A Bit of a Rant - Sorry...

I'm not sure why but I was really bothered by this "culturally responsive teachers" article. It seemed to have a lot of unproven assertions and some odd conclusions. To wit (and all quotes are paraphrased in an attempt to make them shorter; it might be noted that no such attempt was undertaken by the authors of this article):
1. "Schools purport to offer possibilities for advancement, but maintain structures that limit the possibility of it." Where is the proof or example of that? Does it imply that kids of a certain background shouldn't bother with school because it's actually undermining them? I once heard a black conservative on NPR (wish I could remember his name) say that a negative outcome of the 60's affirmation of civil rights and Black Power was that the rejection of the power structure (The Man, if you will) sadly included the education system. That, he claimed, should have been excluded and embraced as they way OUT OF a subjugating structure. A very provocative claim. This article seems to echo that negative notion that education discriminates just as the larger society does. This, in my opinion, is a dangerous message. It excuses kids rather than giving them incentive.
2. "Schools privilege some students based on race, class, gender, etc." Isn't this backwards? I mean - Okay, I get that you're saying wealthy white males are achieving better, so something must be wrong. (And why used such veiled language?) But this isn't school privileging them, this is them actually accomplishing the tasks of school more efficiently because of the head start life has given them. Personally, I KNOW I was hugely privileged being born a white, male and middle class American. I would have to be an idiot not to know I got lucky on that one. I also, at the age of 15, lost my mother to cancer. Not so lucky there. You deal with what life throws at you.
3. "Affirming teachers treat the necessity for facility with mainstream ways as serving an instrumental purpose for their students rather than reflecting the greater value of those ways." What?? If they serve an"instrumental purpose" do they not then have a great value? There is a "mainstream" way to do things - and there needs to be.
4. Oh, and one last thing - While the Marva Collins story was interesting it has no application for a teacher who is not already a part of the cultural group being addressed. As a white male, how long do I last at my school after I implement my "jive talking" unit and discuss it as a viable means of communication? On the other hand I do (during Huck Finn) do lessons on Black English Variant and the misunderstandings that led people to believe that Oakland, California teachers were actually going to teach something called Ebonics instead of teaching English. Never even remotely true, by the way -but why let the facts get in the way of a good racist joke?

Snake Pit?

As I try to write my CAP, I'm spending a lot of time thinking about how difficult it will be to effect change where I work. In fact, I'm spending a decent amount of it actually talking about how intractable the staff is and how hard it will be to change that, before any other change can occur. I once heard an administrator say that for any innovation, there will be 25% on board, and 25% who will flatly be against anything that represents change. That leaves the other 50% and those are the ones you work with. That seemed like a very reasonable statement, but as I apply it to my own department, those numbers no longer square. I think I want to be a supervisor, and of course it would be comfortable to stay at my current school (where that job will open up next year) but I have grave reservations about this group. A weird part of it is that they are all rooting for me to get it (none of them is even pursuing the certification) and I know this is because they think things will be status quo, and that they will maintain some control because they will have "their guy" as boss. I wonder if I'm stepping into a snake pit. Anyone have experience with a former colleague becoming supervisor - good or bad? Or examples of places where it looked like change would never happen but it did?

Privacy, Facebooks and Feminism

The conversation sparked by the case studies has been consistently interesting. By the way, does anyone know how we made a connection to teachers' private lives? Or was that part of a different discussion? Anyway, it was interesting. In a conversation after class I made the observation that the generation we are lamenting as not having an expectation or even an understanding of privacy (at my wife's school the latest furor is over a student who published on the internet nude photos of his ex-girlfriend, also a student at the school - you just didn't have these problems years ago) are now becoming teachers. How will his manifest itself? I'm concerned that the younger generation of teachers may have difficulty with that aspect of the profession. Getting rid of your Facebook now that you have a teaching job seems an unreasonable expectation to some. One younger teacher in my building has a number of photos up in her room. In virtually every one, there is drinking (wedding, out with friends, family event, etc). I think it's a really bad idea. We are friends and I told her that. She said she's "of age" and didn't understand what the problem was. As teachers, fair or not, we are held to a different standard.
One other unrelated comment from that discussion: I was surprised by the number of women who had no interest in balancing the group by picking the one female student. As the girl was one of the top four on her merits, I got the sense that some chose not to pick her because they didn't want to be accused of choosing her only to meet some kind of quota. I think it is sometimes naive on the part of groups who have historically been oppressed to take the attitude that the oppression is over, the playing field is level, and "may the best man win." See, even our language about it is sexist. I think the reports of the American Association of University Women about how differently we treat boys and girls should be mandatory reading for teachers. And I think it's important that a girl be in this group. I'm not being patronizing - on her merits, the girl was in the top four. There seems to be this strange kind of backlash on the part of women against feminists and the opportunities they worked so hard to create. Why for instance is it so difficult to find a high school girl these days who identifies herself as a feminist? It's not a bad word and it's not a bad thing. How and why did this happen? Or am I just over analyzing, as I often do...

Attacking Incoherence

The chapters in Fullan on the roles of the principal and central administrator were actually kind of depressing. It's not tremendously uplifting to know that 91% of principals responded "no" to the question of whether they can fulfill all the responsibilities assigned to them. Chapter 11, in its citation of Blumberg's work exploring the working lives of superintendents, notes the "infrequency with which curriculum and instruction matters 'naturally' arise in the interviews" (Blumberg 1985). While I understand the political and financial and managerial dimensions of the administrative job, as a teacher I am more sensitive to what I see as the core issue and the mission of any school system - the question of what the students' experience is each day in our building, and what is happening in their classrooms. Its saddening to know that this rarely enters the consciousness (or at least the discussion) of the average superintendent. In my district, where there are not even department supervisors, let along curriculum coordinators, you can imagine the difficulty of establishing any kind of unified vision, let alone effecting change. If it is true that "effective principals attack incoherence" then they must be given the support structure to do so.
Most teachers in my school are very "comfortable" -- they know little will be demanded of them as members of a team with a unified vision and that nearly all of what they do will be done in isolation and without much scrutiny. Quick illustrative anecdote: Our faculty received an e-mail last Tuesday telling us our PDP was "due" Monday. Less than one week. There was no talk last year, or early this year of what should constitute our personal improvement plan - no discussion of our vision, no related professional development, no department meetings to set or discuss department goals, not even a faculty meeting discussion of what might be worthwhile. Teachers will, as they do every year, dash off something quickly and thoughtlessly, be sure to mention technology in it (to impress whomever may look at it, although we have our doubts that anyone does) and be done with it. A silly exercise really, conducted as we do it -- a hoop to jump through presumably because it is something other schools do. It has less than no impact on our schools.

A Happy Medium?

In the Melinda case study, it bothers me a bit that Melinda and Barbara are such caricatures. I can’t help but feel as though there is a happy medium between their two styles, whereby Barbara could be a little more creative and Melinda a little more basic-skills oriented.
That said, here’s my overall reaction: Although I hate to say this, I think Barbara and Melinda’s friend Andrea might be right. When Melinda talks about her belief that her students will be more critical and creative thinkers, and better citizens, I tend to agree. The question is what the school is really asking her to do. If test scores are driving the process, then creative thinking is not being valued, except by Melinda. Or if it is, it must happen in addition rather than instead of basic skills instruction. As teachers, we can lament NCLB, or an overemphasis on test scores generally, but in the end we have a job to do. And until teachers are invited into the process, its goal will largely be determined by someone other than us, and often someone who has never been a classroom teacher. If Melinda can get her kids to the goal her way, all the better, but she will have to get them there.

Why does the principal want Willie to get an A?

This entry is kind of a modified version of my reaction to this case. Jane’s dilemma (and variations of it) is one of the most frequently discussed among faculty at the public high school I teach. People take strong sides and get very entrenched on this one. In Jane’s case, she is too far down this road to change the grade. Willie knows his grade (which means his friends do as well), and the principal knows the grade. It’s now impossible, it seems to me, for Jane to change this grade without inviting a world of trouble from her peers, other kids in the class, parents, etc.
I have a lot to say about this but here, it seems to me, is the central issue: What does it say that in this scenario, Jane faces a confrontation with a principal who does not even believe in the system he has allowed his math department to adopt.? Why is she fighting the principal about upholding a standard? Personally, I strongly oppose such a rigid system, and think all grading (yes, even math) has some subjectivity, but this school adopted this system. If the administration is not going to support the math teachers for drawing this hard line, then why in the world are they doing it?

Incentives (and read Freakonomics!)

I was intrigued by Barth's comment that "...all school cultures are incredibly resistant to change." It caused me to reflect upon why this might be. And it seems to me that it is a question of incentive. I recently read Freakonomics --this may seem off the point but indulge me for a moment--which got me thinking about incentives. In that book is the story of a day care center which began to charge late fees to parents who picked their children up late. The rate of lateness among parents went up. What the center had unwittingly done the authors claimed, was make available to parents the option of lateness - the price did not scare them off. What had scared the parents before was the notion that their children might be kicked out of the center if the parents were chronically late. THAT was a real incentive.

Back to the point - what is the incentive for educators to change, to innovate, to initiate new programs? For administators it is often resume building in order to move to a better-paying job (something teachers deeply committed to a particular district intuitively sense and usually resent). For teachers there is no benefit other than intrinsic motivation and let's face it - this has its limits. There are no promotions, no moving into a new department, no bonuses, no stock options. That teacher can put in 25-hour days trying to plan, grade, impact students and effect change in the building at the same time. He/she will get the exact paycheck as the teacher who punches in at 8 and leaves at 3 not even carrying home a briefcase, but has been showing up in the building for the same number of years.

Anyone who who studies human behavior and incentives will not be surprised to find that it is the rare teacher who does not come to understand this formula, and begin to burn out. Both anecdotal (I can think of exactly two 20+ year teachers in my building who I still see in the vanguard of every change) and empirical evidence (I learned in an article in a supervision class one semester that as a 20-year teacher I am well into the downside of my effectiveness - it was very encouraging) bear this out Additionally that teacher is likely to have to fight for funding, materials, time, and institutional support. In a business, employees would be encouraged (indeed required) to keep the company competitive or get it an edge, to find a way to build a better mousetrap. Everything in teaching is designed to undermine the entrepeneurial teacher. Look at Kate in the case study. Her heart is in the right place but her superiors just want another report. We look for grant money, we sweat out our budget vote each spring, we go without textbooks. We beg for at least 20 working computers in that computers class they enrolled 32 kids in and are ecstatic about the donation of three year old computers the local business is throwing out. Those who still retain motivation and idealism get a few dollars to prepare and conduct an in-service for a bunch of disgruntled colleagues checking their watches, and knowing full well that there is no reason for them to make this change either. Why should they? That paycheck - in the exact amount give or take a few bucks once they reach the top of the guide - will just keep coming.