The Effigy

The hanging of an effigy of President Obama in a classroom at Central Falls, (the school that is garnering national attention due to the decision to fire all of its teachers), is making news. While few would object that there are more classroom friendly methods for discussing the issue at hand -- the effigy has succeeded in bringing the issue of "holding teachers accountable" back into the public eye, and I am reminded once again that education and equity are not synonymous in this country, as much as we would like to pretend otherwise.

The fact that our "failing" schools are consistently in areas with a high rate of poverty, should come as no surprise. Why student income level, native language, and the overall safety of the communities in which they live are also not figured into the equation when evaluating teacher performance has been made clear by Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education. He seems to believe that when teachers are faced with a caseload of students who live in dangerous neighborhoods, who are poor, who are neglected, who are underfed, who are non-English speaking, they should be able to overcome these obstacles in the classroom and continue preparing students for college readiness. No problem.

As usual, I feel powerless when faced with nonsensical policy making, and so I have decided to investigate the issue of good teachers from the ground up, beginning where it really counts -- with the students themselves. What makes an effective teacher? What defines a "good" teacher from a "bad"? I know what those passing down the orders think -- a successful teachers follow directions, buys into the directives handed down from up-high, and produces students who test well. But what do the students themselves believe?

So far I have interviewed two students, both boys, one in 8th grade, and one in 10th. I asked each of them to tell me what made a teacher a "good" teacher. Honestly, I thought they would struggle a little bit with this. That maybe they just accepted teachers as they come, and wouldn't know, exactly, what made one good and another not so good. I was wrong. They both gave the matter some deep thought, and then provided me with their top three qualifications.

The 8th grade interviewee listed, in order of importance, the following three criteria: funny and entertaining, knows their subject, likes what they do. I questioned him on his second qualification. He elaborated, explaining that in his experience, some teachers don't seem to know much about their subject matter. These teachers, he said, always teach exclusively from the text book, and never seem to know the answers to your questions.

The 10th grade interviewee had very similar responses. He too was able to come up with three essential qualifications: creative, interesting and engaging, funny. So, both boys felt being funny was paramount. Of course, not everyone is funny, but I can't help but think how frequently I rely on laughter to get my students through a lesson successfully.

I asked the 10th grader if he ever felt as though a teacher was teaching him successfully, even though they did not display the above characteristics, and he adamantly shook his head. According to him, without creativity, engagement, and humor they were not good teachers, period.

I wonder if we could do away with our complex means for teacher assessment and replace it with a simple check list. Do you love what you teach? Do you know how to make your subject matter interesting? Can you teach and think creatively? Do you have a sense of humor? Access to teacher credential programs could be based on this simple criteria.

I plan to interview many more students on their top qualifications for what makes a teacher "good", and will continue to report on my findings. I think that the superintendent of Central Falls High, and President Obama too (why not), would do well to question the students at Central Falls in the same way. All too often, the students themselves are not given a voice. Those kids know who can teach and who can't. Has anyone bothered asking them?

The Act of Giving Human Traits to Non-Living Objects

I'm still mulling over this issue of how the government can evaluate teacher performance from afar because, like it or not, this is the direction we are moving. My student assessments are based on a panacea of techniques that I am constantly developing and improvising depending on my students and the varying levels of their needs. Sometimes my assessment is based on an particular academic task: i.e. one of my students just turned in a paper that uses all complete sentences, when previously she had been unable to do so. Sometimes my assessment will be based on something much simpler, i.e. I was able to get a non-writer, non-responder, to write three sentences in his notebook, and smile twice.

Just as I never stop assessing my students I also never stop assessing my own techniques -- content, delivery, successes versus failures. Self-assessment is part of my job, and believe me, I wish there was some simple formula to make this process easier, and not so convoluted. However, I do not feel that the government has, as of yet, devised an effective method for evaluating student learning, and it concerns me that this same ineffective method may, very soon, be used to evaluate teacher performance as well.

Lets take a dramatic, and hypothetical, case in point -- one certain to make English teachers everywhere cringe in dread. Let's say the entire year goes by and I'm so busy packing in the important stuff, that I forget to teach the students in my English class the literary terms that will undoubtedly be on their standardized exams. At test time, assuming they are even bothering to try, they will quite possibly miss certain questions because of this. Based on their test scores, it may appear as though I am not teaching my students successfully. Both my students and I will be graded as "Basic", or even worse, the dreaded, "Below Basic."

This is one of the things that keeps me up at night. What is more important? That my students learn to question, to be curious human beings? Or that they temporarily memorize the meaning of the word: Personification.

The school howls with grief while the children inside, stare longingly out the windows. The windows whisper, "Don't know what personification means? Look it up."

Teacher Assessment

Today, a news headline in my inbox reads: Rhode Island District Superintendent To Fire Entire Staff At Underperformed High School. According to the article, this high school is the lowest performing in the State, and their test results have continued to drop too many years in a row. The teachers have refused to adopt the changes mandated by government program improvement, and so the Superintendent must choose the only other option given by No Child Left Behind legislation, and fire them all.

Next I read an article by Melinda French Gates, published in the Washington Post. Gates seems to believe that even schools that carry the weight of the At Risk student population can produce consistently high test results, as well as high school graduates who plan to attend college. What students need, she writes, are good teachers. The teachers hold the key to student success -- and if the teachers are good enough, then the students will succeed across all social and economic barriers.

Now, I am not one to romanticize the public school teacher. I went to public school, and I remember with bitter clarity what it was like for me there. Socially dysfunctional and boring. So boring. Boring beyond boring. I have never been so bored in my life, boring. I stopped counting the holes in asbestos ceiling panels the last day I spent in high school, boring. So don't expect me to carry on about the invaluable nature of the holy K-12 "teacher". On the other hand, for many of my students, a good teacher is the best chance they have -- because when they aren't at school, no one else is in their life is paying them any positive attention.

Gates readily admits that assessing teacher performance is complex, and that assessing teacher performance based one standardized test results alone, is not enough. After all, by the time students reach my classroom, they have already been taught for the previous 11-13 years, by other teachers. Yet suddenly I am responsible for their achievements, as well as their failings. And what if my students do not do well on the Standardized Test? What if they still stink at writing when they leave my room -- sorry, but if the multitude of teachers who came before me couldn't do it, what makes you think it can be done?

On the other hand, what if they learning something in my class that cannot be measured via multiple choice? What if they read and enjoyed their first story? What if they learned to be more tolerant? What if they, for the fist time ever, like English -- when previously it was a subject they found most loathsome? How do you measure that?

So maybe those teachers in Rhode Island really are terrible at their jobs. Maybe they are boring, so boring that the smartest kids refuse to go to school because they've already counted all the holes in the ceiling and there are none left to count. Maybe they are mean teachers, who unjustly punish their students, refuse them creative expression, and belittle them in front of their peers (we've all had those). On the other hand, what if the students are learning something? Something we haven't yet figured out how to measure?

I don't know the school, I don't know the community, and I don't know the teachers -- but I imagine, even if I did, this would not be an easy question to answer.