A place to write my way to understanding about issues related to teaching and learning. (Because of my experience, my focus is on mathematics education.) Please join me as I explore the changing educational landscape.
Today, I moderated a panel of early elementary educators who discussed the Values underlying Michigan's Essential Instructional Practices in Early Mathematics [PDF].
The session began with my favorite ways to start a session/class: While We Wait. This is a nice way to give participants something to do while we wait for everyone to join the online space. It also provides an opportunity to get to know one another around a fun topic. Because today is National S'mores Day, I thought the following prompt was appropriate. (There's a whole calendar of National Days.)
I also thought the question was a good metaphor for the session: how the Values ought to inform our teaching practice. By thinking about our desired marshmallow and the ways that impacts how we toast them, we could transition to how teaching early math might change to reflect our desired values.
So, how do you like your marshmallows?
What do you do to get them toasted just right?
And how might the Values provided above change the way we teach math in the early grades?
Yes, it is great to be a teacher. However, unless you are a teacher or know one very well, it's probably not for the reasons you think. The one example that I am constantly having to explain to people is the whole misunderstanding about the summer pay thing.
"Isn't it great to be a teacher and have a paid summer vacation every year?" asks a person I just met when she/he finds out I am a teacher.
I explain that the money I get paid is deferred from what I earn during the school year. Much like a pension or Social Security, it helps me make it through a time I would not normally be earning a salary. Also, it helps most districts to spread payments out over the year. Win-win, right?
But what happens if the district is in financial trouble and runs out of money before paying the deferred salary to teachers? This is not a hypothetical question. It is happening right now in Detroit. And state politicians are having a hard time understanding why the teachers are worried about their summer pay.
Let's do the math. Imagine a Detroit teacher works for 9 months, September to May, for $36,000 (These are rough estimates. I am simplifying the problem to make it easier to follow.) The teacher can take the payment across 9 months, $4,000 per month, or 12 months, $3,000 per month. If a teacher in Detroit chose to spread her pay over 12 months and the district runs out of money at the end of June, then she will receive 10 months of pay or $30,000 of the $36,000 she earned. This translates to 7 1/2 months of teaching or through the middle of last month (April). In other words, if the legislature does not come through with the necessary funds, Detroit teachers have already worked for roughly 10 days for free.
The governor's office tells teachers not to worry - that a $715 million aid package is moving through the legislation. Unfortunately, according to the New York Times:
A year ago, Mr. Snyder, a Republican, proposed a $715 million aid package for the Detroit district, but it has been bogged down in the Republican-controlled Legislature.
No wonder Detroit teachers feel too sick to go to school.
Oh, Happy Teacher Appreciation Day! Update [5/4/2016]: I was a bit off with my estimation of connivence, but it was close.
Update [5/5/2016]: Michigan House approves $500 million funding plan for Detroit Public Schools - but there are concerns.
I just got done reading this piece by Michigan Radio's Jack Lessenberry about plans for making up school days missed this year in Michigan because of snow, ice, and cold. Some politicians want to extend the contact hours each day instead of adding days into summer vacation. This is in spite of direct opposition to the idea by the entire State Board of Education, especially by the State Superintendent of Schools, Mike Flanagan.
Here is the response one of the politician pushing for extending the school day gave regarding the opposition:
When asked about the state superintendent’s views ... Potvin said: “He hasn’t signed any checks lately for transportation,” apparently meaning the cost of school buses.
Forget that Rep. Potvin is putting money before learning (Lessenberry addresses this in his piece). I am more angry with how Rep. Potvin seems to believe his business experience trumps Superintendent Flanagan's educational perspective when it comes to running schools. It makes me want to scream.
But instead, I decided to use my words. Therefore, I wrote this post and used this meme to appropriately express my anger.
On June 19, 2013, the Michigan Legislature voted to give state education and treasury officials the ability to dissolve two financially troubled school districts. During the House debate, one representative spoke passionately about the legislation. You can watch her statement below.
At one point, Representative Lyons says:
The amendment that is being discussed, and was offered yet again tonight
- that was not adopted - was a double-down from groups focused on only
adults, and they just wanted more. Pigs get fat, and hogs get
slaughtered. I am done now talking about political parties and adult
interests. I want to focus on the problem that these adults created.
Others have taken the Representative to task for this confusing comment (here and here) which has resulted in her responding here. The symbolic language used in her rebuttal is illustrative of the way vague but powerful words are being used against public education and educators. These words are what I want to focus on.
In the first paragraph, she asserts that the focus has been on "adults instead of kids." As in teachers' jobs rather that students' ... what? Many in the reform movement purport to support students first but their actions (like dissolving students' schools, removing experienced educators, and focusing on testing) are antithetical to their stated goal. These reformers offer little in the way of what it means to put students first besides suggesting the need to get rid of bad teachers.
