Randi Weingarten on Teacher Centered Reform

Eduwonk has a new guestblogger, NY City's AFT president Randi Weingarten, whose first post of the week is a lengthy diatribe about data-driven accountability and decision-making, and the apparent lack of a voice for teachers in the educational reform movement. The length of Weingarten's essay would seem to indicate that she has something to add, but there is really nothing new, in fact is appeats to be a dressed up recitation of union talking points.

Before critiquing Weingarten, let me say that from a distance, she appears to be one of the few senior union representatives willing to think about coming together to find a solution to our educational mess--particularly in New York, her home. But having said that, some ideas would be nice.

Let us start with the first paragraphs:

We hear a lot these days about what I call "3-D reform,"—data-driven decision making and about using tests to improve teaching and learning. Sadly, in this respect, too often, testing has replaced instruction; data has replaced professional judgment; compliance has replaced excellence; and so-called leadership has replaced teacher professionalism.

What is really happening is that more than ever there is this industrial techno-centric view of teachers as interchangeable cogs in an education enterprise. This approach rewards their compliance above their creativity, and results in the denigration of teachers and disregard for their contributions to learning.

the allure of this kind of paragraph is that it makes some sense on the surface. Most people think that there is too much emphasis on testing in our schools and perhaps empirically there is too much testing. But for so long we as Americans simply guessed at what was working or trusted the "experts," that is teachers, about what was working. But professional judgement cannot be about gut feelings, and really needs to be based on data. Data driven decision making is not just about data, but about using data to arrive at reasonable conclusions--a process that involves professional judgement.

The view of teachers as cogs is as much a fault of the unions as than anything else. The unions, including to a large extent Weingarten's own AFT, has almost uniformly opposed economically treating teachers like professionals. Unions have forced upon school districts a view that teachers, no matter their skill, no matter their ability, are essentially interchangeable in terms of economics. A teacher with 10 years of experience and a master's degree and hugely successful record of student achievement is paid the exact same as a teacher with 10 years of experience and a master's degree who is by all accounts an abject failure in the classroom. If policy makers appear to treat teachers as interchangeable, perhaps the unions could help break that mindset by finally acknowledging that teachers have a variable worth and should be compensated according to that variable worth--even when they have similar credentials.

Weingarten does have one solid point, but later undermines that point.

What policymakers and administrators fail to understand is the role teachers might have, and the responsibility they ought to have, in improving the quality of schooling and raising the level of the performance of students. They often presume that teachers do not have the interest or ability to help shape a context for learning, including shaping the profession itself.

I believe that it is this failure to make teachers full participants in shaping school improvement that so limits reform efforts. In today's model of teaching, teachers are given the responsibility for educating children, but not the authority to influence the education policies and practices necessary to get the job done. But without harnessing their experience, judgment, expertise, and professionalism, we will not succeed.

I don't think that policymakers fail to understand what role teachers can play, I think the fail to capitalize on that potential--a far different matter indeed. However, we have to first find a way to adequately determine what high quality teachers can bring to the table, whether it is innovative pedagogy or assessments that get to the heart of what needs to be measured, or simply a series of experiences that can be extrapolated into policy. Here, Weingarten and her colleagues could help if they would allow the best teachers to be included and not just union lackeys.

Yes, we as a society have placed an enormous burden upon our teachers and yes, we should be giving them more of a say in how they operate. But with responsibility comes accountability and thus we return to that old nemesis--how do we know that the responsiblity we have given our teachers is being faithfully carried out. Testing and evaluation, it really is as simple as that.

Here is a point that deserves further elucidation by Weingarten and teh unions:

We found that test preparation and paperwork related to testing has replaced a big chunk of instruction in our schools. A survey of our teachers showed an average of one day a week spent on test-related work, and during the 7 or 8 weeks prior to each of the tests, a third of instructional time was devoted to test prep.

More important is that management has used the accountability systems and the data that support them in high stakes, punitive ways that demoralize children and their teachers.

Why?

It may be unfair to be punitive about poor test performance, but without some sort of punitive status, there is no impetus to change. Weingarten should know that punishment is often a motivation to change, if there are no consequences for failure or poor performance, there is no impetus for change.

Leaving aside the most likely skewed results of Weingarten's study, we have enough anecdotal evidence to know that some time is spent on test prep and it could be excessive in nature. But we are still left with a question of why so much time is spent on test prep. Is there a disconnect between the mandated curiccula and the test standards? If so, one needs to change. Is there a problem with classroom level delivery? If so, some additional training of teachers needs to occur? Is the problem district mandates to spend x amount of hours on test prep? If that is the case, then some political changes need to be made.

The problem is not testing or even punitive measures taken for flagging performance, rather the issue is whether class time is being properly allocated to instruction.

The majority of Weingarten's post though seems to be a general lament that teachers are not as involved in the reform process as they would like. I fully encourage teachers to be involved, what I don't encourage is teachers' unions, which is ultimately what Weingarten is talking about. Despite all their rhetoric, teachers' unions aren't and can't be about teh kids. Unions have a duty to protect the members and they cannot serve two masters. Either they truly support the needs of students or they support the needs of the members. They cannot have it both ways. Because of their duty to members (which I have never begrudged), unions have taken stances that interfere with policymaker's needs to reform the system to benefit students. All policymaking is a balance between competing interests and to be quite honest, teachers have a pretty big say in education policy making.

Perhaps if policy makers included front line teachers, the best teachers regardless of their standing with the union, and excluded union representatives from policy meetings, we might find that teachers truly are committed to their students and will lend some valuable insight into policymaking. But the unions and teachers themselves are two different animals and should not be confused.

As Weingarten winds down, she presents this scenario:

In my system, the central role of the principal is not enforcer, but rather facilitator. The principal is the individual who creates the environment in which collaborative problem solving and the hard work of teachers as researchers and instructional leaders can occur. Doing that work requires restructuring school time so teachers can analyze data, examine alternative hypotheses, explore best practices and help their colleagues improve practice and implement new instructional methods.

In such a system, teachers are not cogs in a delivery system but partners in planning and delivering instruction and improving performance through continual evaluation of data—test scores, student work, teacher, student and community attitudinal and satisfaction data, program and process data—against academic standards and organizational goals.

In my proposed accountability system, data are a means to reform; they are not the reform itself. I am talking about creating an environment in which teachers routinely and collaboratively study the data, ask questions, call for different presentations of the information, look for patterns, and examine the inconsistencies and gaps in the data sets that must be understood or resolved. They need to be able to formulate hypotheses, to look behind the data and ask "why?" and they need to devise strategies to deal effectively with the "whys" when they discern them.

This model requires understanding that teachers are not restricted to the box called the classroom, but rather that they must have a say in school and district decision making, and that their voice must be informed by data that they can interrogate to find causes and solutions to the problems that have plagued schooling for too long.

First, her system is not new or innovative and thus not hers, but anyway.

The last time I checked, unions negotiated with school districts over working hours and conditions. Most school days last between 6-7 hours for teachers including a 30-45 minute duty free "lunch" break. This is fine as far as it goes. I will admit, teachers spend a great deal of time on their own time doing work, but then again so don't a number professionals. But if Weingarten is serious about "her system," why is the union not negotiating for these times to ask "why" or explore solutions to instructional problems? I don't envision any school system saying "No--we don't want you teachers to get better to help our students!" If this collaborative work environment is so valuable, why aren't the unions actually bargaining for it?

I am hopeful that as the week wears on, Weingarten will present some other valuable ideas and that a dialogue can get going.