Final thoughts ... for now

There are many divisions on teaching ethics and character in school. Many struggle to define what it means to teach ethics and character, how it should be done, if it should be done and whose standard to use.

Linus Wright, in his 13^th and final point of “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century,” calls for character education.

Intentionally teach core values of respect, responsibility, honesty, self-discipline and citizenship.  

I don’t intend, in this blog post, to get into the definition of teaching ethics and character. What I will say is this. It’s essential for a classroom to function for children to learn respect (in dealing with teachers, peers, administrators), responsibility (homework, belongings, grades, learning), honesty (no, the dog didn’t really eat my homework) and self-discipline (my parents weren’t home last night to make me do my homework). How could a classroom function without these qualities? Citizenship is an excellent practice (even if it evokes thoughts of the 1950s) because it teaches students to look beyond themselves to something bigger – a sense of unity and commitment to each other, to other community members, to the nation and world as a whole (and plays in well with all of the aforementioned character traits).

On this level, I don’t disagree with, and even applaud, character education. What I will say next, I haven’t always agreed with. But recently, I’ve changed my mind. Anything beyond this basic ethics education might be too far. Teachers are to teach students about academics. If a teacher takes the role of ethical trainer, he or she is removing that role from the home, teaching state-approved ethics material (which should raise red flags) and, possibly, influencing students to think more like him and her, as far as ethics go. And while a teacher might see this as a good thing (who doesn’t want others to think like they do), parents certainly won’t agree with this, unless the teacher happens to have the same values and ideals. It’s not the teacher’s job. As mentioned, teachers are to teach academics, and only as much ethics as is necessary to successfully run a classroom.

            Speaking of running a classroom (and moving on to a different subject), Wright’s 12^th point (and the last one I’ve yet to cover of those that I chose to) states this: 

12. Require each school district to undergo an external evaluation every five years to determine effectiveness of operation. Criteria for the evaluation and the personnel conducting such an exercise would be approved by the Texas Education Agency.

As far as Linus Wright’s 12^th point goes, there isn’t much use looking at its many aspects because the crux of it is flawed. Until you change the Texas Education Agency, any external evaluation, every five years or every year, is going to be based on high-stakes standardized testing. That’s how the TEA handles its schools, deciding which ones should be closed and which ones should deserve more funding. As long as the TEA continues to run schools like a business that bases its decisions on flawed results, what will this five-year evaluation accomplish? Administrators and teachers will continue to stress over test results they can’t entirely control and that don’t reflect true learning or how well a teacher teaches. Student achievement and learning will continue to decline as drop out rates continue to rise. Wright suggests some good points, but until some of those things (and some other things) are corrected, this evaluation is, essentially, a moot point. What will it take for his idea to be a valid point?

Thanks for sticking with me over the summer as I’ve looked at Wright’s plan. Now that the fall is sneaking up on us, I’ll be looking at a variety of subjects, including ethics teaching, in a less structured way. Hope to hear from you. 

Are extracurriculars extra important?

I have to open this post by admitting that my favorite aspects of high school were the extracurricular activities. As a student, I loved competing in several UIL events, other academic events and tennis. I enjoyed helping to produce the yearbook, volunteering with the honors group and running track and cross country to stay in shape. I loved working hard on a project and the anxiety of not knowing who won. I especially loved how often all of these activities gave me an excuse to miss class.

Going to a small school meant that our district allowed us a lot of wiggle room if we were involved in a lot of activities. Teachers were made to accommodate students missing class sometimes two or three times a week. Some students’ grades did fall because they were stretched too thin and couldn’t handle the distraction.

Linus Wright challenges this notion in “Restructuring Public Education for 21^st Century” in his seventh points:

7. Explore the amount of time, effort and expense of extracurricular activities in middle and high school relative to value produced and received.

