Tagged: school reform
Alternative to Quitting: Unions
Recently, a resignation letter caught my attention: A teacher of 24 years from Lyons Township High School (LT) quit and published his reasons for leaving. And those reasons do strike this retired teacher (33 years total, with 8 at Peacock Jr. High in Itasca and 25 at Hinsdale South High School in Darien, both in Illinois) as legitimate issues which currently plague classroom teachers throughout the country. Any intrusion between a teacher and his students is to be regarded skeptically, but the trend in the U.S. lately has been for everyone to stick their noses into this important relationship, generally to the detriment of both teachers and their students.
I could get into the specifics of what has gone wrong at LT to motivate this educator to quit, but the bottom-line problem currently raging in our public schools is who knows best what should be going on in our classrooms, same as it has been…well, forever. From getting 50% credit for doing no homework and no failure policies (two changes cited in the LT letter) to so-called “critical race theory” to following health recommendations to when to use remote learning to gender/sex education to security, the debates about our schools have little to do with public education’s only real purposes: the fostering of independent critical thinkers capable of becoming productive contributors to civic stability and progress as well as providing basic reasoning skills for coping with the social problems our communities face, including battles over authoritarianism, racism, environmental degradation, public health, women’s rights, and/or gun violence.
But neither the specific rabbit holes to which each of those other issues leads nor the overall question of how to channel the interests/concerns coming from those outside the schools in productive ways is what caught my attention here. What gave me pause was how powerless teachers are feeling, especially when I don’t think it needs to be that way. Overreaching governors in Virginia and Florida to say nothing of state legislatures and school boards in many other places have dictated new rules and restrictions designed to rein in and control what teachers can do in their classrooms, leading some teachers to leave public education rather than to acquiesce to policies they find harmful to their students. Yet, there are methods for teachers to participate as equals in policy formation which impacts their working lives rather than completely ceding decision making to those who know little about what creates a successful school experience, which by all accounts, the resigning LT teacher had been providing.
In more than half of U.S. states, working conditions are mandatory topics for bargaining between school districts and teachers. In Illinois, for example, the Labor Relations Act states, “The duty ‘to bargain collectively’ shall also include an obligation to negotiate over any matter with respect to wages, hours and other conditions of employment, not specifically provided for in any other law or not specifically in violation of the provisions of any law.” This sentence states quite clearly that “conditions of employment” need to be negotiated with the exclusive representative of the teachers, which in almost every school district in Illinois would be their union. In other words, if something is required for employment (a “condition”— some rule or policy for which teachers will be disciplined and/or fired if they fail to comply), that something is then a legitimate topic for negotiations between the school district and its teachers’ union. Rather than quitting, teachers covered by collective bargaining agreements could utilize these laws to respond to any requirement coming from above which negatively impacts how they run their classrooms. In Illinois, which I know best since it is where I worked, the union can file a “demand to bargain” about the new condition of employment, contract negotiations can be reopened, both bargaining teams can reassemble to negotiate new language on the new condition (rule or policy), and the new language can be added to the current contract as a memorandum of agreement. Yes, technically, all other clauses of the contract could then also be renegotiated, but both sides could agree to limit negotiations to the single issue. And yes, this process would be a huge pain for administrators and union representatives (who are typically also classroom teachers), which is probably why it doesn’t happen much.
But the “hassle” of renewed contract negotiations should not mean teachers have to quit rather than having a say in how they do their jobs. When a new policy comes raining down on teachers from above (administrators) or outside (governmental agencies) or a combination of the two (school boards reacting to the complaints of parents or community groups), just the threat of having to bargain is a way for teachers get a seat at the table as the vital shareholders they are. With a vigilant teachers’ union which will insist on following the labor laws already in place, teachers can have significant input into these decisions and can help to prevent some of the ridiculous outcomes we hear teachers citing in their resignation letters. Even if the contract were not reopened and both sides figured out a more informal way to resolve the issue, the potential of having to bargain the new condition of employment would force otherwise headstrong administrators or recalcitrant school boards to allow for teacher input into how the new condition would be implemented, or if it would be implemented at all.
