It seems like a growing number of people give lip service to working conditions in school, but without many specifics. If teachers are frustrated by the working conditions in their schools, how would we expect their behavior to change?
We're using Bolman and Deal's textbook in the Organizational Theory course I'm teaching this semester, which includes a large section on human resources in organizations. Part of that section discusses Chris Argyris' work on the differences between human personality and management practices. Argyris contends that workers have six options when trying to escape frustrating working conditions (pp. 128-130). See how many of these seem familiar to you when thinking about schools:
They withdraw -- through chronic absenteeism or simply by quitting
This certainly happened at my school -- working conditions were so bad that the vast majority of teachers took all 10 of their sick/personal days each year (which compounded the problem, since we usually couldn't find any subs to come into the building). I'm not sure what's been published on the topic, but I do know that if one looks through the NYC School Report cards that a lot of schools average a lot fewer teacher absences.
They stay on the job but withdraw psychologically, becoming indifferent, passive, and apathetic
This is the quintessential "bad teacher" right here. The tenured burn-out who can't be bothered to do much of anything anymore.
They resist by restricting output, deception, featherbedding*, or sabotage
Sounds just like the legion of obstinate teachers who refuse to implement the latest, greatest curriculum or other reform handed down to them from above.
They try to climb the hierarchy to better jobs
As teachers in my school used to say: "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't teach, become principals" (I should note that there's some emerging evidence that many principals had above-average VAM scores when they were teaching). Either way, it's pretty clear that a lot of teachers try to escape the classroom to become coaches, coordinators, and administrators of all types. In my school, the most veteran teachers who hadn't moved into one of those types of positions all taught in positions that got them out of the classroom (e.g. "resource room," in which they'd pull out a couple kids at a time).
They form alliances (such as labor unions) to redress the power imbalance
Unions certainly play a large role in many schools. What we often forget, though, is why the unions came about. If teachers aren't frustrated and don't distrust their supervisors, they don't usually form (or utilize) unions.
They teach their children to believe that work is unrewarding and hopes for advancement are slim
I haven't seen any evidence of this happening with teachers . . . hopefully it doesn't get that bad.
I definitely see evidence of five out of these six behaviors, though it's unclear whether any of these are currently increasing. I'd argue, though, that ameliorating the conditions that lead to these types of behavior should be one important goal in our quest to raise teacher quality and turn around low-performing schools.
If we instead go the opposite direction (sterner management, scripted curricula, etc.), we risk turning our schools into highly organized, poorly performing factories. Taken to the extreme, teachers essentially become mindless drones. The authors quote Ben Hamper (a former factory worker who then wrote about his experiences) saying that "Working the Rivet Line was like being paid to flunk high school the rest of your life" (p. 131). Work like that certainly won't inspire anybody to become the high-quality teachers we all agree we need.
*"Featherbedding is a colloquial term for giving people jobs that involve little or no work" (p. 138).
Showing posts with label teacher buy-in. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teacher buy-in. Show all posts
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Passion Before Program?
Bob Herbert's op-ed on schools today is a mixed bag -- which means it's better than most commentaries that have appeared in the popular press over the past couple years. In it, he discusses his visits to, and discussions with the founder of, three Harlem charter schools -- the Village Academies.
He again falls into the "teachers are the only thing that matter and good ones work miracles" trap, which seems to be a popular one lately. But he focuses on more than just teachers. Most notably, he talks about school climate. The best and worst part are in the same short paragraph:
When I have undergrads write papers on education, one mistake many make is thinking that all charter schools are the same (usually that they all work miracles). Herbert is no better. The whole point of charter schools is that they're autonomous and free to innovate. It's hard to make just about any other blanket statement. Charter schools vary widely in their rules, strategies, designs, success, etc. So to matter-of-factly state that charter schools can, "of course," fire teachers at will is absurd on face. Different charter schools have different rules. Besides, the notion that traditional public schools can't fire teachers for poor performance is absurd. Yes, in many it's tough to fire a teacher for poor performance after they've earned tenure -- that's a lot different from the implied "can't" in his statement.
But the end of the paragraph transitions back into a discussion of the school climate. Herbert writes that the main focus of the schools has been on finding "talented and passionate" teachers, but his discussion focuses much more on the culture and climate of the school. Indeed, the founder of the schools focuses as much on developing and keeping great teachers as she does on finding them. And her main strategy (at least according to Herbert) seems to be creating a positive environment where people want to work.
To me, the largest difference between unsuccessful high-poverty, urban schools like the one I taught in and the typical school one usually imagines is the climate of the school. There's undoubtedly a better analogy, but many in our school reported feeling as though they were in a "war zone." The tension and stress were palpable. Neither administrators nor teachers nor students were enjoying themselves.
