by Diane Ravitch

(Basic Books, 2010)

Reviewed by Sarah Schumacher
Secondary Literacy & Social Studies (WA)

TLN New Millennium Initiative

Why would a powerful, successful advocate for what amounted to a revolution in our education system completely change her mind about the initiatives she once supported? And what happens when she does? What do we do next? Those were the questions on my mind as I picked up Diane Ravitch’s newest book The Death and Life of the Great American School System. I had heard of Diane Ravitch and her ideas many times in my career and had heard rumblings about her so-called ‘mea culpa’, and so was excited to find out what her motivations were, what she had seen that so completely changed her mind.

There are no sacred cows in this book; Ravitch pulls no punches. She systematically goes after many of the initiatives and policies that have been held up in the last years as cure-alls for the ills of our education system: testing, tenure, charter schools, Teach for America, vouchers. . .the list goes on. As she says late in the book, “American education has a long history of infatuation with fads and ill-considered ideas.” As educators, we see so many initiatives rolling through that are promised to be panaceas that we often know will lead to nothing. So it’s refreshing to hear someone speaking so candidly and with so much depth. On the other hand, as you read the book you’re left wondering what else is there? If these things aren’t “magic feathers,” then what should we be doing instead? We definitely learn the ‘why’ of her transformation, but not so much the ‘what next?’

Her first chapter, “What I Learned About School Reform,” outlines Ravitch’s career as an educational researcher and writer and subsequent ascension to the position of assistant secretary of education in the George H.W. Bush administration. One thing I respected immediately about her arguments is that she doesn’t let herself off the hook for the role she played. She admits that, “I began ‘seeing like a state,’ looking at schools and teachers and students from an altitude of 20,000 feet and seeing them as objects to be moved around by big ideas and great plans.” The chapter then chronicles her change of heart as she realizes the initiatives proliferating education are not getting the results they should. She ends by beginning her argument that in the era of NCLB education was beginning to be viewed as an institution that could, and should, be run as if it were a private, for-profit enterprise. However, she emphasizes that she does not have clear alternatives of her own. More about that later.

The second chapter, “Hijacked! How the Standards Movement Turned Into the Testing Movement,” continues to set the context for NCLB. It is in this chapter that you learn three things about Diane Ravitch. First, she strongly dislikes NCLB and all its progeny: testing, so-called accountability, choice, etc.. Second, she appreciated the 1983 report A Nation at Risk and the prescription it gave the nation’s education system. Third, and most of all, she likes strong standards and curriculum, believing that they lead to more well-rounded, deeper thinking students. Take note, because that’s about the only thing she appears to like in the entirety of the book.

The book then becomes a whirlwind of detail in a House-That-Jack-Built layered style of argumentation. In other words: She really makes her case. The third, fourth and fifth chapters tell the stories of three different school districts and how fundamental changes to their organizations and policies in the mode of NCLB-era ideas led to uncertain outcomes. Those uncertain outcomes are a theme throughout the rest of the book. It seems that for every initiative there are a thousand studies, all of them reaching a different conclusion.

The next three chapters form the crux of her argument: “NCLB: Measure and Punish”, “Choice: The Story of an Idea”, and “The Trouble with Accountability.” In these chapters she outlines, detail by detail (by detail) the case against No Child Left Behind and its policies. In “What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?”, she talks about the growing movement to link teacher evaluations to test scores and wonders if her own favorite teacher, Mrs. Ratliff, would be considered a great teacher today, she of the red marking pen and nineteenth-century poetry. Sadly, she probably wouldn’t.

Finally, the next to last chapter, “The Billionaire Boys’ Club” is aimed directly at those large foundations and endowments that, Ravitch argues, are driving education reform with their own agendas instead of seeking out innovators already in the field. She talks at length about the Gates Foundation and its small schools agenda and how the Broad Foundation is supporting the movement to turn school administration into a business. This seems to be the core of her argument, that the more the powers that be have treated education as a business, the more detrimental it has been to our nation’s students. She makes this argument thoroughly and leaves no question marks about any of the major factors impacting education today.

Given that, what was unexpected for me was that there are many questions left unanswered at the end of the book. I finally reached the chapter I’d been waiting for, “Lessons Learned,” and found it pretty unsatisfying. Throughout this shortest of chapters, she uses the refrain “Our schools will not improve if…” to share what she thinks should be the priorities of our education system. She brings up national standards and common curriculum and talks about what the goals of testing and teacher evaluation should be, but gives very few specifics.

I guess I’d liken it to hearing a firebrand speaker and getting passionately excited about the cause only to be given a tin sword with which to go start the revolution. We need much more than lofty generalities to fix what is broken about our system. In all, though, I found this book incredibly well-argued, thought-provoking and interesting and would recommend it to anyone who wants to know the other side of the story of education in the last decade.

Sarah Schumacher is a secondary literacy coach and social studies coordinator in the Edmonds, Washington School District. She’s a member of the New Millennium Initiative teacher team exploring teaching policy issues in her state.

Scoring the Testing Industry

Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry
By Todd Farley
(PoliPoint Press, 2009)


Reviewed by Kenneth Bernstein, NBCT

High School Government & Social Studies (MD)

Teacher Leaders Network

As the use of tests created external to schools and classrooms has exploded, one issue has always been the question of whether to rely merely upon selected response (a.k.a. multiple choice) items, or to also include constructed response items (paragraphs and essays).