And there are other union/contractual solutions to this lack of teacher input: We created a clause when I worked at Hinsdale South which required the union be notified if any decisions which might impact working conditions were being contemplated. This clause also allowed the union to name specific teachers to be on the various committees where these kinds of decisions were being worked on so they could represent the union’s (teachers’) position. The key idea is that administration/school boards work cooperatively with their teachers to resolve anything which impacts how they do their jobs. I know many of you have a strong antipathy to anything associated with something called a “union.” (Why do you think many teachers belong to the National Education Association and you rarely hear education labor leaders referring to their organizations as “unions”?) But keep in mind that in most schools, union members and the teaching staff are one and the same, with the leadership also coming from the ranks of working teachers who volunteer their time (mostly) to do union…excuse me…association work.
I do have first-hand experience with how a “demand to bargain” works: While teaching at Hinsdale South, I questioned my district’s right to require me to use an on-line grade program to record my students’ progress. (It did help that I had been our teacher union’s chief negotiator for two contracts and a past grievance chair as well). In very short form: Administrators told me I had to use the district’s on-line grading program; I started using it (since any teacher can be fired for insubordination—disobeying a reasonable administrative request), but told administration I would be filing a demand to bargain on this requirement since it was now a “working condition;” they consulted their lawyers about my rights to do this; and then an assistant principal quietly told me I wouldn’t have to use the program after all. I assume the lawyer told them I was within my rights, since no further announcements about using the grade program’s being “required” were made. (Since I was only a year or two from retirement and everybody else had already accepted the grade program as a “requirement,” I didn’t call the union’s attention to my personal victory, especially since no one else seem concerned over the grade program, and I had gotten my way.) And I do believe that the same approach could be used to force administrators at LT at least to work with the teachers before imposing silly policies like 50% homework credit for doing nothing.
As a side note (Translation: Major Digression Ahead!), this example illustrates the genesis of the current union neglect when it comes to utilizing collective bargaining laws to force consideration of teacher positions on working conditions to which administrators and school boards are making unilateral changes. Few realized it at the time, but the digitalization of our schools started us on the road to getting 50% credit for not even bothering to turn homework in and policies making it harder to issue failing grades. You see, as grade programs infiltrated public education to the point where everyone now uses them, the hodge-podge, individually created, teacher-centric grading systems of previous generations all got tossed in the trash. I taught from 1979-2012, and I saw, used, and evolved a variety of assessment systems during that time: Some teachers relied on assignments for points, others gave letter grades exclusively, some counted their finals as 10% or 20% of the semester grade (if they gave a final at all), some based much of the grade on classwork, and some focused much more on tests, to list a few of the different approaches you might find in the same school or even department. Everybody pretty much did their own thing, with little direction from above. Me? I used a hybrid of points for graded assignments along with 25% of the grade I called “Class Participation” which was a catchall for things like non-graded homework assignments, volunteering during class discussions, taking care of missed work swiftly, promptness, courtesy, and generally being a decent human being. Yeah, I was on thin ice then; today, I would be fired for using such subjective, non-quantifiable things as part of a grade. (Even though I, an ex-English teacher, still argue those subjective things happen to be significantly more important than a kid’s ability to remember to put in the Oxford comma, crucial though that skill is and will always be.)
If every teacher’s having a different system sounds chaotic and as if it would lead to different results depending on the teacher you had, that’s only because it was and it did. If you had Mr. Jones for English I, you would get an A if you turned a few things in, didn’t screw around during all the movies he showed, and laughed at his jokes; Bs were tough to come by if you were unfortunate enough to get Ms. Smith, infamous for her pop quizzes and tough writing expectations; and you could get any grade you wanted in Mrs. Jones-Smith’s class if you could stay awake through her droning lectures. Yep, it pretty much depended on the teacher, didn’t it? Of course it did, and it still does, but grade programs created the unintended consequence of requiring much better consistency on the part of the students about turning in work done out of class to get decent grades.
