The Changing Face of Teaching

This week the National Center for Education Information released the results of a national survey of teachers in the United States.  I was most interested to find that 40% of the teachers surveyed who were hired since 2005 entered the profession through an alternative route.  That is they did not obtain a traditional 4-year degree in education.  Rather they obtained a degree (or perhaps more than one) in another field and then went into teaching.  Furthermore these alternatively licensed teachers have different views on the education profession than their traditionally trained colleagues.  These views included more openness to:

• Standardized testing of students and using the results to evaluate teacher performance
• Merit pay for teachers
• Ending the practice of tenure for teachers
• Having market-driven pay, meaning that teachers in harder to staff areas such as urban school districts, or in high demand subjects such as special education, math, and science would be paid more than other areas
• Recruiting more individuals into teaching from other fields

As a teacher who took an alternative pathway into education, I was not surprised to see that numbers of alternative pathway educators was growing, but I didn’t expect to see 40%.  I was not part of the survey, but after reading the report, which included the survey questions.  I do not believe I would have answered differently in any significant way.  I’m OK with standardized testing but I also believe that professional practice should also be included.  Why shouldn’t a teacher be rewarded for having a good year?  I earned tenure this past year, but I realize that the nature of tenure is changing and it wouldn’t kill me to not have it.  Being a science teacher, I would benefit from being paid what the market currently bears (but my school district might not).  I would absolutely love to see more alternative pathway teachers enter the field.  I am pleased to see that Teach for America is coming to Ohio this year, and I hope those who enter through that program do a great job.

These points are also of interest in that they differ, sometimes greatly, from the traditional positions of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.  They also differ from the positions of the vast majority of the education faculty who are training both the teachers in traditional education and in the alternative pathway programs.  (I had some interesting discussions with some my profs on these matters, and some fellow students, too!)  They definitely differ from those who are headlining the Save Our Schools rally happening this weekend in Washington D.C., such as Jonathan Kozol, Alfie Kohn, and Diane Ravitch.  I hope these groups are paying attention because these data show that a growing number of the people they supposedly represent may want to try some of the things they oppose.  Some of these alternative pathway teachers may end being future education professors, union leaders, or writers on the subject, opening the possibility that this changing face of teaching may also change how we view our own profession, and that is something I would whole-heartedly welcome.

The National Center for Education Information has the report on its website.

Fear, Loathing, and Public Discourse

A couple of days ago Juan Williams wrote an excellent piece in USA Today concerning the lack of honest debate resulting from the fear of being stigmatized by people of opposing viewpoints.  Mr. Williams has personal experience in the matter having been fired by National Public Radio last year for admitting feeling nervousness at the sight of Muslims in their traditional clothing after the 9/11 attacks during a debate.  Fortunately for him, Fox News hired him within days of his release from NPR.  As I read his list of areas where he has seen debate stifled I kept expecting one area to come up, but it didn’t, that was education.  I do not believe that was from negligence on his part but rather there were so many examples, that he probably ran out of room in his column and couldn’t fit it in.  Yet, I have seen and experienced it first hand as a teacher, and we are entering a season, especially in Ohio, where we are going to be inundated with it to a point where the voting public’s view of teachers could be altered for a long time.

I spent my first full year as a public school teacher, 2005-2006, under what was called at the time a “conditional permit.”  In Ohio you could get one to teach your first year if you were hired by a school district but didn’t have an education degree.  I had to take several classes that year to get an alternative educator’s license and then finish those courses to obtain the same provisional license that teachers with education degrees started with.  One of the first courses I took was “Effective Instruction” and in that course I had to write a reflection paper following each session and turn it in the following class.  The instructor would read parts of some of the papers in class and comment on them.  In one of my papers I decided to mention an opposing viewpoint on the night’s topic and referenced The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them by E.D. Hirsch, Jr.  A week later the instructor read my paper and said something I will never forget.  “Hirsch is worthless.  He is not an educator.  You will not get anything of value from him, and you must BURN THAT BOOK!”  He said it in front of the entire class.  While it was not the first time I had experienced something like this, it was still an eye-opener.  I saw that it did not matter what profession I was in, whether it was teaching or in my previous profession, that what Juan Williams described in his column is something that can happen anywhere, even in the supposedly “open” classroom.  I didn’t take too kindly to my instructor’s instructions and wrote my displeasure in my next reflection paper, and challenged his actions.  (He read that one in class, too.)  By the grace of God I got an A in the course, and vowed never to do that to my students.

