| Article Excerpt
By improving the morale of even a handful of a school's faculty, the "teacher-centered" reforms that Ms. Cohen suggests cannot help but benefit students. And best of all, many of them cost nothing.
IT SEEMS that a spate of recent books has appeared on the old, familiar subject of school reform. As always, some of these works have focused on the curriculum and call for more progressive approaches and an end to standardized testing.1 Others have addressed the issues of low standards or parent involvement or the moral culture of the schools.2 However, not one has focused its arguments on the one indispensable element in all successful schools -- the one variable always given short shrift, it seems, whenever reformers think about school change -- the teacher.
For more than five decades now, warehouses of writing on school reform have focused on the needs of the students, calling for the creation of "child-centered classrooms" and "learner-centered schools." Every administrator in America intones, "It's all about the kids!" And those words echo through every disaffected, demoralized student-centered high school building in the land. The whole failed history of modern education reform -- from the prescriptive lesson-plan formats of the 1970s to the restructuring plans in the 1980s to the state testing and curriculum of the 1990s -- has addressed the "needs of the child." It has paid hardly any attention to the work of the teacher, the one critical player in the school who makes the biggest difference.
"In this school, the teacher comes first." I would wager there isn't a public school in the land with such a motto. School reform efforts most frequently proceed despite, not because of, the teacher. When states impose new curricular mandates or introduce new statewide standardized tests, teachers are often viewed as stumbling blocks to implementation. Administrators try to "get the teachers on board," as if they were prisoners diving seaward to escape the shackles and whip. Even "bottom- up" reform is rarely that. In most districts that tried site-based management, it came and went a decade ago with hardly a teacher mourning its passing. Frequently, such "teacher-centered" strategies simply burdened faculty members with the minutiae of daily governance without relieving them of any other responsibilities. The teacher's job was not redefined; rather, it was extended and expanded. Newly "empowered" teachers were burdened with clerical work and logistical concerns about building maintenance and scheduling -- the very concerns that many teachers enter teaching to avoid. Indeed, such teacher- empowering reforms seemed calculated, in advance, to fail.
Everyone knows that teachers resist change.3 Why shouldn't they? Any teacher who has spent more than a decade in the profession has already intuited what school reformers haven't gleaned in a century of tinkering: lasting and meaningful change doesn't come from fiats, whether external or internal. It doesn't have anything to do with long blocks or short blocks, cooperative learning or direct instruction. It has to do with how an individual teacher feels about his or her work and how the school perceives that teacher. If the teacher is perceived as a hero, the school will flourish. If the teacher is perceived as a pain in the ass, the school is going downhill -- long blocks, cooperative learning, and all. For a school to be an intellectual center, for it to have the ethos, the sense of community, and the "spirit" that so many parents and administrators seek, it must celebrate the work of its teachers in a way that is rarely seen in public schools. It must attend to the needs of teachers, it must accommodate their sensibilities, and it must treat the teachers' contributions with as much genuine concern as it does those of any other constituency -- maybe more.
Why Focus on the Teacher?
One good reason to focus on the teacher has to do with the nature of healthy institutions. Almost 20 years ago Sara Lawrence Lightfoot told us that successful high schools are those that possess powerful traditions and embedded norms. In the best schools (or hospitals or corporations), values are consistent and known; they are embodied in the experiences of everyday life.4 How do those traditions get transferred to young people? Not by administrators. Principals have little direct contact with students and certainly not enough to transmit the subtleties of an institution's culture and beliefs. If a school is to have a powerful ethos, it is the teachers who must communicate it, embody it, transmit it. Indeed, teachers are the one stable influence on a culture that is, by definition, always in flux. Students seldom stay in a school longer than four years; many teachers remain in the system for 30 years or more. Because they are the fixed and tenured bearers of the school's values and ethos, it is critical that teachers feel good about the institution they are charged with representing.
This argument is even borne out in recent corporate management theory. Education policy makers have long been influenced by the models put forward by business and industry. In the 1980s, for example, corporate downsizing and bottom-line accountability certainly inspired education policy reforms in the areas of testing and teacher accountability. Cooperative learning and goals-based performance standards also have their roots in management theory.
What then is the most recent thinking about corporate competitiveness and productivity? Many of the most influential books that have been published on this subject in the last five years have shifted their primary focus away from concerns with markets and economies of scale. Instead, employee morale has become a central priority. Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University, reflects the new thinking in his field when he argues that a loyal, intelligent work force is the key factor in corporate competitiveness - - more critical than technology or protected and regulated markets.5 When workers are disgruntled, distracted, or poorly trained, no brilliant strategy for expanding market share will compensate for that liability. Why should it be any different for schools?