Selected responses are cheap to administer; they can be scored solely by machine and the results obtained quickly. It is even possible, utilizing item response theory, to administer the test on a computer and use early responses to vary the items offered to the test taker, thereby determining the level of performance more quickly and accurately.

But many think we need more: after all, life does not ask us to choose one out of four or five pre-selected choices. Thus many colleges and universities, employers, and classroom teachers prefer that the tests include constructed items — “essays” if you will.

While it is possible to machine-score such items, that technology is still in its relative infancy, which is why companies that produce tests have need of human scorers. And it is because of this need that we get Todd Farley’s book Making the Grades.

Farley spent 15 years in a variety of positions involved with the scoring of such constructed responses. He worked for a number of America’s most important assessment companies, often doing the work on contract for various states, including Virginia, where I live. 

I am not a trained psychometrician, although during my now-abandoned doctoral studies I did seriously study issues of assessment. I am a school teacher today, in my 15th year of teaching. Each year but one, I have had to prepare students to sit for external tests – which may or may not have met the criteria to properly be labeled “standardized” — that included constructed responses. These tests have included the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program, the Maryland High School Assessments, and The College Board’s Advanced Placement examinations. During my one year of teaching in Virginia, known for its Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments, the middle school American History test was made up entirely of selected response items. I also bring to this review some experience that parallels Farley: in 2009, I served as a Reader for the Advanced Placement examination in U S Politics and Government and scored one of the four Free Response Questions on that year’s examination.

As I glance at my copy of the book, I have more than 40 sticky notes that I have affixed to pages containing passages I thought might possibly be worth quoting. Some I obviously will forego. Farley offers explanations of terms like reliability and validity, and explains how in the case of reliability, the term was often misused by those supervising the scoring process. Simply put, scoring companies are often satisfied if those scoring agree 80% of the time, even if that to which they agree is erroneous. It is like a scale that consistently reports your weight as 20 pounds less than reality. The information you obtain is reliable — but it is NOT valid.

What educational measurement should provide is the ability to draw valid inferences from the information analyzed. If nothing else, reading this book will raise questions in your mind about whether many of the tests being used to evaluate students, teachers and schools meet that standard.

Teacher Voice on Teacher Evaluation

Want to stir some lively conversation among any gathering of teachers? Bring up teacher evaluation and assessment. For decades, teachers, administrators and policymakers have sparred over the issue -- with little in the way of progress. Most teacher evaluation is still principal-driven, drive-by, and checklist oriented. That could change as the new Administration begins to target -- and fund -- teaching quality initiatives, in concert with the Gates Foundation and other philanthropies.

Will teachers have a voice in this debate? Two TLN members from California aren't waiting to be asked. In a recent joint interview with the New York group TeachersCount, Anthony Cody and David B. Cohen described some fundamental changes they'd like to see in teacher evaluation and assessment -- and warned of the consequences of a narrow approach to making judgments about teaching quality.

Here's a sample:

1. What are some of the problems with current teacher evaluation practices?

Anthony Cody: Time is a big factor. Recent surveys of principals have revealed they have inadequate time for observing and evaluating their teachers. My experience as a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) coach in my district supports this because over the course of two years I saw dozens of evaluations that were incomplete. Many of these teachers should have been enrolled in PAR, and might have wound up being terminated, but their principals did not have the time to follow through.

This also reflects another weakness of our practice -- that evaluation is the sole responsibility of a few site administrators, and is primarily used as a means of eliminating “bad” teachers. Evaluation tends to occur in the form of a few isolated observations, with little connection to the professional growth of most teachers.

David Cohen: We also see that the tools and training for evaluation are rather uneven. Too many evaluators are going into classrooms armed with checklists that aren’t nearly up to the task of capturing the complexity of what they might observe. And it’s not just the materials, but the evaluators themselves who need development.

I’m fortunate to work in a district where secondary school teachers are mostly evaluated by a fellow teacher serving as the instructional supervisor. Unlike traditional department chairs, these teachers have had some additional training in conducting evaluations. It’s a long-standing and popular practice at this point, with the added benefit of providing teachers with evaluators who know the subject matter. If your principal used to teach English, and you're the AP physics instructor helping students with the calculus involved in their lab work, there seems to be an inherent limitation in that evaluative relationship.

2. What improvements would we see in your ideal evaluation system?

Anthony: We may be able to get beyond the time crunch for the principal if we re-imagine evaluation as something more positive, more collaborative and more integrated with professional culture at a school site.

David: This is a shift in mindset: let’s appeal to the best in professional educators. I’ve never met a teacher who didn’t want to be effective in the classroom. But we know that in order to maximize effectiveness, we need the opportunity to analyze and reflect on our work, and use that process to improve.

The current pace of teaching, and the student loads for secondary school teachers in particular, present huge obstacles to that kind of work: when you’re trying to monitor and manage the learning of 150 students or more, you’re in survival mode too often. If more schools would build in time for careful study of our own work, collaboration with colleagues and guidance by teacher leaders and administrators, we’d be far ahead of current practices. I’m certain we’d end up talking more about students’ learning and achievement, which goes a long way towards solving other issues in the classroom (like classroom management) without letting those issues consume you.

