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?