Once grades became digitalized, everything came down to points—you can do all kinds of fancy things with these programs in terms of weighting grades’ values, but you still have to assign some point value to everything you want to grade. So, if you assign homework for practice—things you want the student to do in order to hone skills, not for a grade—you still have to give it a quantifiable number the program can digest. Logically, most teachers simply assign a point value, say 10, and give students all 10 points if they do the assignment. Remember: It wasn’t assigned to be graded. And that’s all well and good when students turn in the work. They get a perfect 10 out of 10 on something they might have slopped off five minutes before class, so for those who diligently turn everything in, grade programs have been a boon. Sadly, there is generally a percentage of kids in average classes (advanced or “academically talented” classes are another story entirely) who just do not turn in homework often, especially if it requires much time to do. Those kids now rack up the 0s on homework in prodigious numbers. And as any statistics-oriented person can tell you, getting zero points on assignments makes your grade plummet in a hurry to depths from which it cannot easily recover.
This is easily illustrated: Two students get the same grades on two tests, 85/100 for a total of 170 out of 200 points. Five 10-point homework assignments accompany those tests. Student 1 does all five for 50 additional points, whereas Student 2 does only two for 20 points. Now, the total points in the class come to 250, with Student 1 scoring 220, or 88% (B or B+, depending on the system), while Student 2 lags at 190, 76% (middle C). And if that less-motivated student hadn’t done any of the 50 points of homework, he would instead have 68% (D). I’d argue he earned it, but you can see how fast a kid who scored solid Bs on both tests could wind up with serious grade trouble once point values have been assigned to homework assignments. Major out-of-class projects that don’t get turned in or made up have an even more dramatic effect on grades. If Student 2 had missed a 100-point project instead of the 50 points of homework, this B-test-taker would have failed the class (56% or 170 points out of 300).
You can certainly make the case that Student 2 deserves exactly what he gets, but it’s a big problem for any high school administrator when classes required for graduation are being failed by significant numbers of kids, and grade programs have eliminated much of the discretion teachers often employed over the years. Since I taught for 33 years, I know a secret or two about how most teachers operate, and I can assure you that virtually every D- ever assigned on a report card should have been an F. Teachers sometimes manipulate numbers and shade things in order to make grades turn out how they want—and in my experience, 99.5% percent of the time, in dire situations when teachers decide to fiddle with grades, they assign a higher grade than the gradebook actually showed. With grade programs, however, that discretion has become harder to justify, to say nothing of the fact that grade digitalization has led to the posting of grades online, where students and their parents check them daily. If a kid has a 45% on-line, it’s tough to give him/her that charity D-. Yes, since I never used grade programs, I did give out grades like that a time or two in my career, even though the vast majority of my 45% students failed. But now, the new grading policies artificially inflate percentages so that grades (such as they have become) can be posted on-line. Instead of the occasional, teacher-determined “adjustment” of a bad grade, administrators have utilized the idiotic, blanket, 50%-for-nothing policy, as well as other clumsy “fixes” so students can pass without doing much of what the teacher has determined is needed.
As we turn back to the original focus of this essay, it becomes clear why a competent, impactful, creative teacher would reject the idea that it’s reasonable to give credit for assignments not turned in or that it’s not okay to limit cell phone usage during class (another major problem for many teachers) and quit instead. Much more common, however, are teachers who cede what they know to be the best way to educate their students in order not to get in trouble with education’s noisy, clueless critics, and in the case of many administrators, those who are seeking only that which makes things go smoothly, regardless of the negative impact on the education of young people. Especially for teachers who worked many years before these new policies materialized, having those with little knowledge of what they do in their classrooms direct them to abandon methods they’ve spent years developing is a morale-crushing experience. Being forced to do that which you know to be wrong is hardly the work-approach I want in my community’s teachers, but that’s what’s been happening at warp speed the last couple of years.