           

I certainly agree with the idea that if something isn’t beneficial, it should be done away with. I’m curious to know how Wright would determine the value produced and received. Many studies suggest extracurricular activity tends to increase student achievement (as far as grades and graduation rates are concerned), but by how much, why or which ones is widely disputed. One study in particular believes that academic and athletic activities and watching TV can improve grades, but that activities that center around music decrease grades. You can see how this could be easily questioned.

            As far as benefits go, extracurricular activities encourage students to show up. It’s true that they miss some school for the particular activity, but they typically attend for the remainder of the time     to know what’s going on with their activity, socialize with other participants and keep their grades up so they can continue to participate (In the same vein, students who show up are more likely to stick it out and graduate). The loss of participation due to low grades can be a valuable lesson for a student that they have to work hard in order to do what they want. This, of course, isn’t helped by those who give grades so stars can participate (ex: coaches who pass star athletes or administrators who forgive athletes of poor grades). This preference of extracurricular activities is more detrimental – student’s academic achievement and honesty should always come first.

Extracurricular activities also teach students traits and skills they might not get in class – team work, perseverance, hard work and socialization, to name a few. They are allowed to try new things, stick them out, and then choose not to continue them the next season if they decide it’s not for them. Often students find passion through competitions and community service. They learn skills, such as hand-eye coordination in sports, that benefit them in the classroom and in life. As far as athletics are concerned, some studies show that students (and adults, for that matter) who work out once or twice a week have increased brain performance and find it easier to pay attention, keep up and engage themselves in the classroom.

            Of course, as with anything, moderation is the key. Perhaps missing class two to three times a week for a month or more at time is too much. When extracurricular activities begin to negate what the teacher does in the classroom, lower a student’s grade or take an undue amount of time from family life, a thin but important line has been crossed. Schools must build safeties into their system to ensure students get the most from extracurricular activities without crossing into negative aspects – this includes safeties that keep coaches, teachers or administrators from abusing power in favor of star performers, as mentioned above. This power is also best left with each individual district, and not to the Texas Education Agency.

Families are encouraged to build safeties themselves with their children.

            If this balance can be struck, I believe most studies and opinions agree extracurricular activities are an excellent way to engage, excite and teach students, as well as boost academic performance and graduation rates. I only hope we use this tool wisely.     

I also want to mention that I have chosen not to explore his eighth and ninth points on auxiliary staff and school facilities simply because I don’t have much to say on the subjects. Perhaps I will explore them in depth in the future, especially if interest is expressed.

Next week I will discuss Wright’s idea for five year external evaluations by the TEA. Hope to hear from you. 

Must we go to school longer?

                We, as a nation, have fallen behind our international peers. Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Linus Wright has made that point many times. He says it is because foreign nations that score higher attend school for longer hours of the day and more days of the year. We have examined that closely, and found that more hours don’t always mean greater success. That some countries attend school for fewer hours and have greater success, at least based on PISA scoring.

                So when Wright says that he wants to restructure schedules and curriculum, you might ask yourself, “How is that going to help?”

                His fourth point states:

4. Restructure elementary, middle and high schools to accommodate (a) flexible scheduling that is parent-friendly, (b) flexible curriculum to meet the needs of students as they achieve at different rates, and (c) longer school days and longer school years.

                There are a few things to notice here.

                First, we’ve talked about how important parent involvement is for student achievement. I would think what Wright means by a parent-friendly schedule is one that starts before their work day starts and ends after their work day ends. This would, mostly, eliminate the need for busses and allow parents to pick up their children on the way home from work. While picking up their children, they could stop in once or twice a week, every other week, a couple times a month, etc., and chat with teachers to see how their children are doing, what problems need to be addressed, what insight can they give the teachers to help them teach their children?

                Second, I think most who have attended public school in the last couple of decades can agree that the quickest learners get bored and the slowest learners get left behind as curriculum and teachers attempt to teach at an average, moderate pace that fails to challenge many of its students. There are methods, such as Montessori, that have disputable success stories, and that allows the student a chance to move at his or her own pace. The Kahn Academy also promotes at-your-own-pace student learning that reverses homework and class work.

