Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Teacher Autonomy Paradox
In addition to the longer article on How the Dems Lost on Education, the American Prospect also published a shorter semi-companion piece I wrote today, on-line, called "The Teacher Autonomy Paradox." Unlike the longer article, it hasn't appeared in any format before today. The argument is that while at first it might seem like the interests of elevating teaching to the ranks of the most well-respected, well-paid professions would involve granting teachers more autonomy, in fact the opposite is true: Only by relinquishing some autonomy will teachers finally be able to attain the true professional status they deserve. Think of it like a really good DVD extra, i.e. not the normal kind, with the blooper reels and 10-minute "making of" documentary that mostly consists of the star and director sitting in folding chairs on the set congratulating one another, but rather one of those extended out-takes that's as good or better than the actual movie (This is Spinal Tap being an excellent example) and makes you think they could have made the movie twice as long and it would have been just as awesome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I went a couple of days without taking the bait and responding. Kevin, do you realize the anger/frustration or just intense feelings that you prompt when you challenge the fundamental principles of liberal arts education? The principle of teacher autonomy is the cornerstone of educational ethics that have evolved over the centuries. Then based on a relatively minuscule about of anecdotal evidence from a few outliers over a five to ten years, you want to wipe out the collective wisdom of the teaching profession. I didn’t comment a couple of days ago when you seemed to blame public education for our economic problems, but today I’m home sick and I couldn’t stay away from the keyboard.
When I first tried a fifteen minute attempt to blog, I wrote, “I refute it thus!” You spin these curious scenarios completely disconnected to the real world, when the refutation of your arguments lie in your recent post. We are now seeing the financial effects of the “Masters of the Universe” hubris with their complete faith in the computer projections of derivative and hedge funds. They sought short term rewards, seemingly disconnected from risk, not balanced by democracy, or even methods of checking whether numbers are related in any way to reality. Both the recent financial wizards and the “self-defined ‘reformers’” who copy their methods are like a football team that runs a “two minute offense” for a whole season, but who only want to count the points they put up on the board, and ignore the costs of the mistakes, turnovers, and enormous costs of that silly strategy.
Or to mix metaphors, George Soros explains how we are facing a bubble on top of a bubble. Your cavalier attitude is a recipe for the same in education. For a graphic illustration of the bubble caused by NCLB-type accountability, just look at the charts that show the take-off of state test scores compared to the minimal or flat results on NAEP scores. Then, you write:
Michelle Rhee, the reform-minded chancellor of D.C. Public Schools, recently proposed creating that elusive $100,000 teacher salary but only for those who choose to voluntarily relinquish their seniority and tenure rights and be subject to legitimate annual performance evaluations. Such teachers would, in some ways, have less-comfortable and more-rigidly defined jobs than their peers from days gone by. Someone else would decide what their students need to know. If they fail, the consequences could be severe.”
I’ve seen what happens under those circumstances, the worst case being last year when we endured a rookie superintendent whose only knowledge of education came from the Broad school. Take away the expectation of teacher autonomy and you’ll see a decline in teacher effectiveness. (If you don’t understand why, read today’s Bridging Differences. Fear is not consistent with good teaching) Then comes the bubble on top of the bubble - the nonstop effort to fabricate good news.
We will always have educators who think they can chop up knowledge into measurable bits. We will always have educators who want to control the way the whole organization operates. I’m not interesting in driving them from the profession. We already have an acute shortage of talent and we need all types of personalities inside our big tent. You seem blithely unaware of what would happen if your dreams were realized and you drove us (educators who believe in the liberal arts and that public schools should nurture citizenship and a respect for difference) out of the profession.
The “X factor” in all of this, of course, is power. We not only need to ask what type of personality would teach under the circumstances you and Rhee want; we need to ask what type of people would administer such a system? All to often, the system would attract the type of people who, while discussing an issue that requires profound reverence for education and citizenship, who would say:
"Think of it like a really good DVD extra, i.e. not the normal kind, with the blooper reels and 10-minute "making of" documentary that mostly consists of the star and director sitting in folding chairs on the set congratulating one another, but rather one of those extended out-takes that's as good or better than the actual movie (This is Spinal Tap being an excellent example) and makes you think they could have made the movie twice as long and it would have been just as awesome."
While keeping the principle of teacher autonomy sacrosanct, of course we should evolve. As we learn, of course, we add to those teachers’ toolboxes. I strongly support a major effort to rid education of ineffective educators, and I strongly support a racheting up of standards. But Kevin, this is not just a political chess game. Your hypotheses need to be subjected to educational realities. Maybe you think that “research” has already given us the answer. Maybe you think I’m wrong when I say that today the best we can hope for is that educators can become better consumers of educational research.
But until you get some experience in a real classroom, how can you evaluate those two arguments?
After taking another break I have to offer a qualifier. Curriculim alignment is a complex issue. It has far far more potential in elementary school than high school, and I stay out of elementary school issues. But that is precisely the point. You can take your tours of elementary schools - some being Potemkim Villages for the entourages and some making real improvements - and then declare yourself qualified to revolutionize public education over this entire diverse country. If you were really interested in a discussion of how to seek better alignment in high schools while maintaining the fundamental principals of the educational profession, that would be great. If you want to discuss ways of upgrading teaching talent and practice, then the Ed Sector web site if full of insights. If you just get off on the Masters of the Universe persona and a desire to control, why not go to Wall Street?
Post a Comment