Strong words, I realize, but in the debate about how to make public education better, we have to recognize how important a reasonable level of independence for teachers is and that this independence allows teachers to provide individualized, unique classroom experiences. Of course, the idiosyncrasies of some teaching divas might drive you crazy and seem way too arbitrary—even capricious—but in standardizing the art of our classroom leaders, we do every student who will one day wind up in the working world of rough edges a huge disservice. Can you imagine telling your boss that you should get 50% of your salary for doing nothing? Does anyone think a permission note from your mom to your supervisor will keep you from being fired for refusing to focus on your job duties so you can text your friends? The world simply does not function anywhere close to the inane rules many schools are enacting in response to changing trends.
Somebody’s got to temper these ill-advised concessions to technology (to say nothing of clueless politicians, administrators, or community members), and collective bargaining laws often provide teachers and their unions with some of the anti-stupid ammunition they need. No, this will not make unions more popular in a climate that has been anti-labor in recent years, especially in areas where collective bargaining laws have helped make teacher pay much better (e.g., high school districts in DuPage or Cook counties), nor will many administrators appreciate those trouble-making union leaders. (As a long-time union activist, however, I found my work day went much, much better when I had my administrators’ respect rather than their love, for what it’s worth.) But I would encourage teachers—and particularly those who are also their school’s union leaders—to use all the tactics they have to fend off changes from those who don’t know or understand what makes a quality classroom, even if some of those discussions are uncomfortable, or even confrontational. Bottom line, insisting that your state’s collective bargaining laws be appropriately applied is one of most effective tools teachers have in warding off excesses coming from outside their classrooms. And it’s a much better alternative to giving up or quitting.
For more on how public schools can be improved, you can check out my e-book, excerpts of which can be seen here.
Communication Breakdown
I taught English in junior high (8 years) and high school (25 years) during my career, so it caught my attention how “communication problem” has become a trope in news broadcasts: The areas causing messaging difficulties have included politicians’ explaining legislation, school officials’ informing parents about curricular choices relating to race, health officials’ motivating/mandating the public to follow the latest pandemic guidelines, the police/gun owners’ clarity on exactly what constitutes “self-defense,” and everyone’s accepting that Joe Biden won the last presidential election. Our ability to impart objective information seems to be eroding more quickly than our shorelines—oh, I forgot that scientists have struggled to communicate the dire environmental horrors which will become commonplace (have already become, in many cases) unless we change our behavior/technology to avoid destroying the only planet on which we can currently survive. At a time when consensus and unity on what we need to do has existential implications, we keep stumbling on what should be a given—agreeing where we are right now.
And I am part of a group (past and present educators) which bears at least some responsibility for this situation. We are legally bound to send our children to school for at least eleven years (K-10 in Illinois) with most of them in the classroom for several years more. Over those many hours, kids are supposed to be learning the basics of what it takes to function in our society, that which we have determined they need to know in order to participate positively in our society. Given all that effort spent drilling these basics, why is it that we are so divided on just what the facts are?
To understand why institutional organizations, like schools, exert less influence than before, we have to look at public education’s evolution as a reflection of the community it has served over the years. Before the information era (which came to dominance with the ubiquity of personal computers in our homes), the Pre-Digital Age invested schools with substantial authoritative power. One of the key sources of our communal skill and knowledge was public education, and everyone pretty much accepted teachers as respected (if largely ignored and unsupervised) experts on what our kids needed to know and how to get that cultural legacy into their heads. While Mom and Dad might have been amazingly ignorant about what was going on in our baby-boomer classrooms, we kids all knew there would be hell to pay if we got in trouble with our teachers. “Our side” would be quickly dismissed once our trespass had been relayed, and there would be a consequence (i.e., punishment) which would land on us, often literally. When it came to teacher-vs-student situations, the student lost almost every time, even if the only message the teacher sent was a mediocre grade. So, whether or not we liked our teachers, we came to accept that all adults assumed schools knew better than we did and that to dispute their power was futile.
