TLN Teacher Voices

"One Size Fits All" Teaching

During a discussion of "one size fits all" structured or scripted programs that many school systems are adopting in an effort to raise achievement (especially in reading and math), one TLN member asked whether the tendency to require all teachers—even the most successful—to conform to these programs' requirements is primarily "a control issue."

Susan B. replied:

I think they COULD simply be a control issue, but, in my humble opinion, is more likely yet another unintended conseqence of our profession's unwritten, egalitarian code that asserts that all teachers are equal. When the powers that be decide a new program or method could be valuable, low-performing teachers can't be specifically targeted because it contradicts that paradigm. So, when school improvement/staff development is planned, everyone is expected to march along. It is just as controversial to identify teachers who would benefit from a new program/method as it is to single out excellent teachers and reward them with performance pay.

In my experience, the only group of teachers who are routinely singled out for improvement are those of us at Title I schools. This happens because our society also assumes an egalitarian view of students, e.g. socioeconomic status does not make a difference in student achievement. When the two paradigms collide, as they do in schools like mine, the teachers are bashed as a group (not doing their jobs!) while the students/parents are "protected" (not their fault!). Of course, we have high performing and low performing teachers (and students) in Title I schools, just as in other schools.

I think the powers that be honestly believe that imposing a one-size-fits-all program will lead to a higher, uniform level of performance for all. If the program/method is good, the low-performers might well improve; that is, the bottom will be raised. However, I truly believe that lock-step programs also reduce the effectiveness of high-performing teachers. The most creative teachers suffer the most, as such programs tie our brains behind our backs. So, as the bottom is raised and the top lowered, the anticipated leveling effect does take place, but the uniform level reached is mediocrity, not excellence.

I'll make a gloomy prediction. When the powers that be notice that the programs they have unilaterally imposed succeed in raising the bottom, they will assume that even more rigidity will continue to raise the resulting uniform level of achievement out of mediocrity toward excellence. So, we will see more, not less, push toward uniformity.

Just when we think we're making headway, yet another example of the de-professionalization of teaching.

Ron Clark: The Movie

Ron Clark, a young teacher who became a best-selling author when his book "The Essential 55" attracted Oprah's attention, is now the subject of a made-for-TV movie, which began airing on TNT on Sunday, August 13, 2006. Virginia high school teacher Mary Tedrow watched – and shared this reflections in the Teacher Leaders Network discussion group.

I made a special point of watching the Ron Clark story tonight. It stars Matthew Perry and is running on TNT. I absolutely LOVE movies about teachers making a difference in student's lives because it stirs that feeling in me that keeps me working on kids' behalf. (And I have his Essential 55 book.)

It made me wonder, though. Do these super teacher stories (and we could name quite a few that have become books and movies) help or hurt our children? Here is what I was thinking — please chime in with your view. Do these movies leave the impression that getting a good teacher for every child is a hit or miss proposition?

Even in the Ron Clark story, he had to battle against the system at times to do what he felt would help his kids. As I told my husband, there are things that we know are good for children and effective strategies that every teacher can learn, but we aren't always afforded the time and space to achieve a Ron Clark sort of success for every child.

I fully believe we could if given the proper tools. Teachers need to be given time for professional development (and rewards for improving their teaching practice). I think these movies perpetuate the idea that only the really exceptional teachers can climb over the mountain of hardships to save a few kids. Should it be so hard? I don't think it has to be.

I got the impression at the end of the movie that Clark left his Harlem classroom after one year — a year that almost killed him, it seemed. Here's a day from my own life that still sticks in my memory. I was told by a supervisor that if I were a good teacher I would "find a way" to get what I needed to get the job done, in spite of obstacles. Our meeting was about some of those very obstacles that had dismantled a successful class for struggling ninth graders I had created. This person was a district administrator. I pointed out that she was talking about her own system as one of the obstacles.

I don't think we can expect the parents of underprivileged and struggling kids to wait and hope for a Ron Clark in their children's lives. We need to create a system that supports all teachers in doing the best for kids every day.

A Tool to Explore Learner Diversity

When Cossondra asked for ideas about introducing pre-service teachers to the "wide range of learners they can anticipate having in their classes," she received this suggestion from TLN member Linda Emm, a professional community builder in the Miami-Dade Public Schools and consultant for the National School Reform Faculty.

