$$$$$$$

Two thoughts for this week’s blog post:   

While chapter one paints a bleak picture of U.S. public education,  I think it should be noted  that most of the charts and such presented in the book don’t actually show a decline in U.S. student achievement, the charts actually show a decline in rankings relative to the rest of the world.  It really seems to be a case of the neighborhood growing up around us.  It’s not that we suddenly started failing, it’s that the rest of the world stopped failing and got it together.  They stepped up the game and now we are having trouble keeping up with the Jones’s kids in a global neighborhood so to speak.  Maybe this is just semantics, second place is second place, but I do think it is an important distinction because it suggests that we need a total overhaul of the system.  If the system had failed, or if it were broken, it would only be a matter of fixing the system.  Since achievement remained relatively the same despite a series of changes, though, that suggests the system is functioning as well as it can.  It isn’t broken; it is inherently flawed-set up on a model that will never be equal or adequate in its present form.   That to me is interesting because until fundamental change occurs, no amount of testing, pressure on teachers, or curriculum change will close the achievement gap we have with other countries, and answer the inequality entrenched in our education system since its inception. 

That idea of fundamental change brings me to my second thought. 

On Pg 30 Hammond has that nifty little bullet point bit where she outlines the 5 problems with our current system.   I am particularly fascinated by the third bullet point though; “inadequate systems for providing high-quality teachers and teaching to all children in all communities.”  This is clear, but vague, like belling the cat.  Good idea, but how?   We would do well to take a page from the book of the countries who are stomping us in international test scores, and start paying teachers competitive wages along with giving them the respect and support they deserve.  There was an Interesting article published by the Huffington Post in 2011 that cites several research studies which indicate a strong tie between high-quality teachers and high test scores.  (Hammond points this out as well in later chapters.  I wrote most of this before I read chapter 6&7) Essentially countries that invest in recruiting, retaining, and empowering excellent teachers have significantly higher test scores than those who don’t.  The article mentions many of the top-performing countries that Hammond cites as well such as Singapore and Finland. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-jennings/teacher-pay-us-ranks-22nd_b_940814.html .  Essentially what these nations did to attract teachers is offer them wages that are comparable to other professional careers.  Surprise surprise the U.S. is 22d out of 27 nations when it comes to offering teachers wages that are comparable to other professional careers in their field.   According to the article, while these top performing countries draw and train teachers from the top one third of college graduates in any field, the U.S. often draws teachers from the bottom two thirds of any field and, again surprise surprise, urban poor districts often get the only bottom third. 

With so much talk about funding inequalities, and funding in general, I think it is important to remember just how much a student’s learning experience depends on the teacher.   When the reform dollars are being spent, that should be first and foremost in mind of the purse-string holders.  It seems obvious, but so much political effort and money has been wasted on programs designed to change curriculum, fund technology, or implement some new test.  Meanwhile, teachers, especially ones who are truly excellent, leave the profession because of the low pay and “all of the bureaucratic B.S.”  In point of fact, the best special education teacher at our school is currently studying physical therapy with plans to exit the field of teaching because he is sick of the paperwork.  Similarly, a friend of mine who was once elected teacher of the year for his district often talks to me of moving to Alaska because the pay is better.   The truth is MONEY and RESPECT is key to attracting and retaining good teachers.  Excellence in teaching has little to do with textbooks.  In fact, these teachers mentioned above are excellent precisely because they don’t stick to the textbook.  They do things like create perma-culture gardens in the schools front lawn.

  Without competitive salaries, our education system can’t expect be to attract and retain top quality teachers with any consistency.  Students studying math and Science particularly often have the opportunity to exit college into careers that pay easily twice the starting salary of a teacher.  If we want to attract and retain these individuals we need to offer competitive wages.         

To be clear, I am not in any way supporting the completely divisive and irrational idea of “Merit Pay” as it was implemented in Idaho this last year.  That model only removed money from already low teacher salaries and redistributed it in an inequitable way that fostered resentment, infighting, and isolation.  If my fellow teachers at the other local high school are in competition with me for a $4000 bonus check around Christmas, you can bet that they aren’t going to share their instructional secretes with me.  But I digress.