Please don’t view this description as yearning for a pseudo-idealistic, nostalgia-drenched educational utopia which we need to replicate. I have no desire to advocate anything based on some mutated “Make American Education Great Again” model. I’m just trying to explain how it was—good and bad—before our current situation. There were many poor practices going on in the 1960s and 70s when I went to school, to say nothing of the social upheavals created by the erosion of faith in other institutions, as evidenced by the unpopularity of the Viet Nam war and changing attitudes on race and gender. In middle-class suburban schools, however, teachers were pretty influential to students in a way that was much more absolute than it is today.
We all know what happened next: From the 1980s on, access to information exploded, and that deluge has only increased exponentially every year since that first personal computer (PC) came home. Not only did that PC’s capabilities grow at volcanic rates, but its size contracted to the point where most of us have over a million times more computing power on our phones than NASA did for the Apollo 11 moon trip in 1969. And while we can debate the various pros and cons of this info torrent, there can be little doubt that public education’s share of “factual authority” experienced significant shrinkage as it became easier and easier to find different, often contradictory, information elsewhere. Couple that ease of access with professional social media manipulators’ addictive propaganda flourishes, and it seems inevitable that we would wind up with parents’ berating and recalling school board members because they know better how to run the schools.
Nor is that to say those aggressive parents don’t have some valid points to make when it comes to schools’ including them in decisions which impact their children. Those of us who taught in the 1970s (I started in 1979) recall the wholesale warehousing of special education students, regardless of their needs, in separate and completely unequal classrooms until parent advocates got the laws changed, and regulations (many, many regulations) followed. All our institutions need oversight, evaluation, and regular updating; you’re either moving forward or backward. Remaining static (which of course was the dream of every administrator for whom I ever worked) just isn’t possible. So constant assessment of whatever data you can accumulate is necessary and should be an automatic part of any system’s structure.
Our current situation, however, has fractured because there is so much more data available than any one individual or organization can possibly assimilate. That means we have to use filters which cull the pile of data to more manageable levels. Unfortunately, those filter tools—intentionally or not—have led us to limited, slanted information streams tailored more and more, as the algorithms learn from our selections, to our biases. Not only do those tools guide us to sources which only agree with our prejudices, they seek out opinions and views ever more extreme in the hopes of holding our interest longer, while completely eliminating those annoying ideas which come from those who think differently than we do, which we instantly delete should they somehow darken our feed. Thus, we never have to invest the slightest effort in understanding why anyone would be stupid enough not to agree with us.
We’ve all been guilty of this on some issues in our lives—sports allegiances, popular music genres, and fashion styles have, do, and will continue to separate people into distinct camps: To this White Sox devotee, for example, all opinions on baseball from those misguided enough to care about the Cubs are completely suspect, if not outright ridiculous, regardless of facts, experience, or reality in general. Oh, and would you fashionistas shut the hell up about my lousy cargo shorts—they’re functional, dammit! This kind of lunacy, however, when attached to more meaningful things like abortion, health care, the environment, and governmental services (like the police) seems amazingly short-sighted. Will this separation and division continue to pollute what it means to be human to the point where we need to know the political affiliation of everyone with whom we deal in order to interact with them? “Sorry, I don’t go to Republican doctors.” (Actually, we’re already there, to a certain extent, in that I couldn’t imagine trusting Dr. Rand Paul [ophthalmologist] with my eyes or Dr. Ben Carson [neurosurgeon] with my brain.) Do we need Republican-only restaurants to be sure the servers won’t spit in our food or Democratic hair stylists to guarantee our dos will really be cutting edge, depending on whom we support in 2022?