Other interview questions include:

3. Why do teachers resist the use of student performance in teacher evaluations?

4. What are the benefits of improved evaluation if tenured teachers are almost impossible to remove?

5. How does teacher evaluation fit in with current reform efforts?

6. What is the role of teacher evaluation in elevating teacher quality? Should we have performance pay to reward teachers with the best evaluations?

7. How has NCLB affected teacher evaluation?

Read the entire interview with Anthony and David here.

The "Bad Teacher" Debate

President Obama’s recent remarks about removing ineffective teachers from the classroom has triggered some furious posting in the Teacher Leaders Network daily discussion group. A teacher in Colorado worried that much of the public debate places the blame almost exclusively on teachers themselves. “I'm wondering why no one is pointing fingers at the system(s) and all the people at the district, state and federal levels, who must at least share responsibility for the situation in our schools.”

A secondary science teacher-coach from California replied:

It seems to be obligatory to attack bad teachers to show that you are not in the pockets of the big bad teacher unions. Exactly how we are supposed to rid ourselves of the horrible scourges is unclear. I worked as a peer reviewer and coach in my school district’s PAR program for two years. Our job was to observe and assist fellow teachers who were referred to the program. If they failed to improve after reasonable opportunities to do so, they would go through the dismissal process. The main reason it was hard to fire teachers was that busy principals did not have the time or energy to follow the procedures and complete an evaluation properly. Half of the teachers initially referred to PAR were not taken onboard because the evaluations were botched.

That said, we need, as a profession, to step up and help build a better functioning evaluation system. We need to at least describe what it will take to create a working system of professional accountability and offer our partnership in making it happen.

Regarding Obama's comments that “there needs to be other ways to evaluate teachers besides standardized tests,” I am only mildly reassured. Has he been listening to Arne Duncan lately? Arne told Education Week this:

Data systems are at the heart of this reform effort. We have to know what the data tells us. Where we can’t track students, where they get lost, how can we begin to know whether they are improving or not. We need comprehensive data systems that do three things. One: track students throughout their educational trajectory. Secondly, track students back to teachers so we can really shine a spotlight on those teachers that are doing a phenomenal job of driving student achievement, and third, track teachers back to their schools of education, so over time we will understand which schools of education are really adding value.

What data is Arne planning to use? He talks about better assessments, but when he gets to what would make them better, he talks only about tracking students, and tying student data to teachers. This does not sound like the kind of move away from standardized tests that Obama is describing.

A high school teacher added:

Arrgh! Arne, if I have an aneurysm that bursts, it's gonna be your fault!

Please read the recent research showing that standardized test data are not good at predicting which teachers will have the best test data four years from now. Please talk to some teachers!  Please, get over yourself. Loosen up. Let the money flow to schools with good plans in place, rather than send the money to dataheads and test publishers. Be an advocate for education rather than education bureaucracy.

 A middle school teacher advised that teachers be totally upfront about the bad apples:

I am not anti-teacher when I say that there are bad teachers. And it is a huge problem, chronic even. It is not the only problem, but it is vast. And I believe that it is anti-teacher for those within our profession to not admit that our current system of protecting these teachers is a problem.

We as teacher leaders talk about being part of the decision-making process when it comes to issues of education. Classroom issues should not be outsourced, as it were. If so, we need to acknowledge that we have a responsibility to be at the table to fix the weaknesses in our profession. We cannot allow teachers who live the saying, "Those who can't do, Teach" to dictate our publicity anymore. Our unions should not, after proper evidence is laid, be protecting those individuals without considering that a staff and school's reputation should also be their priority to protect. 

These ineffective teachers are in every school site and district. And no, a teacher's failure is not something that can be easily determined by test scores. I know very high-scoring teachers that, frankly, I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near. I also know low-testing teachers who are awe-inspiring.

So I don't know yet how teachers can best be evaluated, but that's why I am writing and talking and listening, so I can hopefully be present and involved during an era of reform based on standards created by those within our profession.

We as educators will not be treated as professionally (as we need to be) unless we admit that our profession needs a housecleaning and we move ourselves to the forefront of helping to solve the problem proactively.  We want respect?  We need to look at ourselves in the mirror as professionals and demand professionalism from each and every one of us.

A math-science teacher in the Midwest replied:

I couldn't agree with you more. I always feel incredibly frustrated when we talk about bad teachers because it just amounts to a bunch of finger pointing.  Lots of talk...no action...no change for the kids. And those bad teachers stay where they've always been.

I don't like the idea that teachers are the sole root of our troubles, though. That's such a simplistic answer to a very complicated system with many inter-related parts.  Bad teachers may be one root problem, but it's not the only one.

The middle school teacher responded back:

Yes, there are many problems in education and not one bullet to solve any one of them.  But we as teachers can't do anything about parental involvement, homelessness, health care. We have very little influence on funding save for what we can do as political advocates. But bad teachers are our problem.  They are the weed in our yard. They are our misbehaving cousin at the dinner table, and we can't be the family member that looks away. 

There's a lot we can't do anything about, but we need to be stronger in what we can do. We can improve our practice. We can improve our content knowledge. We can improve our student assessments by having a hand in their creation. We can improve our turn-over by offering mentorship based on leadership. And we can improve the quality of our profession by making sure that we are all on the same team, that of student equity and achievement. 

