It`s a bird! It`s a plane! No, it`s a culture in crisis!

This was written by Dr. Phil McRae, an executive staff officer with the Alberta Teachers` Association.This post first appeared on the Alberta Teachers` Association website.


By Phil McRae
The documentary Waiting for Superman has ignited a debate about educational reform in American public schools. 

On one side (think right) of the debate, you’ll find so-called “New Progressives,” such as Bill Gates, Jeb Bush, Michael Bloomberg and Eli Broad. These wealthy men (educated in private schools and none of them teachers) are calling for increased standardization, narrow outcomes-based accountability and an increase in privately run, publicly funded charter schools, and they are throwing their power and money into achieving these things. In fact, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is donating US$2 billion in grants to redesign high schools and to evaluate teacher effectiveness to “help systematically uncover schools and teachers [that] are not performing” (Toronto Star, September 12, 2010). 

Waiting for Superman, directed by Davis Guggenheim (who also directedAn Inconvenient Truth, a 2006 documentary about former US Vice-President Al Gore’s campaign to educate people about global warming) is highly critical of some American teachers and their professional associations. The film emphasizes high school dropout rates and the failure of many children to get a good education, but it does not document the damage done by No Child Left Behind legislation, which has narrowed curriculum and increased standardized testing, nor does it show how competition between schools is really about a race to improve their test scores. Furthermore, to blame teachers for what are essentially political and societal problems is grossly unfair. Many politicians seeking to appeal to their electorate seek the easy solution and blame teachers for the problems facing today’s schools. This documentary and the firing of more than 70 classroom teachers at a so-called “low-performing” high school in Central Falls, Rhode Island, clearly show how educators can become scapegoats in times of economic insecurity.

Countering the movement to blame teachers are proponents of education—such people as Yong Zhao, Andy Hargreaves, Linda Darling-Hammond, Dennis Shirley and Dianne Ravitch—who are calling for less high-stakes testing and standardization and more fostering of creativity in schools, nurturing of diversity and talent, and development of global and digital competencies within school communities.

The US is reeling from economic decline, ever widening income disparity and a shrinking middle class. It’s a nation polarized on educational policy and principle and  is struggling to prosper in an age of globalization. Many of the reforms advocated in the documentary are fuelled by politicians’ and business elites’ fear of emerging economic powers, such as China and India. 

Lesley Chilcott, the producer of Waiting for Superman, stated at the Toronto International Film Festival in September: “Use us as a warning sign here in Canada … my understanding is things are starting to slip here.” Though one does well to be vigilant, at present, Alberta is working to better the education system in positive and progressive ways. Alberta’s path to educating confident and capable people should be characterized by cultivating creativity, cherishing individual talents, focusing on diversity, fostering global competencies and de-emphasizing test-based accountability regimes. Such a path is diametrically opposed to the trajectory of educational reform efforts in the US. At least in Alberta, we have a different conversation (at present) about public education and teachers. Education Minister David Hancock, in his letter to Albertans on October 5, 2010, stated: “The teaching profession should be valued above all by our society and community.”

The New Progressives may well destroy the US public education system (and many good teachers with it). If the US continues its relentless privatization of education, it will be left behind as a deeply divided and uneducated nation. The US is experiencing a cultural crisis and is looking for direction—let’s hope it looks beyond the naïveté of Guggenheim’s documentary.

We need more... standardization?!

True Story:

High school administrators called a meeting with their school's subject department leaders. Recently, students and parents had begun comparing how some teachers were teaching, and the administration were fielding many calls from parents about how different teachers were teaching the same courses in different ways. Some teachers gave different assignments, others gave less quizzes while others others gave more or less homework.

Years ago, the departments had already decided to standardize their final assessments. The reasoning being that every student in the same class, regardless of teacher, should do the same final exam. It seemed only fair, and it solved a lot of problems based on complaints from students and parents about some of the variances in exam format and difficulty (which depended on the teacher).

Because students and parents were now complaining about the differences between the frequency and format of each teacher's assignments, the administration proposed that assignments should be standardized like the assessments.

Of course the teachers were up in arms about the entire suggestion - the idea of standardizing assignments was immediately rejected, and the administrators backed off.