In the years since that incident I have seen many cases in education where this kind of thing still happens.  Since you have elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels all giving their directions on how to run the schools, public education is inherently political.  The major changes or considered changes in curriculum that have come up in years in various states have often been due to some special interest group packing a block of candidates on the state board of education, and then using their newfound power to change what is taught, essentially trying to control the answer to the question of what is good education.  It pains me to see that Christian groups have at times been as guilty as other groups in this area in regards to teaching evolution.  But the worst offenders of all in the past few months have been the teachers’ unions and their reactions to legislation in Wisconsin and Ohio.  I’m not saying they don’t have the right to protest or to have grievances heard or even that they don’t have a legitimate gripe on some of the issues addressed in those bills, but there is not going to be a legitimate debate when all you see on TV is a bunch of angry people screaming “KILL THE BILL!”  It’s only going to get worse in Ohio as we get ready for a barrage of ads for and against Senate Bill 5 that could be on the scale of what you see in elections for President.  In last Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch Thomas Suddes predicted that the pro-SB5 side would wage a campaign of envy over the benefits that teachers, police, and fire fighters get from the state in an attempt to close the polling gap they currently face.

Yet within this crucible of tough political tactics, name calling, and dirty tricks there is an opportunity, another testimony to God’s grace to us; that opportunity is to turn from our evil ways and sit down actually debate this issue and the other issues facing public education (and indeed beyond them).  We need to remember the words from the Sermon on the Mount quoted by Abraham Lincoln:  “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  What comes out of it probably won’t be perfect, but it will be better than the hatred and bitterness that we have now.

Adam in Atlanta

By now the cheating scandal in Atlanta Public Schools is quite well known.  The majority of the reactions that I have read have taken the tack of blaming the test, in this case Georgia’s Criterion-Referenced Competency Test.  This included Deborah Meier (in opposition to an editorial in USA Today), the Daily Kos, Diane Ravitch, and even David Zanotti of the American Policy Roundtable, who usually does not have much in common with the other members of this list.  Kevin Carey of The New Republic has an interesting take on how teachers do not get “the dignity inherent in possessing moral responsibility for doing wrong.”  I can certainly see his point.  In trying to blame the test, or the coming merit pay systems which will be built on test results, those who criticize the system end up sounding like Adam when he was confronted in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:12.

The woman you put here with me – she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it

We conveniently forget that we are fallen people.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that standardized testing is right or wrong. (A fertile topic for later posts to be sure)  Mr. Carey notes correctly that cheating occurs in all areas of life.  It then also follows that no matter what system is in place to assess student achievement and teacher effectiveness, people will find ways to cheat them.

So, what then is to be done?  Do we need better test security or independent monitors of testing procedures?  Do we need tougher punishments for those who do wrong?  Do we need a new system of assessment and accountability?  Maybe what we need is to look firmly at ourselves in an honest fashion and realize what we are capable of, both good and evil and then ask God to help us strive for the good.  That may not seem like much of an option in a public school, but I know I can sure use the help.  It sounds like it is needed in Atlanta, too.

Daniel – Educated in Public Part 2

In my previous post I talked about how Daniel was in an educational setting with profound similarities to our current public education system in America.  While Daniel and his friends accepted the education and learned the content, they refused to submit to the practical implications of what they learned.  In part 2 I want to look at how Daniel understood those implications and how he used them to bring honor to God.

If there is one thing Daniel realized above all else as he went through his education in Babylon, it was the fact that
Nebuchadnezzar was staking a claim in his life.  Daniel understood that this claim directly conflicted with the truth of
God’s sovereignty.  When he refused the food and wine from the king’s table, Daniel marked the lines of battle in what
would become a life-long war.  Does the king of Babylon hold my life or does God?  Another parallel to today manifests itself in the continuing debates over public school curriculum.  Whether it is teaching gay history in California or evolution in Texas or the adoption of the Common Core Standards for reading and math in 48 states, the common approach is to try to control what is taught as opposed to honestly searching for the truth.  It does not matter whether the people attempting to exert this control are “liberal” or “conservative”, the methodology is the same and it really has not changed from Daniel’s time.  This methodology indicates that the question of “what is truth” is not particularly relevant so long as certain people get to control what the answer is.

