BEDUC427 Journal - Week 4

Professional and Professionalism

For teaching to be a professional, the goals of the profession need to be better defined. Educating children is too big of an umbrella. Educating for what purpose? The goals seems to have changed over time, but I think Thomas Jefferson had it right, it takes an educated population to participate fully in the republic. Free Americans were pretty homogeneous in the late 1700's, no matter where they came from, viewing this country as a land of opportunity and refuge. And everyone was a relatively recent immigrant. Education was a national mission, and teachers (men) had status as professionals.

I think one of the road blocks today to teachers being seen as professionals is the old adage, 'familiarity breeds contempt'. The compulsory nature of our schooling buts a negative pall over the whole endeavor. Most of us have had 12 different teachers in our lives (at least). How hard did it look from our student sized desks? How did our parents view our teachers? Because of our narcissistic nature as children I think we remember our teachers in the light of "what have you done for me lately?" How American! As a child, taking responsibility for your own actions is part of the long road while growing up and for 6 hours a day it is the teacher who guides you along that road. I would argue that learning is fun, but growing up is hard. Teachers are an integral part of the "non-curriculum" process of growing up. Everyone brings that experience to the table when they talk about the professionalism and quality of teachers and that does not show up in test scores.

Education in America has always been at the whim of the politicians in power. Answering to what the perceived needs of America, economic growth, defense, or integration for example. As a society, the classroom is the primary point where all diverse members come together. It may be the only place they do. As such, the classroom becomes the focal point for testing our ideals as a nation. Is America really the land of opportunity? So much is asked of the teacher in that classroom. Educating these kids that come from all segments and conditions in our society. And the teacher, instead of being respected for the his/her profession is scapegoated when they cannot magically erase the disparities in conditions the children suffer from. It is like being given a stick to dig a hole instead of a shovel and then have the results criticized.

The organic nature of population growth and then resulting school growth has not helped teaching to develop as a profession. Yes, there are more teachers, but all little islands of expertise, all educated in teaching at different points in time, working in isolated classrooms. Unlike other professions that have a mentoring period or internship, teaching has a "throw another body at it" strategy. In some quarters it appears that it only takes one big person to turn a bunch of little people into big people ( Teach for America, Emergency Certifications, Peace Corps). People made babies, we need teachers NOW! Population growth has hindered the evolution of the profession.

For teaching to be viewed as a profession, it needs to have the rigor of consistent goals, to be shown respect through funding (a very American value). As an authority figure, in the classroom and later in the imaginations of adults, the teachers needs to respected and not be used as a threat, like the monster under the bed. Teaching needs to have an internal career ladder to drive consistency in execution. If teachers can organize into unions, then they should be able to organize as a profession. Maybe the unions as the collective point for all teachers, are a path to professional status? Teaching has a PR problem, for real and in the imaginations of former students, now voters.

To act professionally is the obligation of every teacher. We are all human beings, and we want to mirror the best citizenship, learning courage, and ethical values to our clients (children, parents and voters). If we respect ourselves even in the face of disrespect in the classroom, by the school administration, and by voters we will continue to believe in our mission and the value of it. In a profession that by it's nature has a strong element of nurturing, acting professionally means setting boundaries. By identifying the limits of your realm, a teacher can be both nurturing and respectful. A teacher needs to understand the whole child in front of you, but not presume to repair the things you can not influence. the serenity prayer comes to mind here.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Maybe I will get that tattooed somewhere....

BEDUC 427 Journal - Week 3

Careers and Professionalism

In reading the S.K. Bilkin chapter ‘Can Elementary School Teaching Be a Career?’ I was curious to read how the teachers at Vista viewed themselves within the whole structure of the education system. A system made up of children, parents, teachers, school level administrators, central administration and the board of education. Everyone is focused on the same goal, educating children, but there seems to be a perceived lack of respect between almost all of the players. It is the status of children as our clients that gets lost. Children are taken for granted in our society, instead of managed like a precious natural resource and a unique expression of our creativity as a society. The de-valuing of teachers also de-values those who are taught.

 

Teachers are caught in the middle of the bureaucracy. Having specialized training to execute their jobs, caring deeply about the work they do, working beyond the confines of the work day all fit definitions of being a professional. What teachers do not seem to have is a path of advancement in the classroom. If becoming an administrator (more $, more power and prestige) is the only career advancement path for teachers than teaching appears to be pretty low in the hierarchy of education careers.  The classroom is a messy place, where the rubber hits the road and getting promoted out of the mess demeans the job of teaching. Promotions need to be redefined. To provide a career path for TEACHING, the focus needs to change to the children and not the running of the institution.

 

The US model of teaching as women’s work, a natural extension of mothering (like teaching baby birds to fly) is also a barrier to changing public perceptions of this career choice. Though the teachers in this chapter did not focus on that. The discrepancy between the public view of the job, 9AM-3PM, 3 months of in the summer and the actual time and effort teaching requires; including the emotional drain of working with children is a barrier to be viewed as a professional career. While the teachers in this chapter did not identify with the inherent sexism that might be limiting their careers, they did go through personal heroics within their own family circle to be teachers. I am not sure that this is not the blight of every working mother, career woman or otherwise.

