So I'm Frustrated By the Educational Establishment

In earlier installments, I have complained about organizational or cultural stupidity within school buildings, districts, or even states. An entry from about a year ago fairly specifically addressed a few of the important examples. Here comes a new one.

I know of a fairly large number of districts that are currently in the process of implementing change that is designed to improve the educational process, and therefore improve achievement. Their method, mechanics, and mindset are driving the educators crazy, and I don't know why they don't get it.

For instance, I spoke with a former student whom I taught very early in my career. He is currently a math teacher in a school for the performing arts. This year, he was teamed with a co-teacher. They share fifty students for a math=-science block. The science teacher was the target of the reassignment, as she had been ineffective with her previous partner. The math guy is pulling his hair out, because the science lady has no interest in pulling her weight, and essentially doesn't have to, since the newly implemented team is supposed to solve the problem. The pair are at philosophical odds, in addition to having diametrically opposed work ethics. The science lady refers to the students as 'her babies,' and subsequently parents them badly, sometimes by screaming at them the way an ill-equipped young mother might handle a toddler's temper tantrum. How does this happen?

In another example, a former colleague of mine is in his fifth year of co-teaching; he is an English teacher paired with his third different special education teacher. I know for a fact that he is a superior teacher, one of those that administrators call their 'superstars'. While his students collectively are performing adequately, which means they are making their marks on standardized tests, the situation severely limits the advancement of the best students. "Differentiate the instruction!" the gurus yell from on high, but that mantra is STUPID. A certain percentage of students walk in the door with a performance level that is beyond the target FOR THE YEAR. Differentiated instruction will not serve them well enough. The teacher's job is well-articulated: he is to make certain that his students can perform as a certain level, and it's human nature to focus efforts on those students who will potentially fall below the target. Consequently, he and his partner KNOW they will not advance the superior group to a level in keeping with their capacity.
Again, how does this happen?

Here's how it happens. The people who are trotting out the ideas are not in the trenches. Their hypothetical improvements are usually pedagogically sound, but they do not consider the human element of education. They approach the situation like a person who needs to manufacture a widget. Moreover, the administrators who are charged with implementing the hypothetical improvement are likewise not in the trenches. They often do consider the human element, because they are confronted with it, but they have only the hypothetical script to work from. Consequently, some excellent administrators take the idea, implement it wisely, and tout the success of the program. Neighboring schools then try to profit from the example, but haven't the strength and vision of that excellent administrator, and subsequently struggle mightily.

In short, the same error is made at every level, though not in all cases. Excellent teachers implement programs and plans and meet with success BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT TEACHERS working with a good hypothetical idea. They intuitively tackle the potential hurdles, or genuine hurdles, and make the situation work. The excellent administrators are successful with the same good idea BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATORS. They anticipate the problems that might arise - they expect to accommodate the human element - and they often have enough initial success to incrementally address the obstacles that prevail.

So I return to a very basic premise. Teaching is not a science. Education is not a business. The principles of science can be helpful in improving instruction, but they cannot be seen as the answer. Education at the structural level needs to be run much like a business, but because of truth number one in this paragraph, business principles cannot dominate the process. Schools can't fire under-performing teachers or students to mastermind the widget production process. Business can to some extent, though their response to the human element isn't directly determining the quality of the widget.

A guidance counselor friend of mine always refers to the school improvement purveyors and those who facilitate the implementation as the ones who are 'drinking the Kool-Aid.' However, I liken this idea that one can FOLLOW A SCRIPT set forth by the ivory towers as more akin to the Josef Goebbel's propaganda machine: "If you make a lie big enough, and say it often enough, people will believe it." [This is not a direct quote, I don't believe, but I wanted the effect of the quotation, and it is close enough to do the job.]

The moral of the story is this: great teachers are amazing, because they are driven by a love for students and a passion for what they do. They will find a way to engineer success using some awful ideas. They will work wonders with good ideas. Unfortunately, every school building has a limited supply of these people. So one must consider the corollary. Poor teachers will make a mess of weak ideas, and do significant damage in the process. They will only rise to a level where they avoid harm if charged with implementing a good idea.