And here we have the other symbolic language Rep. Lyons uses: "the unions' zeal to protect bad teachers at the expense of younger, possibly more qualified professionals, ..." (emphasis mine). The reform movement throws around bad teachers without being explicit about what makes them bad. Reformers get away with this because most of us had a teacher we didn't like. You know, the one who was boring or expected us to revise our work or challenged us to take responsibility for our own learning. Consequently, bad teacher is used to evoke a powerful memory in us while actually targeting someone very different: the experienced teacher. Because experienced teachers have institutional memory that might challenge a "new" mandate (and their contract is large), it can be useful to label them as bad in an effort to get rid of them.
Removing experienced, effective (expensive) teachers is not putting students first. In fact, it is putting politics first; it is an effort to de-professionalize teaching and educate on the cheap.
April 22nd was our Governor's Education Summit. It's stated purpose: "Join business leaders and educators as they collaborate to invest in the development of Michigan’s talent." But the feeling I got from following the Tweets of those in attendance and the news surrounding the event was a bit different. It did not seem to be about collaboration as much as consultation - here's what schools ought to be doing to support the needs of the job-providers.
Later that day, I saw this commentary from Jack Lessenberry at Michigan Radio. While Jack uses with where I might write for, this passage seemed to sum up my perspective (from a distance) on the event:
This year’s summit was largely designed to examine how educators at all
levels could better work with business to help students be ready for the
careers for which there are jobs. (emphasis added)
But it was what Jack wrote about our state superintendent of schools, Mike Flanagan, that really got my attention:
What Flanagan said that bothered me so much was this. “Most of us in
education have grown up with an ethic that was something like this:
Education for Education’s Sake. That’s just silly.”
As I shared my dismay, my wife expressed her disbelief and cautioned me that the quote might have been taken out of context. "But this is Jack Lessenberry," I said. "He doesn't do that."
The Context
Well, according to Superintendent Flanagan, that was exactly what happened. So he provided the following video to show what was actually said and the context he said was missing in Jack's piece.
This does soften the Superintendent's statement, somewhat. I am glad that he acknowledges the role of education for education sake. However, if we pull back and get an even larger context, then some of Flanagan's points seem pretty shallow.
First, the Michigan Merit Curriculum that Flanagan mentions at around 3:00, the one he is so proud of, is under attack. There is a push in the state legislature to remove some of the demanding requirements currently under the Merit Curriculum (read more here). Why didn't Superintendent Flanagan ask for the business leaders' support to ensure that this curriculum remain in place? (To be fair, he might have mentioned it elsewhere in the speech. Superintendent?)
Second, this speech was given at a conference where the Governor began the day by implying that education in the state and nation is broken. He said, "For our most precious asset, we've built a system that doesn't work anymore in terms of helping people be successful." (2:34) Again, this is part of a longer speech which ought to be watched in full, but the message is clearly that we need to do something different. (Maybe we could spend more on education or quit focusing so much attention on high-stakes testing? But I digress.) In my opinion, Superintendent Flanagan's statements, in the context of the Governor's speech seems to suggest that we need to make significant changes to "education for education's sake" since the current system "doesn't work anymore."
Finally, what evidence do we have that our current education system doesn't work? Both the Governor and the Superintendent point to unfilled jobs at Michigan Talent. Governor Snyder states, "On this website, we have over 60,000 open jobs. Good jobs. These are not entry - just the first job you get out of minimum wage; these are good jobs." (3:28) Actually, as of 4 pm, 5/1/13, there were 57,395 jobs, and 19,801 of the jobs, or about a third, are labeled as entry level.
Given this information, I decided to do a search: jobs that require at least a Masters Degree within 100 miles of my zip code. Nine jobs match this criteria. None of them that I could do without further training. I decided to look for any jobs in my area. 10,322 jobs are available, but over half are internships or entry level positions. While I respect the work of Sanitation Technicians, Groundskeepers, Truck Drivers, and Field Attendants, I do not see these as jobs I could be passionate about or happy with - descriptors used by the Governor and the Superintendent. Just in case my point is unclear, I believe using the 60,000 open jobs is a poor, maybe even dishonest, reason for attacking the current state of public education in Michigan.
[Update: Rick Haglund has done some investigation regarding the Governor's claims about MI Talent. You can read them here. However, I remain perplexed that it is under business and not education. Where are the education writers?]
The Question
What is the purpose of education?
Maybe we ought to be designing curricula that would prepare students to fill some of the jobs available on Michigan Talent. I remain unconvinced that Michigan students are dreaming of a job as an asparagus harvester (currently 8 jobs available) but I could be wrong. If filling the open jobs on Michigan Talent is the new goal of Michigan schools, then we need to begin writing the lessons that prepare students with the necessary skills.
Yes, I'm being facetious, but it's frustrating to be told that education is broken while businesses say they want collaborators, critical thinkers, and self-directed learners. These are the very things schools (education for education's sake) used to strive to be about. And then the nation became obsessed with standardized-tests which caused schools to became more and more like test preparation centers. (Maybe the goal of lowering the unfilled jobs on Michigan Talent would be an improvement - I kid, because otherwise I might cry.)
