American Education Week and Neoliberal Market Efficiencies

Founded in 1921, American Education Week was designed to inform "the public of the accomplishments and needs of the public schools and to secure the cooperation and support of the public in meeting those needs." 17 years later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed "the teachers and patrons of American schools" about the relationship between democracy and education.

As American Education Week is once more observed throughout the schools of the United States, opportunity again is afforded to evaluate the part which our schools play in the preservation and promotion of democratic life.

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education (Sep. 27, 1938).

Roosevelt's comments, though brief, provide sharp contrast with the writings of Joanne Weiss, who served as President Obama's director of Race to the Top and then Secretary Duncan's Chief of Staff. Weiss actually sees teachers as passive recipients of education reform -- to be fed data -- rather than co-constructors of democratic practices that engage students, families, and colleagues. From Weiss' Harvard Business Review (HBR) post:

It will make sense for researchers to mine data to learn which materials and teaching strategies are effective for which students – and then feed that information back to students, teachers, and parents (Mar. 31, 2011).

Weiss' comments reflect the notion that teachers are passive observers within their own profession. She assumes that teachers do not, in fact, do research everyday on what works and what doesn't work for children. And when we place her comments within ED's push for the adoption of common standards across the U.S. via Race to the Top, her framework becomes so much more dangerous. From her HBR post:

The development of common standards and shared assessments radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. Previously, these markets operated on a state-by-state basis, and often on a district-by-district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best products can be taken to scale.

Some may note that Weiss' post was from 2011, and that her views might have "evolved," in part, due to the good work of ED's diverse, passionate, and caring colleagues. Yet with such a Machiavellian view of education, I wonder how Weiss even ended up in ED in the first place.

I'm not interested in gnarling Weiss' reputation.

I am interested in engaging colleagues in a critique of the anti-democratic practices that sometimes pass for a "kinder and gentler" neoliberalism. A neoliberalism that sees children as a revenue stream, and teachers as an obstacle to market efficiencies. The threat to our democracy is real, and the saboteurs are in the room.

Sometimes, nuance is not good enough.

Trackback.

Sustaining a Hybrid Teacher Network

Thanks to Nicole Gillespie, KSTF's CEO, I just finished reading "Getting Ideas into Action: Building Networked Improvement Communities in Education (2011). This article advances the idea that [K-12] educational practitioners should also be at the table when educational research -- and policy -- is designed.

As a busy practitioner, I know I could benefit from succinct access to academic research frameworks. And I KNOW that teacher voices can enrich and ground the often-lofty "Here, try this..." interventions.

Looking ahead to the elusive "Hybrid Teacher Network," teachers need time and support to stay in the classroom (1/2 time), but also have stewardship of the profession (1/2 time). Everything from curriculum, instruction, assessment and policy is on the table, and practicing teachers need to be creating the narrative with community partners.

How can NNSTOY, NBCT, VIVA Teachers, Hope Street Fellows, TAFNet, a nascent STEM teacher network, and other groups advance and sustain hybrid teacher roles?

What can we learn about teacher networks that aligns with [inter-]national educational equity and is based on local innovation?

Mapping Teacher Leadership

Comments from 60+ teachers when asked, "What does teacher leadership mean to you?" The words "teacher" and "leadership" were removed before the word cloud was created. Check out Wordle for a fun word cloud tool.

Teacher Professionalism and Leadership

-->

-->

In a recent USA Today article, Wendy Kopp (CEO of Teach for America) and Dennis Van Roekel (President of the National Education Association), recommend “3 steps improve the USA’s teachers.”

Specifically, Kopp and Van Roekel suggest that we:

• Use data to improve teacher preparation.
• Bring new talent to the teaching profession.
• Give teachers opportunities for continuous professional development.

Everyone wants to improve, but it would be helpful to determine what the specific problems are before we create policy guidelines.  Once the problems are identified, teachers should be directly involved in creating, implementing and evaluating the solutions.

Of course teachers are life-long learners and we are, therefore, interested in continuous improvement. However, when it comes to student learning, the focus on teachers is incomplete. We should also consider the students' readiness to learn when they arrive at school.  

In order to learn, students need to be well-rested, well-fed, safe, and curious when they arrive at school. If that's not the case, then we need to look to the social and economic context in which the children live outside of school. And yes, teachers do have some perspective on that context.

An over-emphasis on teacher quality is a distraction from what truly ails us: students' and teachers' diminished ability to make informed and strategic decisions about their learning.   

Over-emphasis on teacher quality as the "...single biggest factor in student success..." implies that if students are not succeeding, or learning, then teachers should be held accountable. Yet research from the Center for Teaching Quality has shown that teachers are less effective when they have poor working conditions.

The onus is on teachers to advocate for effective working conditions, among other things. Teachers should be involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, assessment AND policy -- all aspects of our working conditions. This emphasis on teacher leadership ties in very well with the US Department of Education's Blueprint for Reform that emphasizes teacher professionalism.

Within the article, it is not clear if Kopp and Roekel are referring to worthwhile assessments of "student learning" -- or simple measurements of "student success." Poorly designed standardized tests CANNOT be used to correlate the quality of teacher training programs.  

Why use bad data to create wishy-washy (or worse) policy?