This post isn't specifically related to criminal justice (CJ), but it's a topical issue right now. It's CJ-related in a roundabout way, in that I'm a CJ professor, and this pertains to the teaching profession more broadly. It's my blog, and I can blog if I want to... blog if I want to...
So I'm driving home from work recently, listening to NJ101.5 talk radio. The subject of November teacher convention week is being discussed, specifically how the DJ thinks it's outrageous that some school districts will shut school down for a full week so their teachers can (allegedly) attend the NJEA teacher convention. I'll admit that my knowledge of what happens at the annual convention is sketchy since I've never attended or looked into the details. When my daughter attended public elementary school, her school would shut down for two or three days so teachers could attend. I'm familiar with industry conferences in general, since there are a number of them in my field. (In fact, next week I head to the fall American Society of Criminology conference.) I always figured that teachers, if they went to the NJEA conference, would attend workshops on things like technology in the classroom (clickers! smart boards!) and new pedagogical approaches. I mainly thought about the NJEA conference in terms of how my husband and I would juggle childcare coverage and work during those days.
Anyhow, the predictable parade of callers chime in, including one fellow who said he was a teacher and that most of the teachers he knows don't go to the conference. Or if they go to the city where the conference is held (Atlantic City this year), they'll go to the beach, drink, hang out with friends, etc. 'We teachers have a pretty sweet gig. We get summers off, plenty of days off, after a short probationary period we get employment for life.' The DJ made affirmative noises. I could imagine his head nodding in agreement.
Oh, those bad, lazy teachers. That seems to be the vibe coming from courts and politicians - NJ Governor Christie - these days. Time Magazine recently ran the article, "The war on teacher tenure." In the article, a California school superintendent is quoted as explaining what would improve education in his district as "Give me control over my workforce." In other words, get rid of tenure so I can fire those bad apple, lazy teachers. Indeed, examples of bad teacher behavior are mentioned in the article: verbally abusing students, sleeping during class.
I can speak to this issue - eliminating tenure - as both a tenured professor of higher education, and as a parent. My daughter, "M", is currently in 8th grade. After attending private preschool and kindergarten, she attended four years of public elementary school in our town, before switching to private school where she'll continue through high school. I'm a product of public education, as is my sister. My mother was moderately horrified when I initially told her we were thinking of switching her granddaughter to private school. In the end, it has worked out well.
So why did we switch? Did we have concerns about the quality of education our daughter got at public school? Yes. Did this have anything to do with the quality of teaching? No.
At public school, M had 2 tenured teachers and 2 untenured (or tenure track) teachers. For the past four years, she's had year-to-year contract teachers since at private school (at least at hers), there is no tenure. (There may be tenure at other private schools. I suspect not, but haven't looked into it.) In my opinion, tenured/untenured/year-to-year contract teachers - there's no difference in the quality of education the teachers have delivered. Based on my experience as a parent, good teachers are good, regardless of their employment status.
M has two teachers right now whom she really likes: her English and History teachers. Her English teacher is great because she has a terrific, upbeat personality and likes children. She brings great enthusiasm to the teaching of Shakespeare and other literature. She gives plenty of writing assignments and lots of prompt, detailed feedback on writing quality. Important but tedious things are also covered, like grammar. M has had this teacher for two years in English, and she'll be more well-read and a better writer for it. M's history teacher is a bit more like a drill sergeant, but she's also very funny. She has a no-nonsense approach to teaching, keeps the class in line with strict rules and good humor, and gives clear-cut assignments. She stresses note-taking. She grades tests quickly so the kids have early feedback on their progress. She also likes children.
By contrast, another of M's teachers is less effective, in my opinion. I'll omit the subject matter, but M has also had him/her for two years. What makes this teacher not as good as the English and History teachers? S/he talks lectures too quickly, laughs at kids when they ask questions about something they don't understand, won't clarify points of confusion ('Maybe you'd understand better if you participated more' or 'Didn't you watch the video links I sent home?'), makes subject matter unnecessarily confusing, and plays favorites with kids. Other parents feel as I do. This teacher has an obnoxious personality.
I'm certain that if tenure were an option at M's current school, all three teachers - English, History, and Bad Teacher - would obtain it. As it is, they've survived the annual renewal process for a number of years. The school principal clearly feels like he has control over his workforce, and he keeps them on.
So what makes the overall quality of education better, in my humble opinion, at M's private school? Class size, and better curricula. (Teacher personality -- good or bad -- is a constant at public and private schools.) In M's current English class, there are plenty of writing assignments about classic literature, lots of feedback and rewrites of writing assignments, and attention to grammar. What was the approach to writing at M's public elementary school? Her fourth grade teacher told me that the school principal told her, "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!" That's a curriculum?? Frenetic, panic-driven writing? Write about what? What about the issue of kids being at different levels of ability and literacy? What about kids for whom English is a second language, and the fact that there were 29 kids in the class? "Just have the kids write! Have them write! Have them write!"
That was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me for public education in our town.
Those pushing to eliminate tenure may succeed in the long run, granting school principals and district superintendents much more control over their workforce. They can whip those lazy teachers into shape - or else! Afterwards, I suspect the innovators will still be left with the nagging question of how to improve public K-12 education. What will be done about class size? What will be done about curricula? What's the best way to teach math, anyways? (Why don't we know this yet?) What about kids living and attending school in really poor communities, whose lives at home are filled with lots of background noise and chaos? How can control be gained over that?
No comments:
Post a Comment