                The problem with these methods is your risk students graduating with two different skills sets -- a student who worked hard and learned entire textbooks, etc. and a student who didn’t work hard and learned only several lessons. You can imagine the many scenarios, and you get the point.

                But let me give you an example of something that I believe could work, and that isn’t a radical, costly or risky change. Instead of cramming students, especially elementary students, into blocked periods of limited required math time, the school day is more fluid. Teachers teach lessons at the highest level, and then allow students to complete assignments, asking questions as they need. Students who complete the homework correctly and prove they fully understand the material are allowed to attend fluid classes were they learn hands on skills, the arts, etc. or occasionally get extra recess time.

                You might mention that this seems to favor the quickest learners. That slow learners will not learn hands on skills or the arts, etc. To counter this, teachers could release the slowest learners at a certain point, telling them to finish their assignment as homework. If, as I assume Wright is suggestions, students went to school from, let’s say, about 8:00 to about 5:30, there would certainly be time to fit all the classes in, add hands on learning, extended recesses and a time for meals. And students would learn new skills that would prove beneficial both for daily tasks and the development of their minds (problem solving skills, confidence, etc.).

                Finally, as we’ve mentioned before, longer school days and a longer school year could work, but only if the way we use our time is improved. The amount of wasted learning time and expected time of waste (last week of school, anyone?) is a hindrance, and adding hours and days of this wasted time is, in and of itself, a waste.

                Why waste our children’s futures?

The school board's goal

We live in a society run by professionals. Many feel they need a college degree to get a job, positions ask for degrees and a certain years of experience and most have dealt with the frustrating you-need-experience-to-get-a-job,-but-you-need-a-job-to-get-experience dilemma.

So when I tell you that the group of individuals who run our local schools should be amateurs, you may balk – and I wouldn’t blame you. When I hired people to work for the university newspaper, I looked for experience. Training someone new is a fun challenge, but it’s also a time-consuming, costly challenge that may not work out.

But we have to keep in mind that a school is not a business (despite what popular culture conveys.) Therefore, we should not rely on business practices to dictate how we manage schools.

Linus Wright’s third point states:  

3. A governance model must be developed which includes required qualifications for school board members along with term limits.

His point is vague, but to be fair, he chooses to be vague in order to keep his document under five pages … it’s more likely that the Texas legislature will read and act if it’s brief. Because he is vague, I’ll fill in the gaps on what we should require from our school boards

            To Wright’s notions, I say this. The state and communities do lay out specific qualifications (such as age, etc.) that school board members must adhere to. This is logical. If, by qualifications, he means that they must have taught for so many years, etc. I would have to disagree, for reasons I’ll state below.

            As for term limits, I’m not sure what he plans to accomplish with this. Until more voters take an interest in school boards, this idea will only complicate elections. In many communities, there are few enough citizens willing to serve. If the state limits terms, then some communities may be limited to partial boards or a lack of a board. Surely this isn’t what Wright wants.

In Texas, school boards trustees are elected. The elections have low voter turn out and the federal and state governments have attempted to decrease school board’s power as of late. But, in its purest form, the school board has a lot of influence and power over school policies. Naturally, their priority should be student learning and development.

School boards responsibilities include:

Create policy (this includes setting policies on academics, finances, student conduct and discipline, student transportation, curriculum and textbook approval and personnel)

Manage funds and resources

Appoint superintendent

Evaluate schools, personnel and policies

Handle legal matters

Tax

Hold meetings

            This is a brief, over-arching look at the many complicated tasks the school board oversees. At this point you might ask why amateurs should run such complex matters. But if we look at the purpose of a school board, I think you’ll come to agree.