A K-8 teacher leader in the discussion wrote:

There’s no denying the fact that there are bad – in fact, horrible – teachers everywhere. I have known more than a couple myself. But I am incensed at (the) ongoing, low-information quest to paint teachers as dumb union rats.

Here's a data-laden response to one of the anti-teacher, all-the-union's-fault rants we’re hearing. Well worth reading and full of handy, user-friendly statistics on who's shielding bad teachers.

How would you construct a useful, cost-effective teacher evaluation system? What factors and indicators would matter in identifying exemplary practice, competent practice and non-competent practice?

Some Touchy Feelings about Michelle Rhee

In the TLN Forum daily discussion, Mary, a teacher in Virginia, wrote:

When I saw D.C. school chancellor Michelle Rhee on the cover of TIME I sat down immediately and read the story from beginning to end. Two things disturbed me in the text. This passage I found particularly alarming coming from a school leader:

"'The thing that kills me about education is that it's so touchy-feely," she [Rhee] tells me [the reporter] one afternoon in her office. Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn't respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. "People say, 'Well, you know, test scores don't take into account creativity and the love of learning,'" she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. "I'm like, 'You know what? I don't give a crap.' Don't get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don't know how to read, I don't care how creative you are. You're not doing your job.'"

This passage also set off alarm bells:

"Rhee's ferocity has alienated many people--even those who support her ideas and could be helpful to her. This summer the chair of the Washington city council called dealing with Rhee a "nightmare." There has been talk of passing legislation to rein her in. "Michelle Rhee believes in scorched earth," says Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a national union that has become unusually involved in local matters in Washington. "I am not saying that D.C.'s school system doesn't need a lot of help. But I have been part of a lot of reforms, and the one thing I have never seen work is a hierarchical, top-down model.'"

I know Rhee has a formidable job ahead of her, as I have watched Washington DC closely over the years -- a place I consider my hometown since I was born (but not schooled) there. But this sounds like an administrator who has little respect for teachers. Am I overreacting? Perhaps I've been around too many administrators who use whiny voices when imitating teachers. But jeeez. Rhee kinda sounds like middle school to me....

An inner city teacher in New York replied:

Thanks for sharing this. I had started it but hadn't gotten to the parts you clipped. However, I was already perturbed by this paragraph, which I guess reflects the writer's perspective. It is the last sentence that really got me. Not only does it put down teachers, but parents?!

"They understand that if she succeeds, Rhee could do something no one has done before: she could prove that low-income urban kids can catch up with kids in the suburbs. The radicalism of this idea cannot be overstated. Now, without proof that cities can revolutionize their worst schools, there is always a fine excuse. Superintendents, parents and teachers in urban school districts lament systemic problems they cannot control: poverty, hunger, violence and negligent parents. They bicker over small improvements such as class size and curriculum, like diplomats touring a refugee camp and talking about the need for nicer curtains."

This seems to be a very simplistic "good guys vs. bad guys" world view. Something I abandoned years ago when I graduated from... 8th grade.

I do work in a high needs school, and I am sick and tired of hearing that ineffective teachers are the problem from people who could not teach in my school. I am in a mood to seriously cuss about this. My graduate school advisor had this great quote on her office door that somehow seems appropriate: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

A North Carolina teacher added:

I pulled Rhee's article out of my school mailbox this morning. Talk about a miserable way to start the day: "How to Fix America's Schools: Battle Teachers."

Several questions are running through my head:

1. Are America's schools really the failure that everyone -- including Rhee -- claim them to be? I know that international comparisons are horrible, but international comparisons are unfair because the majority of nations around the world don't try to prepare everyone for a university education. What's more, America's schools have consistently adapted to the changing demands placed on them by outsiders---and we've done it pretty successfully.

2. Are Rhee's actions yet more blind rhetoric and short-sighted practice? We keep thinking that "pulling up our bootstraps" and "knocking off the whining" and "making teachers work harder" will reform education. Is it possible that no matter how hard we work, we'll never be able to get every child over the formidable obstacles to success?

3. If we did start hacking away at all the bad teachers in our schools --and I'm not denying that they exist -- would we have enough "highly qualified" people to fill their shoes? I always wonder about people like Rhee who want to fire all the "dead wood" -- because it ain't like they got a line of wonder teachers pounding down their doors looking for jobs. I'd love to see some stats on the qualifications of "the replacements" that Rhee hires. Are they significantly more qualified? More effective?

4. Do these negative messages keep capable teachers away from high needs schools? I won't go work in a high needs school because I don't care to be disrespected on the cover of every magazine and newspaper in the nation for my perceived failures. That kind of unfair and negative criticism is literally ensuring that I won't go to the kinds of schools that Rhee needs me in.

A teacher in southern California followed up:

Who could blame any self-respecting teacher for not wanting to go teach in a high needs school in THIS high stakes climate. I taught in a high needs school, and I miss the demands of working with those kids a lot. However, I'm really clear that unless there was a unique situation that addressed some of the real external roadblocks that at-risk kids and their families face, I wouldn't go back.

Another Virginia teacher, in the D.C. suburbs, wrote:

Michelle Rhee is interesting to say the least! I've been following her through The Washington Post. I don't live in the city and I don't actually know anyone whose children attend DC schools, but from what I can ascertain, there is a high level of dysfunction in the system.