 

Lastly, I wanted to comment personally on the status of teaching as a profession. The first time I attended the University of Washington I was a double major, Art and Art Education. One major was all about ego and creating great objects, the other was about being selfless in creating artistic experiences for and creativity in others. The saying that was bantered about at that time was “Those who can’t do, teach.” I did not feel the rigors of the education classes compared to my studio classes, and my ego was winning out. I did not complete the education program, short one-quarter of student teaching. I went to grad school for my MFA, in retrospect, I was chickening out.

 

My career has been in design and architecture, in a high profile job, in a high profile company and met all the definitions of a professional career. I did gain money and status in my position, I had specialized training. But I was missing a critical component; I didn’t care about shareholder value any more and what we were creating wasn’t something that I felt any ownership of. The work lacked meaning. I did not feel I was contributing to the human experience, which the best creative endeavors do.

 

In making this career change, I bring expectation of and experience in professionalism. Teaching is a career of great value, and if teachers present it as such and not discount the client (children) by being anything less that professionals we can all raise the bar. Vista teacher’s quest for professionalism took a defensive stance instead of an assertive stance. An assertive stance would mean teachers would view administrators as working for them and would be pro-active and partnering in relationships parents (Ayres, To Teach…, Chapter 2). School systems must support career development at the classroom level and provide a career path that celebrates teaching skills instead of promoting great teachers out of the ranks. Promotions out of the classroom as the professional career path devalues the work teachers do in the classroom. Won’t it be great if everyone in education was trying to be promoted into a teaching position, turning the pyramid upside-down?

Journal - week 2

Imaging Teaching, some thoughts:

I was struck by how many in the cohort used bouncy, colorful pictures of children. I saw how they were expressing their love for children. I took a different tack by trying to express my love for learning and how engaged children can be when learning. What I am interested in is helping children understand and discover the world. There are so many opportunities and so much chaos for children to sort through and understand. I think of schools as a haven for children that provide structure and a window to the larger world. This is very exciting to me because that world is always changing, and selfishly I see this as a chance to continually explore it with children, week after week, year after year.

No Child Left Behind and Testing:

In reading the background of No Child Left Behind as presented in 'Tested', I tried to decipher what it measures. I do think accountability in public education is important both for the students in the system but also for the larger society, yet I see some glaring flaws in NCLB. The first being that the legislation does not really address the success of individual children, instead it is designed to benchmark grade success year over year. While this approach works for business, as in, "I sold more widgets this year than last." The only constant year over year in the classroom is the physical plant of the school, and that is unfortunate. Students go to the next grade, teachers may or may not stay in the same classroom everyone is in flux. So on a macro level, NCLB measuring this year's 3rd grade against last year's may give us some trend information over the course of 5 or ten years, but it does not track the achievements of individual children, accounting for learning rates, for lack of a better word, or even teaching successes. Maybe the goal of NCLB is to track an improvement trend in public education,and if that is so, then I don't think Title 1 funding should be linked to the annual test results, reward trends and not individual year improvements. 

The design and implementation of NCLB also raises some questions in my mind. For education legislation to be designed in a vacuum and on the shirt-tails of of the "Texas Miracle" for the political cache of a newly barely elected president and framed in language that would make dissension appear un-American or racist did not do justice to the perceived problem. If you compare it with Goals 2000 which never got the momentum it needed; it's development was inclusive of education professionals as well as officials at the state level which are responsible for administrating and funding education.

I am a proponent of standardized tests. Every child shows achievement in different ways, and that includes with standardized tests. I personally had a very positive experience with the test we were given in 3rd grade, up until those test results were published, I was always in the slowest reading group. I had been in speech therapy, and I had very high fear of speaking out loud. This translated into an assumption that I was not a good reader as oral reading was the demonstrated measure. So the California Mental Achievement Test was given; the name of the test itself still gives me a chill. My test scores came back at the head of my class, and not only did my teacher apologize to my mother and try to figure out why I was so introverted. For me, I noticed a difference in how I was treated. I don't think my teacher knew she was telegraphing expectations, but I knew after the test that I was seen as a student that was successful. While this was a good out come for me, I wonder about the message test scores send and how to communicate results in a way that does not  "define" the child. 

I was only tested 3 times in my 12 years of public school. Annual mega-tests make the test experience too big a part of the public school education. I look forward to the revision to the WASL that our new state superintendent will be delivering. In his place think I would keep annual testing in a "WASL-Lite"format to satisfy federal guidelines for funding and keep students test savvy. Then I would administer a full WASL at 3rd, 8th and 11th grades, to track student learning trends. 

