No Teacher Failed by their Administration

NTFA may not have quite the ring to it as NCLB, but as I think about what the real issues are that have historically faced schools and the whole question of student achievement, I'm a bit perplexed that the finger of blame hasn't been pointed at the real culprits behind most "failing" public schools--their administration. Instead, the focus always seems to be on the classroom teacher, and their inability to reach all of their children and improve their standardized test scores. Fair? Accurate? Backed by research and quantitative analysis? Or even common sense?

Not hardly. In fact, if one were to define what a "Highly Qualified Teacher" really is I would argue that they are those teachers who are able to engage and motivate their students despite how their administration runs their school or district and the learning climate that they engender through their actions. Stellar teachers can teach no matter what conditions they're provided by their administration. Average teachers require more support and a school climate that promotes discipline, routine, and that is actively engaged in insuring that its teachers are covering the curriculum as required. Add to that the need to engage parents and the community and provide leadership to the school so that its shared objectives can be met, and its easy to see that school administrators play a crucial and critical role in whether a school, its teachers, and its students are successful. No wonder they demand such high salaries!

But in the debate about the problems with public schools you rarely hear about the role that the administration plays. Instead the focus always lands on the classroom teacher and the unions and on the need for standardized curriculum that will insure students are able to push the correct levers on their standardized tests so that a kibble is dispensed in the form of improved test scores.

Let's take an extreme example--the collapse of inner-city schools that is so often cited as an example of how public schools have failed. Did those schools become run-down and lacking in basic facilities because of teachers? Did those schools fail to attract excellent teachers that demanded high standards from their students because of teacher's unions? Did those schools end up with a climate where the teachers were demoralized because of a lack of standardized curriculum? In fact, is there any evidence that the conditions prevalent in schools that are not meeting the requirements of NCLB are problems that originated with teachers?

Common sense and historical evidence says that the teachers in these so-called failing schools were not the problem, but were in fact as much victims of administrations that failed to do their jobs as the students they attempted to teach. Schools in poor neighborhoods were historically underfunded and were "led" by administrators who were charged with keeping things quiet and under control--not with demanding high standards and creating high-performing school. It's not hard to find a story about schools lacking in basics such as plumbing and functioning lights, or a library that contained enough books to serve their students. Or textbooks. Or enough unbroken desks for every student in a class. Those stories are real, and yet none of those problems are ones that are the responsibility of the classroom teacher.

So as we continue to debate and pontificate and plan new programs that will jerk teachers into line with the new data-driven, standards-based, accountability culture that is becoming prevalent in our schools lets not forget that the success of our teachers and their students relies on an administration that provides the structure and resources they need to achieve. Whether that's the principal who is actually performing their primary role as the instructional leader of the school, or the school district that is charged with maintaining the building and providing the school with the curricular materials required, or the school board member who insures that their constituents are all represented, or the state legislator who doles out funding--all of these individuals play a role in the success of the public education system. It's neither fair or accurate to place all of the blame on teachers when failures occur.

[5] comments (2441 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Arne Duncan and the Disciples of Choice

I'll admit right up front that I don't know squat about Arne Duncan, the new Secretary of Education in the Obama Administration. I've heard others such as my friend Gary Stager rip into Secretary Duncan (and no one rips better than Gary), but with all things political I prefer to make my own judgments on these things. Now after reading some of the quotes from an article in last week's Time Magazine I have to agree with Gary and the others who see this nearly religious belief that public schools are bad, and private, charter schools are good, that Secretary Duncan not only is proposing the wrong kinds of solutions, but that he is woefully out of touch with what the right solutions resemble.

This one passage in particular is terrifically troubling:

Time: Where do you see the charter-school movement going?
I'm a big fan of choice and competition, and in our country, historically, wealthy families have had a lot of options as to where to send their children. And families that didn't come from a lot of money had one option — and usually that option wasn't a good one. The more options available, the more we give parents a chance to figure out what the best learning environment is for their child. To me it's not about letting a thousand flowers bloom...

So, the choice to send your kids to a public school isn't "a good one"? And this from the man who intends to establish federal policy that drives education reforms. How can you proceed from the basic assumption that public schools--arguably one of the most important institutions in our democracy--is fundamentally a bad choice? How can you ignore the millions of students who have received, and continue to receive, high quality education from dedicated teachers in America's public schools? How can you ignore the vibrant economy (assuredly not where we want it to be at the moment) that is the envy of the rest of the world--one populated by graduates of our so-called failing school systems?

Wrong-headed and plain wrong is what I call that. Here's hoping that Secretary Duncan has about as much influence as his predecessor, by which I mean little at all. Because if you work from the assumption that things are horribly broken and public schools are nothing but failures, you're no better than the Bush administration bureaucrats who mouthed the same lies to the American people.

[4] comments (1648 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Cavanaugh's Law

[After a prolonged absence, caused in no small part by my fascination with micro-blogging via twitter, it's finally time to start blogging again. Without further adieu...]

I wanted to get this recorded for posterity's sake. You know, just in case it leads to a round of speaking engagements in far-flung exotic locales where technology conferences are held. Like Omaha.:

Cavanaugh's Law: 60% of the time when you hear "That will be no problem", at some time in the future you will also hear "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

[4] comments (1800 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks