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.

Where do we think the little narcissists came from?

Several people have blogged in response to Dr. Domine's article about narcissistic children. Here's my two cents from the perspective of both a 20-year teacher and the father of three young children.
Here are some of the things that are different about parenting from when I was a kid:

Mandatory 100% percent attendance at all student events however minor. My Dad made what he could and I appreciated it, but he was a working man and I never expected him to re-schedule his life for me.

Scheduling "play dates" --I ran across or down the street and we played, simple as that. We weren't so self-important as to think that we had to enlist Mom as our social director.

Getting a schedule telling you when you are required to bring snacks to your kid's game-- what if I don't want my kid to have donuts and sugary juice after every sporting event? And good luck trying to be the parent who brings a veggie tray, or simply says "I'm not doing it." I've never tried that, by the way, and never would. Instead I silently lament the way we are destroying an entire generation.

Spending thousands of dollars on birthday parties (or Sweet Sixteens or whatever) held at banquet halls or restaurants. My mom baked a cake and my friends came over and played pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. In recent years I've seen first birthday parties that looked like weddings.

Spending thousands of dollars on "must-have" gadgets--why do fourth graders need cell phones? Ever watch a group of 9 year olds get together outside on a beautiful summer afternoon and ignore each other as they sit on their front lawn texting or playing games on their phones or Ipods or GameBoys? It's very sad. And since when did this kind of budget appropriation from the family funds go to children? I had four older siblings and barely ever even owned a new piece of clothing. And this is not a "poor me." I never gave it a single thought except as a reflective adult.

I could obviously go on and on, but here's the bottom line: If suffering builds character, we are raising the softest generation ever. Recent books by Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert celebrated a generation of folks who lived through a World War and a Depression. They knew sacrifice and selflessness. We are now two generations removed from them, and have forgotten the lessons of their lives. We TEACH our children (unintentionally for the most part) that they ARE the center of the universe and everything else needs to be sublimated to their wants and needs.

Why? And how did he we allow this to happen?

More to the point for this blog: The students who come before us, for all the reasons outlined above and a hundred others, are a very different breed. What do we do about it???

Some unfeeling kisses for Eisner

I thought I'd blog on the Eisner "Questionable Assumptions" article because we may have referenced it least in the first class. Some of my specific responses are as follows: The idea (his #2) of placing students with the same teacher for years puts a lot of pressure on the teacher training and monitoring systems. What happens to the child who spends multiple years with an ineffective teacher? His assertions about literacy and numeracy "we know more than we can tell" are interesting and right on. I was reminded of my children's school district's recent schedule change to feature more time for reading and math in elementary schools. It may not help educate the whole child, but it will likely raise test scores. Our superintendent's stated goal is to make our district #1 in the state, measurable of course only in terms of test scores. Eisner's question (#11) about what is learned vs. what is taught is age-old and perhaps insoluble. Getting an A over actually learning quadratic equations will always be the ultimate student goal. As an overly cynical (but sadly correct) colleague once said, "No kid ever complained about a grade he didn't deserve." I also have to give Eisner credit for giving me a chuckle with one of the worst sentences I've ever read in an academic article: "To be kissed without feeling is to know that one has been kissed without feeling because of the feeling that unfeeling kisses reveal." There had to have been a better way to make that point.

WDYL

A specific point in my education from which I can recall learning one thing and wishing I had learned another was my undergraduate experience. In preparing to teach high school English I studied a great deal of educational theory and some lesson and unit planning. What I wish I had learned was management of the paper load of having sometimes upwards of 120 students, each writing several times per week. To a young English teacher this is overwhelming. Much of what I learned about how to manage it can from trial and error and the help of experienced colleagues.