I think this story should teach us two things:

Firstly, administrators who field complaints from parents should redirect parents immediately to the teacher whom they have a concern with. Good administrators know that every teacher teaches and assesses differently and are happy for it. But if the students and parents have a legitimate gripe about a teacher's teaching, then simply forcing all teachers to comply to an arbitrary consistency won't solve anything - the ability for an administrator to dismiss complaints by simply saying, "all teachers here teach that way" is hardly a solution. No administrator worth having as an administrator would ever see this as an acceptable solution. In fact, the real problem isn't that parents are calling; but that the parents aren't calling the teacher directly to have an honest conversation about their child's learning is at the heart of the issue.

Secondly, the teachers disgust for standardized assignments should not be limited to just the assignments. Standardization is driven by mistrust, and needs to be rejected at all levels. Standardization at the global level, is equally as reprehensible as it is at the national, provincial, district or even school level.

If teachers are trusted enough to spend a good chunk of every day instructing, coaching and teaching students in a way that is tailored to the learners' needs, then why aren't teacher trusted to assess their students' based on the learners' personalized needs?

Removing the teachers' and students' voices from deciding how they shall learn is no more or less distrustful and disrespectful than removing their voice from how their learning shall be assessed.

Standardization is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem.

Primitive Moral Development: PBIS

Unfortunately, my school subscribes to a program called Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Teachers hand out green cards to kids who are caught being good, and red cards for those who are caught being bad. For the student's who have attained green cards, prizes are dispensed over the public address system during morning announcements, and school-wide assemblies have us all watch the administrators draw more names from buckets - all sorts of prizes are up for grabs.

Keep in mind that only the "good" kids who were lucky enough to be caught being good by receiving a green card are eligible for prizes - including the opportunity to eat lunch with the administration.

My objections to this system are many. (However, my suggestion for fixing this system is fairly simple: I would make everyone eligible for these prize thus turning them from conditional rewards to unconditional gifts. This would mean teachers would no longer need to dispense tickets as if they were traffic cops)

Here's a real story that happened just the other day:

My grade 6 class was in the gym for "Free Day Fridays". This is where we spend our gym time emptying the equipment room, looking for all the cool things to play with like scooters, jumping ropes, yoga balls, footballs, floor hockey sticks, etc. It all looks pretty chaotic, but the kids have a lot of fun. 

While standing in the gym with another teacher, a giant, purple yoga ball hit my colleague in the back of the head. As I turned around I could see Nolan gasping in shock as he realized that his errantly kicked yoga ball had hit a teacher.

His first reaction was shock.

His second reaction was to run in the opposite direction.

I quickly caught up to him and asked him to stop so we could talk. Admittedly, I was a little angry about his reaction, but I tried my best to suppress my frustration so that I could talk with Nolan about what had happened.

While his eyes watered and his face reddened, I asked him, "why did you run away?"

He answered, "I didn't want to get in trouble."

"So you were thinking about yourself?"

"I guess so."

"Nolan, I saw what happened. You kicked that yoga ball into the wall, and it hit a teacher in the head, and then you ran away. Nolan, who should you be thinking of during a time like this."

He paused. His eyes continued to water as he said, "the person I hit."

"Why?"

"Because she might be hurt."

"So then why did you run away?"

"I was scared."

"Nolan, I am not a normal teacher. You know I don't believe in rewarding or punishing people. I am not talking with you to get you in trouble. I'm not going to punish you. But I am here to help you solve this problem. What do you think you should do to solve this?"

He took a minute to think this over but eventually said, "I should go and see if she is all right."

"Nolan did you do it on purpose?"

He was quick to answer, "no, I promise I didn't mean to do it on purpose."

"Nolan, I believe you. So why did this happen?"

Again, this required some thought before he responded, "I wasn't as careful as I probably should have been."

"Okay, so what's next?"

"I don't know."

I just waited.

"Well, I guess I should go and see if she's okay."

"Sounds like a good idea, Nolan. Let me know how it goes."

--------------------------------------

If we endorse behavior programs that use rewards and punishments to coerce children into compliance, then Nolan's initial reaction by running away after hurting someone else is as reprehensible as it is predictable. 

When we dangle rewards in kids faces, we encourage them to ask, "What do they want me to do, and what do I get for doing it?" And when we threaten them with punishments or consequences, we encourage them to ask, "What do they want me to do, and what happens to me if I don't do it?" Neither question encourages kids to contemplate life in a way we would like to promote, and neither question has anything to do with creating a collaborative community built on caring.

After Nolan's escapade with the yoga ball was over, an observer of the whole affair snidely commented, "you know, some kids just never change." 

You know what?

