In Defense of Tenure

Let's get a few things straight. Tenure protects bad teachers. That is a problem that must be fixed. Also just so we are clear I myself do not have tenure yet. Now that we have that out of the way . . .

Tenure isn't as bad as everyone thinks. Absolutely there are plenty of teachers in the system that only have their job thanks to tenure. They are lazy and ineffective and schools are powerless to be able to fire them. I have no solution to this.

But there is a flip side, tenure also protects good teachers. Let me explain. Those of us who teach know that education is an ever evolving field. Every year there is the new "thing" that is going to change education. Differentiated instruction, multiple intelligences, problem based learning, guided discovery, etc. Some of these work, some of them don't. Some of these ideas are good in some situations others not so much. The problem happens because some administrator goes to a workshop and learns one of these new methods, thinks it is the educational penicillin so to speak, and tries to get all their teachers to use it all the time. This is where tenure becomes good. Those of us who are in the classroom realize that you cannot do something like problem based learning everyday. It doesn't work. Some days you have to have the back-to-basics-I-talk-you-take-notes-then-do-some-practice-problems type of lesson. The enlightened administrators don't like this. Lessons like that are ineffective according to them. Therefore if you do an "evil lecture" you must be a bad teacher.

Essentially tenure protects good educators from falling victim to the always changing fad world of education. Confidence in our jobs allows us to do what we know from experience to be effective without having to cower to the newest educational trend. (Not that this does not give us an excuse to not try new things, but the key word is try not accept as perfect without an evidence)

Now the automatic argument is that in a "real" job there is no tenure why should teachers be any different? Well take an editor for example. An editor essentially proofreads for a living. He has no tenure, nor will he ever. But his job is not ever changing. The grammar rules of today that he is in charge of using properly are not changing. His boss will never say to him, "how about instead of using grammar we have the reader 'discover' where the grammar should go. Get rid of all those pesky commas and periods." The rules of the editor's job aren't changing so he doesn't need tenure. As long as he continues to properly apply the rules of grammar he has job security (assuming the finances of the company remain stable and such). Expectations are clear and consisten from day one. We teachers are not so lucky, our "grammar" rules are ever changing at the whim of our administrators.

It leaves us with a not so rhetorical question, which is worse, tenure protecting good teachers or tenure protecting bad teachers? and how do we fix the system?

Charters Not So Great?

According to CNN charter school students are scoring lower in both math and reading. Interesting considering how many people are saying charter schools are the key to our education problems.

Personally I think this study is flawed because how different charter schools can be. For example in Deleware the charter schools are often the best schools in the state because the public schools are in such bad shape. The best teachers in Deleware want to teach at charter schools.

In many areas of Pennsylvania the situation is reversed. Charter schools aren't so great because many of the public schools are doing very well and also pay much better. So in Pennsylvania often the best teachers are working in public schools. This is a broad generalization and is not true in all areas. Also this is completely based on what I have experienced not on any hard data. Although I do believe this makes it hard to study charter schools nationwide when they are so different from state to state.

Coaching - Day 5

I made it through cuts and no one has threatened to kill or harm me yet. So far so good. There is a definite upside to cuts though. All of a sudden you have 20 very happy players and 20 very happy parents who are all willing to help out in anyway possible. I don't know what is in store for this season. It will be interesting to say the least since this is my first time as a head coach and it is the first time this school has ever had a volleyball team. All I know is I've picked a team I'm happy with let's see what happens from here.

Coaching - Day 4

Cuts.

Not fun.

I've done some coaching before but never as a head coach so I never had to cut a player. Tommrow I do. Pouring over my lists and going back and forth between cut this player, no keep them, no cut them, no keep them . . .

In my head I've been comparing coaching to teaching and they are very similar. Planning drills (lessons) that will improve the players (students) skills (math abilities). Cuts are not like teaching at all. In teaching you have to tell everyone that they are smart and can do it. It is unacceptable that someone might not have the abilities to do well in any course. In coaching it is completely different. Tommrow I have to go into the gym and tell roughly 20 girls that "they aren't good enough" based on me watching them for four days. I can't say that I am looking forward to tommrow.

Coaching - Day 1

So just finished my first day as a head coach. Now I've coached before, but never as a head coach where I was in charge. I have to say: hats off to those of you who have done this....especially those who have done it for a long time. I knew there was a lot that went on besdies practices and games but I have no idea how much. Rules meeting, league meeting, parents meeting, coaches meeting, physicals, emergency cards, parent issues, player issues, planning and running practices, getting equipment and the list goes on.

The good news is as hard as it was I had a blast and can't wait for day two. Although I'm not looking forward to cuts on Friday I am loving being a coach. I think the key to coaching happiness is coaching a sport the athletic director doesn't understand. It is like teaching if you were allowed to do it your way with no watchful eyes from an administrator. Plus if I say I need equipment he doesn't put up much of a fight since he doesn't really know what I'm even asking for.

In closing, thank your coaches today, they deserve it.

The Last Great Tech Generation? Version 2.0

Michael Anderson made a comment on this post that jump started my thinking and gave me the perfect example.

I have been told, harangued, and lectured repeatedly that our incoming
(college) freshmen are the Computer Generation, because they've "grown up with
computers."

Then they sit down to do Homework Set #1, which requires them to
construct a table and graph with a spreadsheet. Suddenly, they've never SEEN a
computer, have no idea how to use a mouse, and apparently have had even basic
arithmetic wiped from their brains.

This is exactly what I am talking about. In Excel there is a wonderful little graph button. So students enter some data and then mindlessly hit the graph button assuming that whatever graph pops out is what the teacher is looking for. They don't think about what the teacher asked them to graph or whether or not what they have produced even makes sense in reference to the data. If they do manage to figure out that what they have is incorrect they don't understand how the computer has used their data to get the graph and so they are unable to go back to the data and the graph properties to modify them for the proper result. The "graph" button has made it unnecessary for them to think.

Interesting Article

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elementary/?article=Myth_of_Americas_Failing_Schools
Most interesting part to me:

I find it interesting that in India, about 7 percent of the college-age population is in college. I'm thinking Indian students must work desperately in that last year of high school to squeeze into the 7 percent. American students are more lackadaisical because here about 63 percent of high school graduates go to college the next year and the others can go later--this is a country of second chances.

If you test two groups of students, one of which has been cramming for months and one of which hasn't, the former will score higher. But are they better educated? Will they know more in a year? Four years? Ten? It's not a given. A test score is a snapshot of a moment.

Why should I work hard in school when it seems that I'm going to end up in college anyway. Now I realize that in America there are probably more colleges and families have more money they can use to afford those colleges. Probably in India some students that have the ability to go to college can't due to financial reasons. But I strongly doubt that the finances account for the disparity in those numbers.