Here are some things I've noted about Rhee's actions:

• Her dual track compensation plan gathered a great deal of attention and with good reason. The pay for performance track offered up to $130,000 annual income within 10 years in exchange for one year of probation. The second track still offered a generous salary scale with no challenge to tenure. The union leadership was very resistant and pushed back against members who wanted a referendum on whether or not to accept the plan. From reading in TIME about her school visit, I can understand their concerns, but from the perspective of an outsider, it looks like union protectionism at its worst. Refusing to negotiate, in my opinion was political suicide for the union.

• The firings have been very controversial with good reason as well. Changes in administration are not fun and teachers, parents and students don't like them. However, sometimes people don't realize that what they have isn't functioning because it's all they know. Competence is the first filter when choosing a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant. I have to agree with Rhee that while nice matters, it's not enough.

What bothers me is this: Her primary supporter, NYC school chancellor Joel Klein, came to education without an education background and still has only six years of experience in running a school system himself. He, like Rhee, seems to believe that all education needs is someone who is not afraid to challenge the people who have been working in these difficult situations. Rhee leans heavily on her personal experience as a research base. She taught for three years through TFA and while she wasn't so hot the first year, she believes that she and her teaching partner impacted student learning significantly during the next two years. Against what standard she judges her success is unclear since there were no benchmark testing records from those two years. She seems a little too sure of her own abilities and a little too disinterested in that reflective practice stuff.

I also find it troubling that, at least from this article, it appears that Rhee enjoys being combative. This is a no win. She says to the TIME writer:

"Have I rubbed some people the wrong way? Definitely. If I changed my style, I might make people a little more comfortable. But I think there's real danger in acting in a way that makes adults feel better. Because where does that stop?"

So much for collegiality and collaboration. A more experienced person would realize that when someone raises the tension level in schools, it is often the children who suffer the most. She might realize that building consensus with the school board, the union, and school personnel might be a little more efficient and effective and helpful to children in the long term.

Bottom line: My judgment is still out. She offers some fresh ideas and insights. She also offers what appears to be a great deal of unnecessary and unproductive aggression.

Gail, another Virginia teacher and D.C. watcher, added:

The TIME cover photo says it all for me. When I saw it on the newsstand at the grocery store, my first impression of the black-suited, stern-faced, holding-a-broom Ms. Rhee was -- wicked witch. Seriously! I assume that the impression they were going for was "a new broom sweeps clean," but all I saw was a mean-looking bully.

After reading the article, one of the things that really rubbed me the wrong way was the same one that bothered Mary -- Ms. Rhee's view of education as "too touchy-feely." That, and other comments she is quoted as saying, leads me to believe that she knows next to nothing about what quality teaching entails. No wonder DC teachers are reluctant to accept her offer of more money.

What criteria will she use to define quality teaching? Touchy-feely is out. She disdains people who talk about the importance of creativity. And she doesn't understand why a third grade teacher would "waste" time chatting with her students in a morning meeting (hasn't she ever heard of building positive relationships as an important precursor to a focus on academics?). And what kind of due process will a teacher have if s/he is arbitrarily dismissed by this power maven?

I'm sorry, but I don't think three years of teaching qualifies her as an education expert, and her own words back up my lack of faith in her "expertise." I don't dispute that DC schools need transformation from the ground up, but I don't think Michelle Rhee is going to be successful with her condescending, combative attitude.

The Science and Art of Teaching

Time for a little time travel. Back in the first week of May, we had an interesting and lengthy conversation about teaching as a profession. A “mini-string” of conversation emerged after we posted our original excerpt on May 5. We grabbed it for later use, lost track of it during the rush into summer, and just came across it again. It’s still well worth sharing, and through the miracle of linking, we can jump you right back to the original chat, for context. Skim the earlier post and comments, then dive into this exchange between two Nancy’s who are members of the daily TLN discussion group.

Nancy D. began this exchange, responding to these comments by Nancy F. --

(D)octors, lawyers and engineers do work under considerable mandates, especially if they practice in areas where they are employed by the public; many of them also work for others, who control their immediate work practice/load, and measure their outcomes....

It's technical expertise that separates professionals from non-professionals, and teaching, unfortunately, has a weak technical knowledge base. We reinforce this every time we say "teaching is an art" or allow someone with no training into a classroom as the teacher of record. When we permit substitute teachers without education degrees to "cover" classrooms, or reduce teacher training to six-week boot camps, we reinforce the notion that there isn't much to know about teaching. It's instinctive, natural, not very difficult….

I personally believe professionalism is something that teachers  should pursue, aggressively. We should begin to embrace concepts like precise diagnosis and prescription for learning needs, and continuously investigate/research effective practice, and control standards and benchmarks for assessing good teaching.

Nancy D. replied:

Usually teacher comparisons to other professions are weak in that the inputs and outputs in most professions are drastically different from education. However, comparing teachers to doctors is a better fit. Both cannot control the behavior or follow through of the patient/student. Inputs can be varied as well while the outcome is standard...healthy/educated. There is a point at which the comparison fails and this then raises several questions related to the art of teaching and its role in defining "professional."