They're right. Nolan's inability to think about others, combined with his obvious self-interest certainly exemplify a primitive level of moral development... but, if the adults in his life subscribe to an equally primitive kind of character development, how can we come to expect anything more? How can we expect kids like Nolan to progress to a higher level of ethical behavior when our dependence on rewards and punishment is precisely what condemns kids to such primitive self-interest.

For many kids like Nolan, rewards and punishment aren't even working to gain temporary compliance. There are probably as many stories of kids doing bad things to each other as there are kids, and these incidents are happening under the current system of discipline. I find it sadly ironic that many teachers and parents continue to perpetuate the status quo of reward and punishment, sometimes at twice the dosage, when by our own admission these tactics are a failure.

Albert Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 

Teachers and parents for the most part are good intentioned people. In fact, most of our societies real heroes are teachers and parents, but sometimes our good intentions are guided more by tradition than by reason. Because our misguided use of rewards and punishment perpetuate a preoccupation with self-interest and predictably stunts moral development, it's time we stop blaming the kids and start questioning our own practices.

Here's what us Canadians do for fun!

This is a fantastic 8 minute video you could show your students to learn about black bears and Canadian humour.

Consequences for whom?

When I share with people that I don't believe in rewarding or punishing students, I tend to get some very odd looks. The idea that a parent or teacher would not reward children for good behavior or punish them for being bad seems to many to be more than just a foreign idea.

Here is one of the first questions I get asked:

Don't you believe in consequences? How will children grow up to be good people if they don't know that there are consequences to their actions?

I do believe there are consequences for people's actions, and kids really do need to learn this, but when people imply that children need to learn consequences, they almost always mean the consequences to the child. If this is the kind of myopic character development we endorse is it any wonder how many kids grow up to be self-serving, egotistical, narcissists?

In his book Beyond Discipline: From Compliance To Community, Alfie Kohn makes the case that punishment actually impedes the process of ethical development:

A child threatened with an aversive consequence for failing to comply with someone's wishes or rules is led to ask, rather mechanically, "What do they want me to do, and what happens to me if I don't do it? - a question altogether different from "What kind of person do I want to be?" or "What kind of community do we want to create?"

Think about such a shift in the context of this commonly heard defense of punishment:

"When children grow up and take their places in society, they're going to realize that there consequences for their actions! If they rob a bank and get caught, they're going to be put in jail. They'd better learn that lesson right now."

The fatal flaw in this argument is that we want children not to rob a bank - or do various other things that are unethical or hurtful - because they know it's wrong, and also because they can imagine how such actions will affect other people. But when disciplinarians talk about imposing "consequences" for a student's actions - and inducing him to think about those consequences ahead of time - they almost always mean the consequences to him. The focus is on how he will get in trouble for breaking the rule. This fact, so fundamental that it may have escaped our notice entirely, is a devastating indictment of the whole enterprise. Just as some people try to promote helping or sharing by emphasizing that such behaviors will eventually benefit the actor, so the reason for the child to behave "appropriately" is the unpleasantness he will suffer if he fails to do so.

By contrast, ethical sophistication consists of some blend of principles and caring, of knowing how one ought to act and being concerned about others. Punishment does absolutely nothing to promote either of these things. In fact, it tends to undermine good values by fostering a preoccupation with self-interest. "What consequences will I suffer for having done something bad?" is a question that suggests a disturbingly primitive level of moral development, yet it is our use of punishment that causes kids to get stuck there!

You say you're concerned about the real world, where some people do awful things? So am I. In the real world, getting children to focus on what will happen to them if they are caught misbehaving simply is not an effective way to prevent future misbehavior because it does nothing to instill a lasting commitment to better values or an inclination to attend to others' needs. Most people who rob banks assume they won't get caught, in which case there will be no consequences for their action, which means they have a green light to go ahead and rob.

If we really care about character growth and ethical development in children, we have to stop managing their behaviors and start working with them as safe and caring allies. We need to stop seeing misbehavior as this thing to be squashed out and start seeing misbehavior as problems to be solved together.

We have to stop reacting to misbehavior by saying:

He has done something bad; now something bad must be done to him.

And we need to start saying:

We have a problem here; how are we going to solve it together?

On a superficial level, some disciplinarians use the "real world" as justification for rewards and punishment as a means to manage children's behavior; however, real pragmatism tells us that working with kids to solve their problems constitutes as the only hope we have of reducing the frequency of misbehavior over the long haul, and our only hope for helping kids grow into caring citizens.