Which brings me back to what I liked about Herbert's piece. He writes that we focus too much on "program elements" and not enough on other things (like great teachers) when trying to create and replicate successful schools. I agree, but I'd frame is slightly differently. Herbert teeters on the edge of suggesting that all we need to do is find great teachers and nothing else will matter. I'd argue that, to some extent, passion matters more than program; that it's more important that everybody is committed to the same goal than precisely what that goal is (obviously, exceptions abound). To me, what's notable about his description of these schools isn't that they're charter schools or that they employ great teachers (at least according to Bob Herbert), but that everybody seems to be working toward the same goal. And when that happens, it means that administrators don't have to battle teachers and teachers don't have to battle students. Which is a pretty good first step.
He again falls into the "teachers are the only thing that matter and good ones work miracles" trap, which seems to be a popular one lately. But he focuses on more than just teachers. Most notably, he talks about school climate. The best and worst part are in the same short paragraph:
Charter schools, of course, can fire teachers for poor performance. “Obviously, none of us should be allowed to be in front of children if we’re not doing a good job,” Ms. Kenny said. “But the threat of being fired if you don’t do a good job is not what makes a teacher great.”
When I have undergrads write papers on education, one mistake many make is thinking that all charter schools are the same (usually that they all work miracles). Herbert is no better. The whole point of charter schools is that they're autonomous and free to innovate. It's hard to make just about any other blanket statement. Charter schools vary widely in their rules, strategies, designs, success, etc. So to matter-of-factly state that charter schools can, "of course," fire teachers at will is absurd on face. Different charter schools have different rules. Besides, the notion that traditional public schools can't fire teachers for poor performance is absurd. Yes, in many it's tough to fire a teacher for poor performance after they've earned tenure -- that's a lot different from the implied "can't" in his statement.
But the end of the paragraph transitions back into a discussion of the school climate. Herbert writes that the main focus of the schools has been on finding "talented and passionate" teachers, but his discussion focuses much more on the culture and climate of the school. Indeed, the founder of the schools focuses as much on developing and keeping great teachers as she does on finding them. And her main strategy (at least according to Herbert) seems to be creating a positive environment where people want to work.
To me, the largest difference between unsuccessful high-poverty, urban schools like the one I taught in and the typical school one usually imagines is the climate of the school. There's undoubtedly a better analogy, but many in our school reported feeling as though they were in a "war zone." The tension and stress were palpable. Neither administrators nor teachers nor students were enjoying themselves.
Which brings me back to what I liked about Herbert's piece. He writes that we focus too much on "program elements" and not enough on other things (like great teachers) when trying to create and replicate successful schools. I agree, but I'd frame is slightly differently. Herbert teeters on the edge of suggesting that all we need to do is find great teachers and nothing else will matter. I'd argue that, to some extent, passion matters more than program; that it's more important that everybody is committed to the same goal than precisely what that goal is (obviously, exceptions abound). To me, what's notable about his description of these schools isn't that they're charter schools or that they employ great teachers (at least according to Bob Herbert), but that everybody seems to be working toward the same goal. And when that happens, it means that administrators don't have to battle teachers and teachers don't have to battle students. Which is a pretty good first step.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Does Teacher Opinion Matter?
Sorry for my sudden disappearance -- I've been off trying to deal with more important issues.
The NY Times ran an article this morning about the survey the UFT recently conducted of NYC teachers (UFT press release here, full results here). In short, it seems that teachers don't particularly like Chancellor Klein.
Methodological concerns aside, I wonder if these results matter.
I think a strong argument can be made that teachers' feelings about a particular reform will greatly influence how they implement said reform, but I wonder about their feelings toward things that are more removed from their immediate situation. Does a teacher's love or hatred for Joel Klein affect how they go about their daily business? Does it make them less satisfied with their jobs? Does it make them less likely to implement reforms he pushes? Or is "Chancellor Klein" too much of an abstraction to matter much when teaching a roomful of kids?
The NY Times ran an article this morning about the survey the UFT recently conducted of NYC teachers (UFT press release here, full results here). In short, it seems that teachers don't particularly like Chancellor Klein.
Methodological concerns aside, I wonder if these results matter.
I think a strong argument can be made that teachers' feelings about a particular reform will greatly influence how they implement said reform, but I wonder about their feelings toward things that are more removed from their immediate situation. Does a teacher's love or hatred for Joel Klein affect how they go about their daily business? Does it make them less satisfied with their jobs? Does it make them less likely to implement reforms he pushes? Or is "Chancellor Klein" too much of an abstraction to matter much when teaching a roomful of kids?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Someone Asked What Teachers Think?
As a former teacher, it is my personal bias that teachers are not frequently enough included in the policy-making process. It seems like we often analyze everything except for what teachers think. Meanwhile, it seems like an awful lot of reforms fail b/c teachers don't adopt them.
Well, a team from Education Sector just released the results of a national teacher survey. More than one blog post will be devoted to this, but for this one I'd like to look at the opinion questions that resulted in the most lopsided responses (>70% agreeing with one side). For the sake of brevity, I'll summarize each question, but I'll put the actual number from the survey next to it and you can read the full question from the report if you want more information (and let me know if my summary is unfair).