Sadly, that kind of absurdity sounds less and less inane as we continue to bore down on our personal truth with no willingness to hear anything from outside our hardened silos. The validity of facts has always been dependent on their sources’ reliability, but we’ve been erecting barriers in the wrong places and giving way too much weight to irrelevant, dumb criteria in how we evaluate those sources. We’ve also institutionalized the habit of dismissing anything, regardless of how valid, supported, or true it is should we determine its source comes from the “wrong” side. “With both Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith no longer on Fox, why would I ever be interested in what that dumpster fire of a network broadcasts? Tucker Carlson? Puh-leeze!”
And that, my friends, leaves us in our current situation, where creative, aspirational humans are frustrated and blunted at every turn by other frustrated, blunted, creative, aspirational humans armed with a completely different set of facts and expert opinion which “proves” they are right and urges that those who disagree should be demonized, attacked, rooted out, and banished from their seat at the table of humanity. Sadly, there aren’t even any glib or facile solutions to this problem which claim an easy solution even though they achieve absolutely nothing except to make us feel morally superior when we share the condescending, fluffy meme on our social media feed.
This issue, I’m afraid, has evolved its divisive, habit-forming nature to the point where most of us cannot imagine how anyone could possibly be so stupid (morally bankrupt, uninformed, illogical, blind, poorly reared, uneducated, ignorant, privileged, entitled, evil, and/or any other negative trait we can hang on our enemies) to disagree with us on whatever issue is currently stirring passions. So, we dismiss entire groups of people as irrelevant and moronic—not exactly a recipe for creating more empathy and compassion, to say nothing of finding a path to compromises which lead to progress (if that poor word can even be used anymore without political connotations). I do think there are some slow, incremental, long-term things we all have to do in order to move beyond this stage in our social/cultural development, but we’ve certainly set a pretty nasty, self-perpetuating system in motion. It’s kinda like the creeping Charlie in my front lawn: It’s impossible to eradicate quickly without resorting to some serious herbicidal poison—the kind I’m unwilling to go anywhere near given its toxic side effects, just as I can’t accept that the only way forward is to shun and belittle everyone who voted for Donald Trump. So next time, we’ll pull on some gardening gloves, pad our fragile knees, and get down on the lawn to start weeding. Until then, if you’d like to see some ideas on how public education can be improved, you can find excerpts from my e-book here.
District 86’s Proposed “Curriculum Equity” Is Bad Policy
After an expensive, divisive, and at times, mean-spirited campaign, voters in Hinsdale Township High School District 86 (home to Hinsdale South and Central High Schools) voted down a proposed $166,000,000 referendum to repair, upgrade, and expand the schools this past November. The final vote was 15,440 in favor and 18,029 against (46% to 54%) with votes cast in both DuPage and Cook counties. Unfortunately, this was an unsatisfying result for both sides since everything, except for the reality of the vote count, remains contentious and unsettled.
For those in favor of the referendum, they see the situation at the high schools as dire, with facilities falling apart and programs now threatened with cuts in order to fund needed repairs. Although disappointed in the referendum’s ballot defeat, they were heartened by the relative closeness of the vote compared to the results of the district’s April 2017 initiative, which proposed $76 million in increased school funding and was crushed by a three-to-one shellacking. Many from the Yes side are now working very hard to ensure the latest ballot initiative from the District 86 school board—a $139,800,000 funding request—will be approved this April 2nd.