Science yields itself to some absolutes. Exposed to X antibiotic, Y bacteria dies (obviously there are some variations but by and large such cause/effect relationships are predictable). Education is more individualized than this but Nancy's comments regarding precise diagnosis and prescription for learning needs accounts for this variation due to individual student needs. This kind of training should be more evident in teacher preparation programs and TEACHERS NEED MORE TIME TO ADMINISTER SUCH PRESCRIPTIVE METHODS WITH FEWER STUDENTS. That said, prescriptive teaching does not always lead to success. Doctors know this as well, but I wonder how they would feel about their "scores" being published in the paper...how many deaths, how many patients moving toward a healthier life style (cholesterol levels, obesity rates, "cures"), how many malpractice suits or inquiries, etc.

Predictable outcomes via standard procedures are not close to being guaranteed in education, and this is where the "art of teaching" comes into play. Relating to health care, this is where a doctor's intuition or bedside manner enter into the equation. Understanding the whole child and recognizing the affective needs of human beings as individuals aids teachers in making connections with kids which research shows increases test scores (ASCD has released several studies). If "technical expertise" is the defining element of “professional,” we must identify, test and celebrate the elements of teaching which fall outside standard prescription...and take the time to watch and learn from those teachers who are able to make personal connections with students and then take those students to higher levels of success. All this to say, I hope we will seek balance in our approach, as the human mind is not predictable compared to many other components of the human body.

This discussion has raised a question: How do we define the "art of teaching"? This phrase is thrown around a lot, and now I see a division being made between the "art" and "technical expertise" of teaching (although I think no separation should be made). How are these different? Can the art of teaching being taught?

Nancy F. replied to several portions of Nancy D's commentary:

[Nancy D] Usually teacher comparisons to other professions are weak in that the inputs and outputs in most professions are drastically different from education.

[Nancy F] Exactly. Having some precise language about what it means to be a member of a "profession" is important, I think. Sometimes, teachers dwell on extraneous characteristics of professionalism without thinking the issue all the way through. As/if we move toward professionalism, there will benefits as well as additional responsibilities and consequences.

[Nancy D] Predictable outcomes via standard procedures are not close to being guaranteed in education and this is where the "art of teaching" comes into play--related to health care, this is where a doctor's intuition or bedside manner enter into the equation. I hope we will seek balance in our approach as the human mind is not predictable compared to many other components of the human body.

[Nancy F] I might suggest that predictable outcomes aren't close to being guaranteed even in "scientific" fields like medicine where the most effective, research-based protocols don't save some patients, and others survive when all the evidence says they won't. Fields like engineering are more precise. Even a very precise occupational training like (one hopes!) piloting an airplane involves human judgment in a crunch--think of the pilot who almost crashed, then re-landed a plane a couple of months ago in Germany. It's that intuition/human judgment/diagnosis element.

[Nancy D] If "technical-expertise" is the defining element of "professional," we must identify, test and celebrate the elements of teaching which fall outside standard prescription...and take the time to watch and learn from those teachers who make personal connections with students and then take those students to higher levels of success.

[Nancy F] I like the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ umbrella language: accomplished teachers know their students well and care about their learning--a concept that should also apply to anybody doing professional work, don't you think? Lawyers should know their clients well and care about  justice, and so on.

While I agree that we need to keep the human element at the forefront, there is this idea out there that "we" don't know what effective teaching is--how to define it, how to transmit it, how to measure it in ways beyond testing. It's just natural.

Think of the doctors whose training and accumulated expertise was negated by the 1910 Flexner report. They were doing good work, relying on perception and a kind of diagnostic/treatment artistry--and all of a sudden, they weren't "professional."

My graduate school advisor at Big Famous University said to me: "We still don't know what effective teaching looks like or how to replicate it." I was tempted to say back...well, maybe you don't know what effective teaching is, but I have been doing it for a couple of decades now. And who is the "we" she mentions? Researchers and scholars. Which goes back to our original discussion question: why haven't teachers taken the reins in creating their own models of professionalism?

[Nancy D] This discussion has raised a question....how do we define the "art of teaching"? This phrase is thrown around a lot, and now I see a division being made between the "art" and "technical expertise" of teaching (although I think no separation should be made). How are these different? Can the art of teaching being taught?

[Nancy F] We have knocked around "teaching: art vs. science" on TLN before, but it's always a welcome topic. Most of us want to have it both ways, knowing that there *are* some people who just seem to "get" good teaching through intuition, creativity and good judgment.

Even so, I'll stick with the message that effective teaching can be studied and explicitly described. That's what the NBPTS standards were supposed to do: provide a measurable model and concrete descriptors of the kinds of teaching that yield deep learning.

If we don't have a body of researched knowledge on the kinds of teaching that yield greatest student growth, and good tools to measure our effectiveness, we don't have a profession.

Thanks for the Nancy/Nancy dialogue, Nancy. You raised some great questions.

Pondering Professionalization

After crunching some numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, blogger Matt Johnston determined that roughly 2.2 percent of America’s workers are teachers. So he wonders, how come teachers keep complaining that they’re not respected as professionals?

The teachers themselves have the power to change the perception of their occupation, from one where they don't get the respect they demand and perhaps deserve, to one on par with the respect paid to doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers etc.