Lilian Katz summarizes this discussion up nicely:

Some teachers tend to focus on what is happening rather than on what is being learned. They may wish to simply stop the incident rather than consider which of many possible interventions is most likely to stimulate long-term development and learning.

It takes courage not to punish, and it takes real effort to see misbehavior as an opportunity for the teacher to teach and the student to learn.

Treating Kids Like Pets

When teachers or parents make success, rewards, gifts, excellence, treats, fun, grades or opportunities artificially scarce, we alienate and marginalize the very children who need us the most.

When teachers and parents treat kids like pets by bribing and threatening them in an attempt to garnish control, children start to see the adults in their lives less as safe and caring allies and more like judges in-waiting. In other words, kids learn that it is in their best interest to keep their distance from these adults.

Manipulation that is driven by bribes and threats is built on a foundation of conditional acceptance; that is, one person uses power over another to garnish compliance. All relationships are eroded by such treatment. That means the adult-child relationship is poisoned as much as the relationship between one child and another.

Want proof?

Did you see how the red-headed child looked at the adult? We probably can all imagine how little the child thinks of the ice-cream man, but did you see how that same boy looked at the new boy? If looks could kill...

Behavior systems based on rewards and punishment pit children against their peers as much as they pit children against adults. In an age when we should truly understand that good teaching and good learning are inseparable from good relationships, far too many teachers and parents are willing to sacrifice their long-term goals in favor of short-term compliance.

What's more, we should all understand how a classroom built upon collaboration and cooperation is infinitely more productive than one built on competition. Alfie Kohn explains:

The central message of all competition is that other people are potential obstacles to one's own success. Competition creates envy for winners, contempt for losers, and hostility and suspicion toward just about everyone. Not only is it irrational to help someone whose success might require your failure, but competition creates a climate in which such help is unlikely to occur in any case. Researchers have found that competitive structures reduce generosity, empathy, sensitivity to others' needs, accuracy of communication, and trust. These results follow naturally and logically from competition itself; the problem does not rest with the individuals involved and the way they approach a contest. Moreover, contests between teams teach that the only reason to work with others is to defeat another group of people who are working together. Cooperation becomes the means; victory is the end.

Bribes, threats, rewards and punishments are built on manipulation, and manipulation is built on mistrust. If we are to truly believe in our children and their pursuit of life long learning, we have aspire to something better than this.

Testing Optional

There are a lot of post secondary institutions that do not use standardized test scores as a part of their admissions. Fairtest has a list of schools that do not use SAT or ACT scores for admitting substantial numbers of students into bachelor degree programs. Fairtest also provides more information on the test-optional surge with this article that shows 40% (843) of all accredited, bachelor-degree granting schools in the United States have dropped their ACT/SAT admissions test requirements for all or may applicants.

The answer to subverting standardized testing is not through politicians or policy makers - real change will come from parents, teachers and students who stand up against standardized testing and refuse their cooperation.

When it comes to Standardized Test Season, if we all stopped doing things right and started to do the right things we would really improve education for all.

Rules! We don't need no stinking rules!

Here's an anecdote on the power of rules, tradition, and conformity:

Kayley loved Thanksgiving because it gave her a chance to spend time with her mommy and gramma, preparing the meal for the whole family. Kayley watched her mom slice off the ends of the ham and place it in the oven.

"Mom, why do you cut the ends off the ham?"

"Hmm... well... I... I'm not sure..."

"If you're not sure, why do you do it?"

"Well, I learned to cook the ham from my mom. Maybe you should ask her."

Kayley looked over to gramma and asked, "gramma, why did you teach mommy to cut the ends off the ham?"

Gramma thought to herself but struggled to find an answer, "Hmm, well... I... I'm not sure..."

Kayley was perplexed as her mom and gramma were.

Before long though, Gramma said, "Kayley, I learned to cook ham from my mom. Maybe you should go ask her."

Kayley walked out of the kitchen to the living room where her great-grandma was watching the hockey game. "Great-gramma, why did you teach gramma to cut the ends off the ham?"

Great gramma sat up and said, "Hmm... well... back in the ol' days, the ol' cook stoves were pretty tiny, and quite often the ham was bigger than the stove, so I had to cut the ends off the ham to get it to fit into the stove.

------------

Rules have their place, but let's not forget that they should serve us not enslave us. Peter Drucker warns us:

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.