Talk of education reform is a near constant sound in political circles. In some districts (or parts of districts) the need for improvment is clear and incontrovertible. But the question of the definitive key to meaningful change is one that sparks long and heated arguments.
The latest tale of "reform" comes from Washington DC, a district that needs help by anyone's measure. The mayor thought change needed to start at the top, with the appointment of a new and unusually credentialed superintendent. The new superintendent believes change needs to start with "better" teachers, so she's been diligently terminating the current ones. And at least one of the districts' rare motivated students believes change should start by having functioning computers in the computer class, instead of pencil and paper worksheets. Time magazine has an interesting, if familiar, story. Teacher Magazine's blogboard collected some of the reaction.
So who's right? My best answer is that everyone is right. A school is an interdependent organism, and while pockets of goodness can exist anywhere, to achieve whole goodness requires many pieces to function effectively together. The standard cry that teachers who can't be fired (because of unions, contracts, due process, whatever) is the problem is just outright bogus. Teachers with great ability and motivation burn out quickly in a school where nothing changes even after years of trying to get enough textbooks (or ANY textbooks), repair for computers, or working heat/air conditioning and a bathroom that feels safe enough for the kids to use so they don't become so distracted by the end of the day they can't focus because they are busy trying to "hold it" until they get home.
The only thing I know for absolute sure is that classrooms are not little isolated kingdoms where a good or bad teache is the sole determinant of success.
There are lots of things that we can further improve about education, and prioritizing those improvements is tricky. I say the key is to first address the problem that is allowing new problems to be created.
Lawrence Lessig uses an example of alcoholism. An alcoholic may have trouble with friends and family, with spending too much on alcohol, with criminal prosecution for alcohol-related offenses, etc. All those are problems that need to be addressed -- and all of them will keep coming back until you address the alcoholism.
Strong employees at all levels is the necessary first step in addressing the other problems of an organization. Every person in an organization who is in a position that doesn't fit them well is going to be a source of bad decisions that drag down everyone around them.
Ideally, organizations could move existing employees (including current teachers, maintenance staff, administration, admin assistants, counselors, nurses, -everyone-) around internally until the employees are in a position that matches their abilities. Tragically, what really happens is that a lot of people end up losing their jobs.
The question we have to ask is what is a greater tragedy: unqualified employees losing their jobs, or innocent children receiving a subpar education en masse?
Posted by: Dave | December 15, 2008 at 08:28 AM