I find educational research exciting, especially when it is presented as straight-forwardly as it is in this Atlantic article. The writer uses memorable terminology – such as “urban ecosystems” (referring to the backdrop of crime and poverty in students’ communities) and “compound effects” (referring to how a good or bad teacher can multiply gains or losses on their students’ behalves in a stunningly quick fashion and on a stunningly large scale). These two terms, when juxtaposed within the context of this article, convince me that the “within-school stratification” camp wins out over the “between-school stratification” camp in accounting for significantly different student outcomes. In other words, the teachers a kid winds up with in any particular school is more significant of a factor towards his success or failure than whether he attends the public school with the best rep in town, or the one everyone snickers at (perhaps this applies also with public vs. private schools).
I am thrilled that the platform for talking about education in Washington has shifted and is now less about NCLB and more about identifying, seeking out and holding onto effective teachers. The thought of linking teachers’ pay to how much their students’ test scores go up, though, makes my stomach turn. Could that possibly transmute the student-teacher relationship into something unhealthy, turning education into a far less human endeavor? It would make me nerve-wracked as a teacher. But I guess the reform will serve mostly to get rid of teachers who are not doing this. If a teacher is, the bars being set are intended to keep those ones safe. So I guess there would be nothing to worry about.
How good teachers ought to be measured is by whether they can take an unengaged, non-participating student, and turn him into one who looks forward to class, flips through his notes voluntarily to find the answer, and begins to study of his own accord. Basically, a good teacher can be identified by his/her ability to turn apathetic students into ones interested in their own success – such as was the case with Mr. Taylor’s students, one of whom was “unable to contain herself” when writing her answer on her orange card. Now, how to operationalize that is the problem. Indeed, we do need a “good, solid measuring stick” to “bushwhack” our way out of the confluence of variables that make it hard to tell what makes a teacher have phenomenal student achievement results.
What MTC should look for in an applicant is extracurricular engagement (that sounds more human than “accomplishment”), clues that they’re innovative and creative and dissatisfied with merely meeting minimum requirements, and clues that they get enormous satisfaction out of meeting long-term goals. To locate these traits in candidates, talking to an applicant’s manager could be helpful, and asking, “On a regular basis, does Joe just meet your expectations, or find new ways to go above and beyond?” How Joe behaves at one job will likely predict how he will behave as an employee of a public school district. Or, asking in the interview, “What is one major goal you have set for yourself that you have achieved? How did you get there?” or alternatively, “What is something that you have vastly improved on in recent years, and why was it important to you that you change this?”
To determine which factors are important in creating or identifying a top-rate teacher, using Mr. Taylor as a case study is illuminating. First, I believe Mr. Taylor’s method of showing students alternate ways to reach the same answer is KEY in boosting overall student achievement. This I want to start implementing. Second, the way he rotates student leadership and creates pockets of close-knit student communities could be enormously helpful in spurring peer tutoring during in-class hours. Third, class participation should be vibrant and ample. I loved the line in the article, “You know you’re in a good classroom if you have to stop yourself from raising your hand.” Furthermore about participation, I was thrilled to see that Mr. Taylor uses “equity sticks” during guided practice – a method Ann taught us and that I use now as well (drawing names at random to solicit student participation). Forth, just as Joe Sweeney’s story goes about how his students ran class for him when he had a sub, Mr. Taylor’s students ran his routine almost without him. This is an area where I believe I am doing OK as a teacher. The first 30 minutes of class, I could not say much of anything. (Sometimes I wonder if this routine is a good thing or a bad, though; what if they stop thinking because it’s all so predictable?) Fifth and finally, an essential factor for student outcomes is for the teacher to realize the value of a no-complaining teaching ethos. A downcast outlook on students’ status in the social strata will do nothing to help them succeed.
Conversely, according to the article, it is not important that teachers have experience working in a poor area, or that they are veteran teachers. It isn’t even important that they have an aptitude for reflection. It also doesn’t matter if a teacher has a Master’s Degree, or had straight A’s throughout college. What matters is a history of perseverance, improvement, grit and zest for life. On an interesting note, during the part of the article that explained TFA’s 5-minute teaching portion of the application process, it was determined that it is not-so-important what the teacher does, what evaluators look for is what the kids are doing, acquiring, honing in that precious five minutes.
This article inspired me to press on in my second year with grit, to stop blaming poor student performance on external factors (i.e., parents or neighborhood effects), to start instilling zeal in more of my students (especially those who I overlook), and to explode willingly routines or approaches in my classroom that are not working.
No comments:
Post a Comment