Perhaps the thing that angers me most, is the idea that our kids are being prepared to be someone else's workers. When did public schools become Kelly Employment Students? Education ought to be so much more. But don't take my word for it:
The
principle goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who
are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations
have done. (Jean Piaget)
To
save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the aims of
education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the
true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. (Martin Luther King Jr.)
The
one real object of education is to have a man in the condition of continually
asking questions. (Bishop Mandell Creighton)
Education is a process of living and not a preparation for future living. (John Dewey)
This is a letter to the editor that I am considering sending to papers in Michigan. Your feedback would be appreciated.
***
Dear Editor:
I am tired of reading how the new tenure legislation recently signed by Michigan's Governor Rick Snyder "makes it easier to fire bad teachers." A more accurate description would be that the law potentially makes it easier to fire ANY teacher since what is meant by "bad teaching" is not well-defined. Consequently, the protection of effective, experienced teachers has been severely compromised by this new law, and it will have a detrimental effect on education in Michigan.
The argument is that the old tenure law protected bad teachers. Here we have the false assumption that led to the flawed logic behind this supposed "reform" effort. Originally, tenure protected teachers, all teachers, from being removed without justification. This did not prevent bad teachers from being removed; it just meant administrators had to be diligent in documenting abuse.
Were there bad teachers who gamed the system and made it difficult for administrators to remove them? Certainly, but that is the nature of a system meant to protect teachers and predicated on their presumed innocent. Closing loopholes that bad teachers used to game the system would be a reasonable response. What the new law seems to do instead is react in a way that goes beyond the problem of bad teachers.
The new tenure law certainly makes it easier for administrators to get rid of bad teachers. It also makes it easier to get rid of the experienced teacher who is high on the pay scale. It also makes it easier to get rid of the teacher committed to using promising practices that an administrator does not agree with. It also makes it easier to get rid of the teacher who holds kids accountable for their actions even though it ruffles the feathers of the kids' parents.
If you trust administrators, then there is nothing to worry about. I talk to a lot of teachers, however, who are concerned. They say they will hesitate to volunteer to teach in a high-needs classroom because their evaluation may depend on these students' test score. They describe how they will be more reluctant to address bad behavior because student and parent evaluation may play a role in determining their effectiveness. They explain that they will no longer take risks on new techniques and technologies because there seems to be little room for error. This does not sound like educational reform to me.
Whether or not these issues come to pass (the evaluation piece is still up in the air), the reality is that teachers feel attacked by such overreaching measures as the new tenure law. The message appears to be that teachers now have to take the education of their students seriously - as if they didn't before. Under such circumstances, the likelihood of educational innovation seems small.
I want to share a Letter to the Editor that I recently sent to a couple of Michigan newspapers. It reflects my current frustration with how little we value teachers and their efforts. We must make our voices heard.
Full disclosure: I'm a teacher. My wife is a teacher. Both of my parents taught. And my maternal grandparents were teachers. I am aware I am biased on this issue. However, that does not negate the following facts.
I have read comments lately suggesting teachers are paid too much. Sometimes, the rationale behind these comments is that teachers are simply glorified babysitters. So let's consider this for a minute. Babysitters make anywhere from $4-10 an hour. Let's be conservative and use the lower amount. Classrooms now have about 25 kids per class. School runs from around 8 am until 3 pm, but teachers often get an hour planning and a luxurious 30-minute lunch. So seemingly, they work 5.5 hours. The school year is 180 days long. Doing the math I learned thanks to a teacher, that totals to $99,000 per year. Of course, we will have to pay someone else to do the planning, assessing, and other duties that teachers do beyond the school day since that's not in a babysitter’s job description.
Now I can hear some of you complaining that this is too much money given that you consider teachers part time civic employees. So let's consider paying teachers what we pay another "part time" civic employee - a Michigan legislator. They make around $70,000 per year and about $900 per month for expenses. Not a bad amount for "part time" work.
But wait, there has been a lot of yelling recently that we must reduce government debt so our precious children and grandchildren will not be saddled with this burden. They are our future, after all, and an investment in ensuring that America will go on after us. A precious investment, you say? Then maybe we should pay teachers like investment bankers.
You get the point. A teacher is worth much more than the average $58,000 we pay them - even when you add in benefits. So the next time you think that teachers are paid too much or that their unions are unnecessary consider these examples. When we pay teachers as much as investment bankers or legislators or even babysitters then maybe the time for teacher unions has passed. But until then be grateful for the bargain.
While this letter was fairly easy to write, it was extremely difficult to submit. The last thing I want to do is add to the damage being done to a profession I feel so passionately about. My fear is that my passion (and some tongue-in-cheek points) will be misconstrued when placed in a section that far too many people read literally - the opinion page.