Opponents, led by a few local politicians and businessmen, have continued to lobby against the proposal as bloated, claiming that only $45,000,000 is actually needed to take care of needed repairs and upgrades to the two high schools. Others have suggested that teachers’ salaries and benefits are too high, that the only long-term solution to financial issues is improving work rules and cutting staff. Then there are those who believe the decline in enrollment at South coupled with increased Central attendance requires redistricting—that only after 300-400 once-scheduled-to-attend-Central students have been shifted to South can the true needs of either building be assessed. Therefore, they argue, it’s putting the cart before the horse to spend so much on changing the buildings until the board has adjusted the numbers of students in each building and filled South first. Then too, a certain percentage of the South attendance area has felt slighted when comparing how Central is treated, suspicious of economic, class, and even racial bias. Anything pertaining to District 86 that those from Central advocate smells funny to these individuals, and since Central residents have been more supportive of the previous referendum tries, they are reluctant to accept its necessity. Finally, there are those who oppose any tax increase regardless of its rationale. There is no single motivation behind the different factions within the No supporters; many opposed to the referendum find the reasoning of their different “allies” flawed. So, the Yes side is united, while the No backers separate into various sub-groups who don’t agree with each other. This poses an opportunity for the Yes side in that they can siphon off portions of the No vote by appealing to the specific issue which drives antipathy to the referendum, without having to deal with the increase in taxes, which (despite evidence of its reasonableness in this instance) triggers irrevocable opposition in some residents’ hearts.
As a retired teacher and teachers’ union activist who spent his final 25 years in education teaching English at Hinsdale South, I have both a certain level of knowledge of the district (clearly dated, however, as I retired in 2012) and no concrete stake in how this all turns out (I do not live within District 86’s boundaries). It would probably surprise no one that when it comes to District 86’s current referendum, this retired teacher thinks it would be best for voters to approve the referendum: Greater funding for education is rarely a bad thing in my opinion, and there are compelling reasons to support this tax increase. My purpose here has nothing to do with the outcome of this vote, however, but the unintended negative consequences which the political jockeying for votes is leading to. At least one such consequence could actually hurt the education of District 86 students.
A concern in the district over the years which never seems to go away is the perceived disparity in each individual school’s quality. Central is regarded as superior, one of the top high schools in the country; South is seen as very good, but a step or two down the rung in its students’ educational preparation. (I reject this characterization and have made that clear in many previous essays on this subject—South is an amazing school, and I’m not saying that just because of its astute hiring choices in the past.) As pointed out above, one of the criticisms which has been leveled by those opposing the referendum is that South residents have been getting shortchanged over the years and will again be neglected once any new money from this proposed referendum is allocated. One bone of contention has been differences in various courses offered at each school: Central has typically had more high-level classes (Advanced Placement courses, for example, where students are prepared for end-of-year tests which can qualify them for college credit) than South has, which some claim affords Central students better educational opportunities. Even the order in which science courses are taught—freshmen take biology, then chemistry, and finally physics at Central contrasted with the geophysics, chemistry, biology sequence at South—has come under scrutiny as evidence that Central is better than South. Thus, despite clearly articulated explanations for this as well as other differences and the high-quality education both schools have provided over the years, the charges of an inferior education being offered at South have entered into referendum politics as a reason not to support its passage.
So now, the school board and its administrators—referendum backers, in case you weren’t sure–are moving aggressively to allay these course inequity concerns. To that end, at its January 7th Committee of the Whole meeting, the board established the following:
“Under the guidance of the Board of Education, the following goals have been established as necessary to achieve common curriculum, instruction and assessments in Hinsdale Township High School District 86:
- Common Courses: Developing and implementing a common set of courses that will be taught in both schools.
- Common Textbooks: Implement common textbooks that will be used in both schools.
- Common Fees: Creating a common set of course fees that will meet the needs of the courses in both schools.
- Common Curriculum: Creating a common curriculum for each course in both schools.
- Common Final Exams: Creating a comprehensive common final exam for each course.
- Common Anchor Assessments: Creating common anchor assessments for each course.”
This so-called “curriculum equity” will be phased in over the next three years, characterized by District 86 Superintendent Bruce Law as, “the biggest curriculum change in the history of District 86, without question.” (Soon to be “ex-District 86 employee Law” as he has accepted a position in Deerfield/Highland Park High School District #113 to be its superintendent, effective July 1.) To those unfamiliar with how schools and teachers actually work, these might seem like reasonable, laudatory goals: Equal education for everyone—who could be opposed to that? However, despite seemingly good intentions, all of these objectives would harm the education of District 86 students, except for common courses to be offered at both schools (maybe) and for fees to be the same. At the very least, pursuing Goals 2, 4, 5, and 6 will waste significant amounts of teaching time and taxpayer money, both of which could be put to much better use.