            A school board is, as some call it, one of the last examples of grassroots democracy.  Individuals that are well-known in their community are elected by people who trust them. School board members are leaders from all walks of life – businessmen, educators, church leaders, farmers, parents, etc. They hail from the days of Congressman Sam Rayburn, who welcomed constituents into his home to hear their issues and problems. They represent the people who elected them, and not the Texas Education Agency or federal education department. I realize there are school board members who abuse their power and don’t adhere to these standards, but a properly functioning school board member would adhere.

Howard Good, a former school board member from New York, puts it this way:

What some consider a major weakness of school boards – that they are directed by well-meaning amateurs – Davies and Hosler (authors of a book on school boards) considered a major strength.

These well-meaning amateurs are considered a strength because of their direct contact and influence with the community. 

            The school board relies on their superintendent and principals to provide details on curriculum and other decisions. This keeps the school board from micromanaging and allows the superintendent to do his or her job while reporting to the board. Of course, this requires the school board to be made of informed individuals who can make decisions. Otherwise you’re left with a superintendent who is forced to run the school board while also answering to them, or a school board who willingly accepts every suggestion from the superintendent, without consideration.

            But a well-informed group of leaders who can represent their community, think critically, juggle the necessary duties, work closely with their superintendent and principals and prioritize student learning and development, regardless of their background, will lead their district to a higher level of learning and achievement.

Isn’t that our goal?

           

So how much should a teacher get paid? Part 2

         

I think of a teacher’s worth (in pay, at least) this way. As my wife puts it, there are six things that people need – food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care and legal protection. Restaurants are a booming industry that gets paid well. The fashion industry makes tons of cash. Construction is a money-making and thriving business. Naturally, doctors are known for their wealth, as are lawyers. So why is it that educators, one of the six are paid so little?

         Most think this is an unfair balance. When reports do suggests that teachers are overcompensated, others generally find them faulty. For example, last November the American Enterprise Institute published an article that suggested that teachers overcharge taxpayers $120 billion each year, and that teachers earn 52 percent greater than fair market levels. It doesn’t take long to realize this is based on unfounded claims, though. I first strongly doubted their report when they suggested that teachers are less intelligent than other workers, and therefore deserve less pay. The National Education Policy Center finds that claim unfounded, as well. NEPC also disagrees with AEP’s conclusions that teachers’ benefits calculate at 100.8 percent of pay (The Department of Labor puts it at 32.8 percent, which NEPC calls almost identical to the private sector), that time off is 28.8 percent shorter than the private sectors work year (NEPC says closer to 12 percent shorter), that pension costs are valued at 32 percent (NEPC says closer to 8.4 percent) and that job stability is valued at 8.6 percent (NEPC doesn’t give an alternative, but says the argument is not sustained). In short, NEPC disagrees strongly with AEI, and says AEI’s report is “built on a series of faulty analyses.” NEPC values teacher under compensation at 19 percent.

            NEPC isn’t alone in stating that teachers are undercompensated. The New Republic states that high school teachers in the U.S. earn 65 percent of what their fellow university graduates make after 15 years of work. TNR compares this to countries like Finland, where, after 15 years, teachers make 102 percent of what their fellow university graduates make.

            We’ve established that teachers are underpaid. But why?

            Some attribute the U.S. low teacher salaries to pay schedules. All teachers are familiar with this program, where the years of experience combined with the years of education dictate payment. Michael Podgursky of the University of Missouri-Columbia suggests that if education paid teachers like the private sector pays its employees, teachers would be paid more fairly. He implies that pay should be based on the field (special education would get paid more than English, for example) and success as a teacher. While there is strong logic behind his argument, I am wary to support this idea. We’ve seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the accountability movement?). So far, it really hasn’t worked. Would Podgursky’s ideas be any different?

            Last week I discussed merit-based pay. But what other options have you heard of? Do you support them (or any of these)?  Do you have ideas of your own?