A second reason for shifting the reformers' emphasis from the student to the teacher concerns the nature of the teaching force itself. Demographics within the profession have in recent years put schools in an unusual position. In general, the teacher population across the country is aging. In certain states, particularly in the Northeast, the average teacher's age is 40 or above. As teachers continue to age and then retire, schools will be faced with two very different challenges. First, they will have to attract excellent new people into the field. Second, they will have to figure out ways to help large numbers of older teachers stay invested in and committed to their work.
In the case of the hiring of new faculty members, schools will be confronted with the problem of incentives. What can a school offer a high-achieving college graduate to lure him or her away from business or law school? Obviously, schools will never be able to compete in terms of salary and other material benefits. But teaching holds a natural attraction for many idealistic, intelligent young people. Many students at competitive academic institutions are willing to consider teaching as a career.
Our introductory education classes at Smith College have some of the largest enrollments on campus. However, too many students are chased away from the field after their initial observations in local high schools that are part of their pre-practicum experiences. What they see when they visit schools is often demoralizing for them. Teachers work in isolation, and they work with too many students. They rarely interact with other faculty members, except over rushed lunches. They teach from books that they sometimes do not like themselves and that -- to judge by their condition -- seem to have been used by generations of students. By the time students at Smith become seniors, less than a handful each year are interested in becoming certified to teach high school. If schools are going to attract good new teachers, then they need to figure out ways to make the profession look better from the outside.
In terms of the burgeoning ranks of veteran teachers, the problem is even more complex. If good new teachers are hard to attract, it is even harder to reenergize those who have been victims of the system for decades. Some of these teachers, particularly those in their forties and fifties, have almost half a career ahead of them. With salaries frontloaded and no vertical advancement in the field, such teachers have little incentive to grow. As any high school student will tell you, the sullenness and exhaustion of these teachers and their cynicism and contempt for the system are the real root causes of bad schooling. Poorly written curricula, scheduling, and structural concerns are of so much lesser importance than teacher morale that they might as well not be factors at all.
Finally, the most obvious reason to focus on the teacher has to do with the nature of good teaching itself. Good teaching (as any good teacher will tell you) is not only about content and curriculum. It is also about the intersection of that content with the individual who is presenting it. For better or worse, teachers teach themselves, and any teacher who denies it is either lying or is out of touch with his or her effect on a class. School reformers almost always think in terms of what should be taught, how, when, and with what materials. And yet to a great extent teachers are the curriculum: affect, attitude, and persona have a much more powerful impact on classes than do the books they use or the pedagogical techniques they employ. One need only recall one's own best high school teachers to know how true this is. We remember the human beings and their passion or energy. The texts and techniques are secondary.
Teacher-Centered Reform
How then can a school nurture and promote the kind of teacher energy and enthusiasm that will "reform" schools? Forget the workshops on cooperative learning, the curriculum revision committees, the endless tinkering with the schedule. Focus instead on what can be done to make teachers feel better about their work. In other words, ask yourself, How can schools be made into adult-friendly places?
To answer that question, it seems logical to look to those schools that have succeeded in making teachers feel valuable: the best private schools and the best colleges. In both of these settings, money has little to do with job satisfaction. Private schools, as we all know, pay teachers less than public schools. And the salaries of assistant and even associate professors on many campuses fall below those of suburban public school teachers. Nor is workload necessarily the key. Some of the most competitive teaching jobs in the country can be found in private schools that require enormous service from their faculty members, including 24-hour, on-call availability in dormitories, extracurricular work, and lengthy written evaluations of students.
Why is it then that the best college graduates interested in teaching so often compete for the scarce jobs at Exeter and Andover, eschewing public schools even in the most affluent communities? I believe it is because these institutions hold out for bright graduates the promise of a truly intellectual life. Smart college students who choose to teach high school most frequently do so because they hope to continue to read and practice the subjects they love. Public schools, partly because of the very student-centered policies they persist in defending, fail to convey to these aspiring teachers the promise of such a life.
Similarly, many of the most passionately intellectual students at our college overlook the notion of high school teaching altogether. Their ambitions are set, from the start, on teaching at the college level. These students are not choosing college teaching because of a smaller workload or an easier life. Any freshman at Smith can see that introductory classes can be as large as 80 students and that the pressures to publish and the tensions associated with tenure complicate the lives of young professors. But in college teaching, these students do envision themselves respected as intellectuals, rewarded for using their minds in original ways, and capable of choosing and changing what they will teach. Good liberal arts colleges, like good private schools, really are "teacher-centered" institutions. Both seem to recognize that the way to foster excellence in students is to foster excellence in teachers. Good high schools need to prize young teachers who love their disciplines, and they need to celebrate book knowledge as an important, core value in the institutional culture.
Some may argue that a call to nurture "intellectual" teachers is a luxury in a public school system filled with so many students performing below grade level. Quite... |
No comments:
Post a Comment