A change is (hopefully) gonna come

Last time, I mentioned an article that was a tongue-in-cheek account of what makes a "bad" teacher. On the other hand, this article (by the same author of the former one) explains what makes great teachers. She not only discusses traits that cannot easily be tested, but she mentions that she created this list based on data-driven observations. So if one person can develop a non-test-driven matrix for judging teachers (granted, an untested one, but it's worth a shot! It can't be worse than the current matrix!), why are we still using ridiculous "Value Added Measures" to determine whether or not a teacher is successful?

The current "reform" movement in fact makes the art of teaching worse, not better. We have long been aware that teachers need more money, more recognition, etc. etc., but this article makes an excellent point about what teachers would do with more time. They would not take longer vacations, or assign longer essays, or bitch about students with colleagues; instead, according to the article, teachers would develop stronger relationships with students and parents, perfect their teaching methods and share their practices with other professionals, and provide more nuanced comments on student assignments rather than give just a letter grade. Granted, this is one person's opinion, but being surrounded by teachers and knowing that most people go into teaching expressly to make a difference in students' lives, I don't think it's far-fetched at all. (Perhaps what teachers do with their time can be another factor in the way we determine whether or not a teacher is "great.")

If any policy makers are reading this: Please change things. I've said it before and I'll say it again because it's the best thing you can do: LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS!

Unmeasureable greatness

It is nearly impossible to escape data in pretty much every walk of life. This is not a bad thing -- data tells store owners what merchandise to stock, data tells non-profit agencies which populations to serve, and data tells school administrators how many teachers to hire.

I love data. It is important and useful. But it often does not tell the whole story -- hence why the standardization movement in education is harmful -- because often, data cannot measure everything. Yet people in charge of school reform seem to forget this fact. And with something as complex as a school system, which serves and employs thousands of people, we cannot make decisions based solely upon the data that has been gathered. Data can and must be a tool to inform our decisions, but we must be careful to not have it be the only tool. Herein lies the problem with the modern education movement.

Test scores, as we know, are the driving force behind the determination over whether or not a teacher is "good." But that is unfair, as there is so much you cannot measure that determines whether or not a teacher is successful. In fact, this article does a succinct job of explaining the important factors that determine if a teacher is "bad." We could, I suppose, come up with some sort of test to measure these five criteria, but why? Education should become more humanistic, not more robotic. Perhaps the most important outcome of education -- that of a student's later success -- is unmeasurable. But is that necessary a bad thing?

Student Autonomy

I am a huge believer in the student-centered classroom. I believe that students learn best (and develop the motivation to learn) when they are given opportunities to take ownership of their own learning. There are many studies that prove students learn better (and, more importantly, are more interested in learning) when they can construct their own learning plans, compared to when teachers simply talk at them. There is an expression, in fact, that teachers should serve as a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the stage." The former phrase suggests that teachers' roles are to guide students in their own discoveries, whereas the latter states that teachers have all the answers and are simply regurgitating the information, which I strongly disagree with.

Many leading education experts agree that teachers should be more of a guide and less of a sage. At the forefront of this movement is Alfie Kohn, who for decades has supported progressive education. In this essay, he explains how widely-used reading practices in particular kills students' love of reading. When I read this, I agreed with him wholeheartedly, yet I also felt empathic for educators, whose professions revolve around formalized assessments, and thus encouraging students' own construction of their learning is often not possible.

I especially like the part toward the bottom where Kohn discusses self-determination theory. (I discussed this theory briefly as well about six months ago.)  Here, he offers further evidence that VAM are the opposite of effective education. Teachers and principals (in other words, those in the trenches) have known this for years. When will policy-makers (those who have no experience in the classroom, by the way) come to their senses?

Been a while...

...since things have been crazy. I have been quite behind. However, I saw this video on youtube earlier today and I thought it was fantastic.

For the complete opposite approach, Larry Cuban collected these anti-technology cartoons.

Moral of the story? No one thing will completely fix education. We do not teach, or learn, in a vacuum.