When someone in the TLN daily discussion group shared Matt’s blog link, the replies weren’t long in coming, both on our email listserv and at Matt’s blog. Here’s some of the listserv dialogue:

TB wrote:

OK, I was up for the challenge of answering Matt's questions this morning. Then I began to contemplate the differences between teachers and the other professionals he lists so I could try to figure out WHY teachers don't get the respect we deserve. The difference is the organization of schools and education.

Think back to when teachers taught in stand alone schools — you know, all grades in one room, no principal, no mandated textbooks. Just teach kids the basics and how to survive. Weren't teachers given respect then? My great-grandmother certainly got some.

Now there is a hierarchy of administration and people outside of classrooms (some of whom have never been a teacher) making decisions that impact every minute of a teacher's (and her student's) day, what is taught, when and how. I am sitting here listening to an NPR segment on mandated state testing and NCLB. Who are the people behind NCLB and all this mandated testing? Others.

Do engineers, doctors, or lawyers work under the same massive mandates? The difficulty in demanding the respect that we deserve is that teachers work for others, and "others" control what we do. Yes, we can make a huge difference in our individual classrooms and even in our schools. And I bet the majority of us would say we are highly respected in our schools.

So some of these "others" out there say teachers need to close the achievement gap. Are there "others" out there mandating doctors to close a mortality gap? Or lawyers to close some gap between the legal rights of the poor and the well to do?

I really want teachers to get the respect we deserve but where do we start?

Anthony replied:

After reading the post by Matt, and TB's response, I am drawn back to our recent conversation about civil disobedience. We discussed why it might be justified, and how it could be made effective, and some folks seemed to be open to the fact that collective action might be needed. The core issue is the systematic disempowerment of teachers.

Matt seems to base his argument on numbers. He suggests that since 2.2 percent of working Americans are teachers, and we have powerful unions, we ought to be able to change the profession ourselves. For me, I think there are historical reasons, relating to culture, economics and gender, that help explain why the profession has been shaped the way it is. It is useful to look at those reasons, and see what we can do to change them, but I am not sure it helps to point a finger of blame at the whole profession. We all wind up in our roles, and it is tough sometimes to break out of them and take a new path.

Along those lines, I would break the question he poses into two parts.

Question One: What are the historical conditions that have shaped (and limited the power of) the teaching profession up to this point?

Question Two: How can we challenge and change this dynamic so that teachers take more power in our classrooms and in the profession?

The answer to the first question is really important. We are often compared to lawyers and doctors, but our professions developed under very different circumstances. As the US became industrialized, our schools shifted from an agrarian model with one or a few mostly male teachers, to a factory model with classrooms staffed by mostly female teachers, governed by a male principal, overseen by male school boards. Power in the schools has historically been invested in a patriarchal structure, where the principal is expected to supervise and set the curriculum, and teachers are expected to follow those directions.

Beyond the school, the professional knowledge and research base of the profession has resided in Schools of Education, which not only prepare teachers but also have an interest in maintaining their own status as the experts on how children should be taught. And beyond the schools of education lie the real forces that shape educational policy, political leaders who see tinkering with education as their opportunity to show they are doing something about the problems of society.

Schools have been seen for a long time as a place where the ills of society are remedied. When waves of immigrants arrived from Europe a century ago, the schools were expected to socialize them into a common "American" culture. Back in 1900, only half the children even attended school, and the average number of years attended was five.

I did a little research online and found a copy of a 1922 teacher's contract for $75 a month:

Miss ---------- agrees:

1. Not to get married. This contract becomes null and void immediately if the teacher marries.

2. Not to have company with men.

3. To be at home between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless in attendance at a school function.

4 Not to loiter downtown in ice cream stores.

5. Not to leave town at any time without the permission of the Chairman of the Trustees.

6. Not to smoke cigarettes. This contract becomes null and void immediately if the teacher is found smoking.

7. Not to drink beer, wine or whiskey: This contract becomes null and void immediately if the teacher is found drinking beer, wine, or whiskey.

8. Not to ride in a carriage or automobile with any man except her brother or father.

9. Not to dress in bright colors.

10. Not to dye her hair.

11. To wear at least two petticoats.

12. Not to wear dresses more than two inches above the ankles.

13. To keep the schoolroom clean: (a) to sweep the classroom floor at least once daily. (b) to scrub the classroom floor at least once weekly with soap and hot water. (c) to clean the blackboard at least once daily. (d) to start the fire at 7:00 a.m., so that the room will be warm at 8:00 a.m. when the children arrive.

14. Not to wear face powder, mascara, or to paint the lips.

(Photo: teachers circa 1930)

So I think we have to be careful to consider the roots of our profession when we start saying "teachers are to blame" for our own disempowerment. As I said, I do not think blame is a good place from which to develop motivation for change, though some of us are familiar with that device from our family relationships! I think we need to understand, with compassion, how these patterns developed, and then we can begin to challenge them.

Which brings us to question two: how can we challenge and change this dynamic so that teachers take more power in our classrooms and in the profession?

This is really a question about how you bring about social change. Once again, it is good to look at history and see how things have changed in the past. Matt is pointing out the large number of teachers in America, which suggests there is a latent power there. But social change takes much more than sheer numbers, and even having teachers organized into unions is not enough. Jim Crow lasted for almost a century in spite of the millions of people it oppressed.