            All in all, I think most can agree teachers should get paid more. Whether you side with the reports mentioned above, which suggests raising the average teachers pay anywhere from 19 to 35 percent, you agree with the six-essentials theory (that suggests teachers should get paid a lot more) or you agree with any number of other theories not mentioned here (and there are a lot out there), the point is, teachers don’t get paid enough. What are the steps needed to improve the situation?

So how much should a teacher get paid? Part 1

So how much should a teacher get paid? That’s the question I asked myself when I set out to write this blog post. And that answer, I found, requires a rather extensive answer. So, this week, I’ll be looking at merit-based pay because it’s a widely popular silver bullet program. Next week, I’ll look at salary schedules and what a teacher should be worth.

           Merit-based pay has a lot of supporters. Entire states are trying their hand at merit-based pay. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the accountability movement. It’s promoted by such people as Bill Gates, who, in defense of merit-based pay, said in the Washington Post, “The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.”

            If that’s the case, merit-based pay could be an answer, some say. Others disagree. They fear that merit-based pay will promote favoritism, because there is not clear definition of what a good teacher is. So far, implementations have based this pay on standardized testing. This is a mistake, in my opinion. Those tests are neither an accurate portrayal of a teacher’s ability or an excellent (or even good) standard to base student learning on.

           Some research also suggests merit-based pay doesn’t work, at least in the realm of standardized testing. Vanderbilt University’s George Peabody College of Education found that student scores did not rise if a teacher knew he or she could earn a bonus. Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives put it this way:

We sought a clean test of the basic proposition: If teachers know they will be rewarded for an increase in their students’ test scores, will the test scores go up? We found that the answer to that question is ‘no.’

As the Knowledge Center reports:

National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said the report’s findings were not surprising. ‘Extra money is not a silver bullet,’ he said. ‘It must be part of a comprehensive system that invests in things that make a difference in teaching and learning, such as experience, knowledge and skills. You have to start with a base of strong, competitive professional salaries and then reward teachers for professional growth and offer mentoring, support and solid feedback to help them improve their craft.’

                I would add that there are no silver bullets in education, and we should be wary when someone says they have found a quick fix. Merit-based pay seems to fit that standard.

               There are reports that show how merit-based pay does improve student test scores. But if we stick to our conclusion that there are no silver bullets, we know that it can’t be merit-based pay alone that improves those test scores – other factors are involved (perhaps the most talented teachers in a school where offered the merit-based pay, and the control group was made of mediocre teachers, etc.) Also, if we remember that standardized testing is a poor way to judge what students learn, then we can conclude that merit-based pay based on standardized testing is an unfair way to decide who gets bonuses.

             

             There are also ethical matters involved with merit-based pay. Take, for example, the scandal in Georgia last year where desperate educators helped their students cheat on standardized testing in order to get the best school ratings and highest pay. Georgia was caught. How many schools cheated that weren’t caught? Is this preventable if we make merit-based pay the system standard?

            I also object to the merit-based pay because it’s based on a business model. We’ve seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the accountability movement?). Why would merit-based pay be any different? I have doubts. Education is a for-profit business. Its practices are not tangible methods you can use in every location and get the exact same results. If education is not a business, why are we trying to run it as one?

            What is a better alternative than merit-based pay? Van Roekel touches on that. And what should a teacher get paid? We’ll pick up on those thoughts next week, and focus more on our end goal (looking at Linus Wright’s 10th point [Determine proper compensation and benefits for all public school employees as compared to similar positions in the private sector] in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.”)

"Those who can't, teach"

                I’ve had some excellent teachers in my life – brilliant people who had a passion for teaching, an ability to connect with students, a deep knowledge of their subject and a drive to improve themselves. They didn't try to be our friends, but they did listen to us, respect us and help us when we were down. I have a lot of respect for these teachers, and wouldn't change a thing about them.

                On the same note, I know some excellent teachers in Texas’ schools today. So when I say the following, I want it to be clear that I am aware this isn't a blanketed statement. But let’s face it. Many teachers aren’t up to par. There isn't any one person or group to blame. It’s a number of things, and that’s what we’ll look at today.