Daniel was not the only one who understood the implications of his actions.  The chief official knew what Daniel was doing when he asked not to eat the king’s food.  Operating under the paradigm of the king being in charge of his life, the chief official feared for his safety (but not Daniel’s!).  Daniel was not deterred and in fact went around the official to guard placed over him. (Daniel 1:11)  As a science teacher, I cannot help but smile at his approach.  He devised a measurable test of whether refusing the king’s food would be beneficial.  God was more than willing and ready to act in this framework.  Not only were Daniel and his friends healthier than those who accepted the food (v.15), but they ended up at the head of the class when their education was complete, so much so that they were “ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters” in the empire (v. 20).  Daniel’s career in public service would last for almost 60 years, spanning the reigns of several kings and even surviving the conquest of Babylon by the Persians.

As I close this post, I wonder what Daniel would think of our public education system.  What would he have to say about it?
What is today’s equivalent to accepting food from the king’s table and in what ways might we as Christians already done so?  On a personal note, how can I as a Christian and teacher in a public school teach the content required of me and still allow
students to search for the truth in their own fashion? To put it another way as the older brother of a recent graduate of mine put it how do I “not let education get in the way of your learning.” I have no illusions about having answers to these questions.  I am searching just like everyone else.  My prayer is that as the answers come that I have the courage to implement them in my classroom and to share them in this space.

Daniel – Educated in Public Part 1

In readying my first post on this new blog, I certainly had a lot of topics to choose from including (but not limited to) the following:

• The public hand-wringing over the most recent scores of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
• The cheating scandal in Atlanta Public Schools
• The continuing battle in Ohio over collective bargaining
• The possible collapse of subsidies for higher education and its effect on public education
• New York City schools dropping its merit pay program

But instead I am going to start with a short study of the prophet Daniel.  In a time when many Christians in America doubt the value of our public schools, I believe the experiences of Daniel and his friends in Daniel Chapter 1 are very instructive and
hopefully very encouraging.

In the first chapter of the Book of Daniel, we find that the Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar has gained supremacy in the kingdom of Judah.  He allowed King Jehoiakim to remain on the throne in exchange for tribute.  Part of that tribute involved sending members of the nobility and royal family to Babylon to serve in the court of Nebuchadnezzar including Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.  Before they were fit for service, they were educated in “the language and literature of the Babylonians” (Daniel 1:4b, NIV).  This was done for three years (v.5).  There are two key parallels to today’s public schools I want to point out.  First, this was a publicly funded education financed by the King of Babylon, who undoubtedly derived a significant amount of his income from his people in taxes. Second, this was a curriculum that was quite contrary to what they believed.  According to The New Bible Dictionary, this education probably included Babylonian mythology and epics, history, mathematics, and science (even some rudimentary surgery). Daniel and his friends’ names were all changed to fit the new culture.  Later passages in the Book of Daniel indicate that members of the court were often called upon practice astrology, magic and other occult practices (see Daniel 2:4 and 4:7 for examples).  Some conservative pundits refer to our public education as indoctrination; this Babylonian version almost certainly was so.

What is truly striking about this passage is the fact that even though the content of the curriculum was something far from what was in God’s law, Daniel and his friends still accepted the education.  They learned everything they were supposed to
learn.  What they didn’t accept was the practice of what they learned.  In verse 8 Daniel refused the food and drink from the king’s table saying that it would defile him.  I am not sure exactly why the line was drawn at food, whether it was unclean or if it was sacrificed to an idol or some other reason, but later passages in the book show Daniel and his friends consistently standing against the idea that an earthly king could be the source of their lives, acknowledging that God was the source instead (Daniel 2:27-28; 3:18; 4:28-37; 5:18-30; 6:6-23).  This conflict of ideas is a primary theme of the Book of Daniel, and included in the much debated second half of the book.  It makes sense then that refusing the food was the first act in that conflict.

I close this post with what I hope is encouragement for the Christian in the public school today, whether a student
or a parent.  In Daniel we find a person who accepted an education in something other than what he believed, but by God’s
grace and favor did not allow it to overwhelm him.  He understood the difference between learning  about something and actually practicing it and believing it.  Daniel understood what he was taught; indeed he understood it very well (v. 20), but he remained firm in his conviction that God was in control of his life and of history.  May it be the same for you.

In my next post I will look at the second half of Daniel 1 and see how Daniel used his “public” education to the glory of his
God.  I may also touch on some of the topics in my initial list as time permits.