In order for us to accomplish this shift there needs to be a clear sense of direction, widely shared. We need a moral imperative that gives us clarity of purpose. We need to be clear that we are in a fluid situation, where there are different political forces at work, each with their own sets of ideas contending for dominance. Actually, this is a very interesting moment, and we see things even more fluid than usual. No Child Left Behind was the policy vehicle of a number of career policymakers, and as it is reaching the end of its credibility, we see many of these former champions leaping aside to become critics, so as to position themselves to continue to offer sage advice.

So there is a bit of a vacuum, a time when teacher leaders have the opportunity to put forward another model of school improvement, one which recognizes teacher leadership as the most powerful source of change in schools. But we have to go farther than that. We have to answer the questions answered so badly by NCLB and the high-stakes testing regime. To whom are our schools accountable? How is learning measured? How is that measurement shared with the community? How is teaching expertise developed? What is the role of the teacher in making educational decisions? How do we build sustainable communities of powerful educators in ALL of our schools?

This definition of our direction is really just the first step in the social change process. We will then need to take that vision and share it widely, and organize around it broadly, including parents and community leaders. We will need to ally with other people making parallel realizations in their walks of life, because this is all part of a larger social dynamic, and our disempowerment is one piece of a much larger pattern. And we will need to begin taking actions, because if Rosa Parks' arrest had been the end of the story, the Montgomery bus boycott would not have happened, and Jim Crow would still be with us.

Nancy responded:

Actually, doctors, lawyers and engineers do work under considerable mandates, especially if they practice in areas where they are employed by the public; many of them also work for others, who control their immediate work practice/load, and measure their outcomes. Civil and mechanical engineers' work products (think bridges) are rigorously tested, and new doctors in a corporate practice will be expected to treat a specific number of patients daily. They also come out of professional school with incredible debt loads, which may not permit them to work "for themselves" until they're in their 40s.

It's technical expertise that separates professionals from non-professionals, and teaching, unfortunately, has a weak technical knowledge base. We reinforce this every time we say "teaching is an art" or allow someone with no training into a classroom as the teacher of record. When we permit substitute teachers without education degrees to "cover" classrooms, or reduce teacher training to six-week boot camps, we reinforce the notion that there isn't much to know about teaching. It's instinctive, natural, not very difficult.

I'm glad Anthony raised the question of the historical role of teachers. Historically, doctors were trained in helter-skelter fashion--some in two-year programs, some in six-year programs, with and without clinical experience. Until the Flexner report, early in this century, medical training was hit and miss, and there were lots of healers, barber-surgeons and midwives who had little or no formal training.

The Flexner report changed all that by establishing the ideas that there was one best way to practice medicine, rigorous scientific research would continue to update "best practice" protocols, and training should be standardized. And, with the standardization of training and required knowledge, came a true medical profession, what we speak of today when we wish teachers were treated like doctors.

There were downsides. Small, country medical schools were closed, including many medical schools for minorities, serving minority populations with a little less training but a lot of personal care. Medical training became prohibitively expensive, and public expectations about "perfect" medical care led to malpractice insurance (something lawyers in private practice are also required to have--but not teachers). True, doctors and lawyers have more decision-making power, but they also have full accountability.

We need to be careful what we wish for...but with that said, I personally believe professionalism is something that teachers  should pursue, aggressively. We should begin to embrace concepts like precise diagnosis and prescription for learning needs, and continuously investigate/research effective practice, and control standards and benchmarks for assessing good teaching.

We will not become professional without stepping on some of our colleagues, or without a great deal of internal discomfort. The reason I believe we can do this, however, is because teaching in some other countries looks MUCH more like a profession than it does here, largely because they've had schools, universities and a highly educated citizenry far longer than the U.S.. We're still dealing with the aftermath of teachers who had to start the fire, scrub the floor, and obey the rules about riding in cars with boys.

Renee replied:

I like both Nancy and Anthony's thoughtful responses to this — especially the historical context of our situation, which matters greatly. BTW, Anthony's reference to Rosa Parks reminds me that most people do not know that hers was not a spontaneous act of individual heroism. She was an officer in the NAACP, trained and prepared for direct action, with several organizations ready to back her up.

Theoretically, teachers could and should take a more aggressive stance to changing our public image and our leverage over our own profession. But as TB pointed out, this is a huge task and just figuring out where to start is daunting. One place, I would think, should be the licensure and certification boards in our respective states (or the push for a national one). If I had my way, every school board would be required to have one-third to one-half of its members be either practicing educators or persons with significant experience in public education.

However, just getting teachers on these bodies would not necessarily improve our overall situation (just as getting more blacks elected to various offices did not necessarily improve the quality of life for African Americans). Can we, as a profession, move to a consensus view on best practices, standard operating procedures, certification criteria, teacher education curricula and approaches? While we are also fighting off those non-educators who have carved comfortable careers and small fortunes off running (or ruining) our schools and careers? 

When the state Teachers of the Year tried to make a political statement last year about NCLB, it was greeted in the administration with almost paternalistic chagrin. But, if recognized groups of accomplished teachers continue to speak out loud enough and long enough, could we generate a critical mass? This is worth thinking and talking through more. Sounds like a great idea for some working conferences (maybe online ones) of teachers from different areas and organizations.