-81% of teachers agree that negative press coverage prevents the most talented people from entering teaching (9)
-80% agree that teachers are "rarely consulted about what happens in their school" (6)
-86% agree that teachers are required to do too much paperwork
-85% say that more prep and planning time is a good or excellent idea to help recruit better teachers into the field (14)
-78% of teachers say the same about easing rules on coming out of retirement (15)
-71% say that offering "substantially higher starting salaries in exchange for smaller pensions when they retire" is only a fair or poor idea for helping to recruit better teachers (16)
-80% strongly or somewhat favor giving "Teachers who work in tough neighborhoods with low-performing schools" financial incentives (23)
-79% said the unionization of the teaching force was not a consideration in choosing a career (37)
-84% say the same about the considerable job protection in teaching (38)
-75% agree that "Teachers facing unfair charges from parents or students would have nowhere to turn without the union" (46)
-75% agree that "Without collective bargaining, the working conditions and salaries of teachers would be much worse" (48)
-77% agree that "Without a union, teachers would be vulnerable to school politics or administrators who abuse their power" (49)
-76% say that unions "Effectively negotiate contracts, salary, and benefits on behalf of teachers"(54A)
-84% say that unions "Protect teachers through due process and grievance procedures" (57A)
-79% say that unions "Regularly inform teachers about their benefits, rights, and responsibilities" (60A)
More on this later but, at first glance, it appears that teachers think that:
1. they aren't given enough respect
2. their time isn't allocated in the best way possible
3. unions are doing some good things
Well, a team from Education Sector just released the results of a national teacher survey. More than one blog post will be devoted to this, but for this one I'd like to look at the opinion questions that resulted in the most lopsided responses (>70% agreeing with one side). For the sake of brevity, I'll summarize each question, but I'll put the actual number from the survey next to it and you can read the full question from the report if you want more information (and let me know if my summary is unfair).
-81% of teachers agree that negative press coverage prevents the most talented people from entering teaching (9)
-80% agree that teachers are "rarely consulted about what happens in their school" (6)
-86% agree that teachers are required to do too much paperwork
-85% say that more prep and planning time is a good or excellent idea to help recruit better teachers into the field (14)
-78% of teachers say the same about easing rules on coming out of retirement (15)
-71% say that offering "substantially higher starting salaries in exchange for smaller pensions when they retire" is only a fair or poor idea for helping to recruit better teachers (16)
-80% strongly or somewhat favor giving "Teachers who work in tough neighborhoods with low-performing schools" financial incentives (23)
-79% said the unionization of the teaching force was not a consideration in choosing a career (37)
-84% say the same about the considerable job protection in teaching (38)
-75% agree that "Teachers facing unfair charges from parents or students would have nowhere to turn without the union" (46)
-75% agree that "Without collective bargaining, the working conditions and salaries of teachers would be much worse" (48)
-77% agree that "Without a union, teachers would be vulnerable to school politics or administrators who abuse their power" (49)
-76% say that unions "Effectively negotiate contracts, salary, and benefits on behalf of teachers"(54A)
-84% say that unions "Protect teachers through due process and grievance procedures" (57A)
-79% say that unions "Regularly inform teachers about their benefits, rights, and responsibilities" (60A)
More on this later but, at first glance, it appears that teachers think that:
1. they aren't given enough respect
2. their time isn't allocated in the best way possible
3. unions are doing some good things
Friday, February 29, 2008
Randi Weingarten
Randi Weingarten gave the keynote address at a conference on performance incentives here last night. If you're thinking that it's odd for the head of a large teacher's union to be addressing a roomful of education economists you are correct. She essentially walked into the lion's den, confronted the lions, and lived to tell the tale. Whether you agree or disagree with her politics, you have to be impressed with her moxy.
My previous experience with Randi was limited to newsclips of her leading rallies, so I was pleasantly surprised by both the mechanics and the substance of her speech. She focused on two issues: bridging ideological divides to focus on what helps children (which, depending on your ideology, is either highly ironic or very fitting for a union head to say) and incorporating teachers in all reforms. She argued that the start of a pilot incentives program has gone smoothly in NYC because teachers had a role in its creation and management and because they were being rewarded rather than demeaned.
I think the strongest argument she made was that it is virtually impossible for most reforms to succeed without teacher buy-in. She asked a rhetorical question to the effect of "why would any teacher implement a reform in which they do not believe in their classroom?" To me, this is something too easily forgotten.
My previous experience with Randi was limited to newsclips of her leading rallies, so I was pleasantly surprised by both the mechanics and the substance of her speech. She focused on two issues: bridging ideological divides to focus on what helps children (which, depending on your ideology, is either highly ironic or very fitting for a union head to say) and incorporating teachers in all reforms. She argued that the start of a pilot incentives program has gone smoothly in NYC because teachers had a role in its creation and management and because they were being rewarded rather than demeaned.
I think the strongest argument she made was that it is virtually impossible for most reforms to succeed without teacher buy-in. She asked a rhetorical question to the effect of "why would any teacher implement a reform in which they do not believe in their classroom?" To me, this is something too easily forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)