BEDUC427 week1 journal

What happened to New Math? And SRO? And all the other curriculum experiments I was subjected to in the 1960's? William Ayers began his teaching career in the same school system that I attended as a student. His writing challenged me think more about my experience as a student in a very wealthy system; in a forward-thinking time and place in education. I have over time noticed what a unique public school experience I had had. The community supported curriculum experimentation then and still does today. Due to being a university town, experimentation and exploration are part of the culture. Our schools were locally funded in the 1960's, and our parents approved large funding proposals because they knew it was going directly to the schools their children attended. in the late 1960's, a lawsuit put an end to that funding practice and the state of Michigan stepped in a re-distribute the funds so that the schools in Detroit were getting a proportional share of the whole pot of education monies collected through taxes. My public school experience was unique because of the community focus on the schools in Ann Arbor and the tax base that supported the schools. Community participation led to high expectations. I was motivated by the pressure of those expectations (culture of the community) and the excellence of my teachers.

Parental involvement at the wallet level led to high parental engagement and certainly contributed to student success. Everyone was invested in the educational outcomes, the quality of the facilities and the teaching staff. Accountability was high for all participants. But when the economics changed and the direct financial connection is no longer the case, as is typical of all public schools today, community interest waned. The question is how can we inspire the same level community interest/commitment that was provided when local dollars went directly to the schools? How can we provide parents other avenues of investment in the schools? If time really is money, then I think an investment of time is required of parents to get the best results. Reading and homework support are critical, yet with all of the curriculum changes in the last 50 years it is very hard for parents to provide help with homework, especially in math where the methods are so different and where parent can get the answer but not within the teacher's guidelines of how to arrive at the answer. This situation can alienate parents from the classroom, because they do not understand what is being taught or rather, how it is being taught, and in the end rely on test scores to measure successes. Parents need more tools to support the learning their children are experiencing. Curriculum need study guides for parents and parents need to invest the time. Knowing New Math has been of very little use to me in supporting my children's homework.

Historically the American education system was created to educate good citizens to participate in the democracy, thus insuring that politics will always to driver in education policy. What constitutes a good citizen will keep changing based on the needs of the country. Who is a good citizen today? Is it now a global question? Is it the consumer that drives the economy and keeps everyone employed? Is it a responsibility to the Earth that makes a good citizen? And how do we prepare tomorrow's citizens? In the changing face of America, we need to acknowledge and be inclusive of the "melting pot". Maybe the schools first task is to define what citizenry (not a citizen) is in this country, make the community model very big, and then brak it down to inventory the components through multi-cultural examinations which would link up global communities. Or move in the opposite direction, what are the characteristics of a citizen in this school/community?

Traditionally the neighborhood school was a hub where neighbors sent their children, and the school would reflect its very local community but not American society as whole and becasue it doesn't, it will struggle to achieve the over-arching goal of creating good citizens. But, it does insure community involvement. How do schools define community when neighbors attend different schools? Demographic cohesion in a town of 100,000 people is more probable, especially if the population is stable. My parents and grandparents went to neighborhood schools and the same high school. There were no very rich people or very poor people; the community was homogeneous in values regardless of racial make-up. What did I lose by not knowing the breadth of these differences, except through losing every athletic match up with the huge schools in Detroit and some well-orchestrated meetings with the Black Panthers? I don't know. There are many kinds of disadvantages besides economic; you don't have to live in Detroit to suffer.

The children on my street today go to 5 different elementary schools. They don't really play with each other because they don't really know each other, they have no shared experiences like a school provides. Their parents chose the best school situation they could for their particular child. After this match up was made it is important that the parents stay a part of this new community that they just signed the child up for. That family now belongs to the school community as well as their neighborhood, and their church, and their club sports teams, etc.

With a goal of investing families in schools and the success of schools, society as a whole has to agree on the value of an education and the goals of having an educated citizenry. Unfortunately, the school is not the only community a student belongs to and schools need support to promote their value. The neighborhood school has the advantage of having 2 aligned communities, the neighborhood and the school. A school with a large bused population of students puts stress on the ability of the school to sustain a community. I am going to explore the ideas of competing communities. What are they? What strategies do schools use to elevate their sense of community?

What would a school-centric community look like? Using a drawing of concentric circles representing layers of community, the group of students attending would be at the center, the teachers and facility would be the next ring, followed by parents, administration, school board, district, and so forth. This model would suggest that the address where the student lives is not her/his first community. This has a private school ring to it (once again, wallet driven allegiance). The Salmon Bay K-8 alternative school in Seattle has been able to foster a strong community with an all-city draw and has a long wait list for admittance to match. It is a beehive of family involvement, and the line-up of busses every afternoon is substantial. Its families want an ALTERNATIVE to the standard Seattle Public School experience, similarly with Daniel Bagley Elementary which houses a K-5 Montessori program. Both schools promise a unique (better?) public school experience for the right child, and as a consequence, a sense of "specialness" for the parents. Their participation in something "special" is somehow easier to accommodate. Why can't all schools be special?

I have volunteered at 2 very different middle schools this last year; one in the Seattle School District with an all-city draw, and the other in North Bend, basically a neighborhood school. The cultural make-up of the student bodies was significantly different. The school in North Bend was predominantly white, over 90%, and I could not help but worry that these kids are not getting the full breadth of American society because their community is so homogeneous and diversity is irrelevant in their everyday lives. While the Seattle school is very diverse, challenging teaching strategies to accommodate the diversity, but a much richer experience for the students, reflecting more of America's future population make-up. I believe in a diverse school community it better prepares our children for the global community.