                Linus Wright, a former Dallas ISD superintendent, addresses this problem in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21^st Century.”

                "Teacher and administrator academic preparation must become more rigorous, and teacher employment more selective. University requirements for elementary and middle school teacher candidates must require more courses in the content areas and fewer in methodology."

                I have to mostly agree with him on this one.

1. The foundation

                First of all, many future teachers aren't prepared at the most basic level – in grade school. The same problems we have been outlining over the past several weeks contribute to a number of students graduating high school without a deep understanding of literature, certain math skills, the foundations of science and historical knowledge and context. They graduate college and they have somehow missed out on multicultural and fine art experiences. And in all of that, they lacked guidance that should have taught them how to find information they don’t know, to analyze information and to communicate their opinions. They don’t have a love of learning. They don’t know how to study in-depth or think critically.

                 Not to say that these students can’t figure them out for themselves as adults. And, not to say (as mentioned above) that this describes every student. Some have parents or excellent teachers who find ways to supplement what the system's curriculum is mostly void of. But without help, how can we expect children to teach themselves all the things mentioned above. Without this foundation, how could future teachers be prepared to teach?

2. The teaching programs

                As Wright mentions, the teaching programs at many Texas institutions of higher education are not rigorous enough. Some of the programs at the University of Texas (a nationally recognized institution for teaching and arguably the best school for teaching in the state) only require its students to maintain a C. C is average. It isn’t failing, but it isn't exceptional or outstanding. It’s simply average. Grades are not the ultimate indicator of success, it’s true, and many excellent teachers come from UT, but imagine if the best school in the state for education is producing only average teachers. What are all of the other, less rigorous schools producing?

3. The selection

                Wright also mentions that the selection process for employment isn’t selective enough. I’m curious to hear from the teachers how they feel about this. I, personally, have little experience with the selection process. I do know that I had a dozen or more classes in high school where I learned little. In one particular class, my best friend (who was a bright kid and a natural at the subject) took it upon himself to teach us what the teacher couldn't (think Harry Potter and Dumbledore’s Army learning defensive spells, but less secretive). I’m convinced he’s the only reason we passed our TAKS test in that subject. That speaks to all of the problems we've mentioned (concerning the ill-prepared teacher), but it could reflect poorly on the selection process as well.

4. The culture

                One of the biggest problems is the way our culture perceives teachers. I’m sure many of you have heard, more than once, the saying “Those who can’t, teach.” And, hopefully, many of you have thought, that’s rarely true. Many intelligent people give up employment opportunities in their field because they would rather teach. More importantly, teaching is a complex skill on its own. There are many who can’t teach – it certainly isn’t a skill anyone could just pick up because they aren't good at anything else.

                But our culture tells us otherwise, and, in the minds that don’t challenge it, that diminishes our respect for our teachers. It’s harder to teach students who don’t respect your profession. And it affects teachers too. What does it tell future teachers when they only have to maintain a C to get into an education department and get their certificate? It says, pretty much anyone could do this. It says that teachers aren’t important.

                I can’t tell you how many instances in my undergrad I heard of students switching from nursing, biology, math, etc. to become a teacher because they found the subject matter too difficult. I’ve heard students say something like, “I’m getting my degree in English because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life… I’m going to graduate next semester and I still don’t know what I’m going to do with my life, so I’ll get my teaching certificate.” Often, these were the students who partied too much and studied too little.

                This shouldn't be the case. Teachers are an important part of our society, the backbone that gives us the foundations we need to be competent citizens. Shouldn't we expect more from out teachers? Shouldn't our culture give more respect to what teachers do?

                I could add another question to that list. Shouldn't we pay teachers more? And that’s what I’ll be discussing next week. How competitive is a teacher’s salary? And how would higher salaries benefit the field?

                Until then, please, discuss your thoughts in the comments. I’m curious to know what people think.