We use an activity called "Profile of a Student." We just did this activity today in a room of 300 people — the entire staff of a Texas school district, along with many members from the community at large. (Of course, it is usually done in MUCH smaller groups.)

The idea is this: People read several profiles of students, then identify which one is most like the student they themselves were in high school. Then they re-assemble in groups of "like students." In these groups, they talk about what it was like to be that kind of student — how they experienced school: all the good, the bad, the ugly.

Then each group charts out what teachers need to know about students like themselves. The next step is to brainstorm about the kinds of activities that would engage this type of learner and produce high quality work. The groups then post their charts and take turns reporting out.

The whole-group debrief takes place around this question: What are the implications for teaching when all of these students are in the same classroom? We also address any profiles that are not represented by the folks in the room. This is important when you're working exclusively with teachers, because some types of students rarely become teachers. We ask about those students and their implications for our teaching practice. How do we engage every kind of student?

The activity stirs up some powerful conversation and a lot of reflection as we return to our classrooms.

[NOTE: This activity has also inspired a teacher version which offers eight different teacher profiles or "Passion Profiles" and can be used to explore teaching practice and the different components that make up a highly effective teaching style.]

Some Advice for Bill Gates, U.S. Superintendent of Education

In a recent op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times, education historian and policy maven Diana Ravitch suggested that Bill Gates, with foundation assets of $60 billion, may become the de facto U.S. Superintendent of Education. 

"With the ability to hand out more than $1 billion or more every year to U.S. educators without any external review, the Gates Foundation looms larger in the eyes of school leaders than even the U.S. Department of Education, which, by comparison, has only about $20 million in truly discretionary funds. The department may have sticks, but the foundation has almost all the carrots.

"In light of the size of the foundation's endowment," Ravitch wrote, "Bill Gates is now the nation's superintendent of schools. He can support whatever he wants, based on any theory or philosophy that appeals to him. We must all watch for signs and portents to decipher what lies in store for American education."

When we asked members of the Teacher Leaders Network what advice they would give Bill Gates about investing $1 billion or more a year in American education, former Michigan Teacher of the Year Nancy Flanagan penned this letter to the world's richest man:

Dear Bill,

Diane Ravitch has hit the nail on the head in her first sentence. The quality of the teachers and students' engagement in what they are learning matter far more than the precise numbers of kids in the school or class. It's curious, however, that she follows up this bit of wisdom by asking you to develop "software to transform the teaching of mathematics and science"--including software to teach kindergartners! She then puts in a pitch for urban Catholic schools, which are not known for their innovative curriculum and accomplished instruction.

Don't misunderstand, Bill. New interactive software for teaching math and science might be a great project to pursue—if the teachers using the software are developed at the same time as the programming. And Catholic schools have been a great gift to many children who live in working-class homes, where caring parents make sacrifices to put their kids in functional schools where family investment is required.

You could build 25 state-of-the-art Catholic schoolbuildings with a billion dollars, but without engaging, relevant curriculums and top-flight teachers this initiative would be no more sustainable than Manual HS in Denver. These schools would have little impact on the dysfunctional systems surrounding them, or the students whose parents can't quite get it together to support a Catholic education for their kids. You know—the throwaway kids. You could do a lot more for these kids, whose plight is truly hopeless, than guarantee Catholic schools in their neighborhoods.

As a successful businessman, perhaps you have not felt the need to read any of Jim Collins' practical manuals for keeping organizations moving from good to great. Collins' first rule is: "Get the right people on the bus." Diane Ravitch speaks of "instruction." I'm sure she chose the world deliberately, but "instruction" is much more than saying the right things or giving the right assignments.

Good instruction always involves a genuine relationship between teacher and student, aspects of respect, analysis, diagnosis, persistence, patience, caring and commitment. The reason small schools are often successful revolve around the greater likelihood of these useful personal relationships developing—and the kinds of teachers who are attracted to this very personal teaching (as compared to "instruction").

It's hard to buy these things, even with a billion dollars. It is, however, worth pursuing a vision of curriculum individually tailored for kids, and radically increasing the numbers of high-quality, committed teachers. Why not think of people as a resource—the way you do at Microsoft? Why not invest money in schools which nurture student—and teacher—creativity through the arts? It's ironic, in the information technology era, that we aren't thinking about schools without walls, schools focused on the various new "literacies" that people need now.

Don't give up on schools! We need your resources, but you also need to hear from the folks who touch kids every day. Thanks for your concern.