In case you didn’t know, a fundamental tenet of teaching and education is that each and every student, classroom, teacher, and school is unique and requires individualized methods and approaches. If this is true, as I fervently believe it is, trying to standardize two separate and different schools is a fool’s errand doomed to failure. First and foremost, this kind of standardization ignores that we all bring different skill sets and backgrounds to everything we do. Parents should be the first to recognize this since they can raise two children in what they think are identical ways only to see them turn out completely differently. One loves to read, while the other has little interest in anything printed but readily absorbs anything he hears; the oldest thrives on challenges, while the youngest wilts at the first sign of difficulty; the daughter will seek out any social situation she can, while the son needs significant amounts of isolation to function well. That every situation and human being is one-of-a-kind is hardly a startling revelation, but it appears that District 86 leaders are ignoring this basic truth in the hopes of placating those who show little understanding of how educational institutions work and would vote No if Central has one more AP section than South.
Each of the thirty-three years I taught, I had to make constant adjustments in what would happen every day in my classes based on the needs and abilities of my students. Class activities, materials, and assessments needed regular revisions since one group was extremely lively and quick to pick things up while another shrank from taking any intellectual risks and thrived on seat work. You simply cannot assume that any class will respond in the same way or have the same skills as another, during the same school year, much less from year to year or in different schools. Even individual classes will need approach changes during the course of the year; emotional and physical development peak during adolescence and you would be an idiot to assume that the most effective way to interact with a particular sophomore at the beginning of the school year wouldn’t need revision by May as the school year progressed.
Teachers likewise cannot be squeezed into the same mold and be expected to run their classrooms in the identical ways. One might use class discussions most effectively while right next door, a different teacher will get better results with small-group work, and a third has success with students writing individual answers down to be shared in class presentations. And yes, those teachers could all be teaching the same scientific concept, piece of literature, or historical era with similarly good results. Standardizing teaching has never succeeded and never will—it contradicts fundamental human nature and should not be formalized as a district-wide goal.
Thus, forcing teachers to use identical materials, texts, assignments, and assessments has no chance of coming close to successful implementation. But the school board has trumpeted “Curriculum Equity” as crucial to the future of the district, and it appears that everyone else in leadership roles has signed on. But you can be sure there is a sizable portion of the two teaching staffs who view this initiative with deep skepticism if not outright hostility. Resistance will be significant and efforts to chase this folly will be countered with deception and circumvention from many teachers. It will require significant administrative pressure to get independent, intelligent, experienced teachers (which describes the South and Central staffs) to conform to new standards and materials selected by others and forced on them. Even if teachers “accept” the new texts, for example, you can be sure that many of them will rarely use them; and why would parents want them to when they have used different, superior materials which have been proven effective over the course of years? I’ve witnessed this countless times during my teaching career. You have no idea what “passive/aggressive behavior” means if you have never sat in a department meeting where an administrator is explaining some new top-down initiative that has little support from the rank and file—many teachers will nod and smile as the unwanted procedure or material is presented and raise no objections, despite having absolutely no intention of even giving it a try, much less devoting the time and effort needed for total implementation. And why on Earth would anyone want teachers to abandon things which have been shown to work because of some administrative edict, especially something designed to garner votes in a referendum rather than being based on student need or the best educational practices for that teacher’s situation?
There could even be teachers filing grievances through their union over this once administrators start to crack down on anyone who resists changing successful programs and practices used with excellent results for many years. The Illinois collective bargaining law requires that school districts negotiate “wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.” “Other conditions of employment” is the key here since that catchall category could encompass school boards requiring specific texts. Once a teacher is disciplined for failure to use a designated text book or using something other than a mandated test, that text or test would thus become something teachers had to do: a condition of employment. If a principal or superintendent threatens a teacher with job-action as the result of the teacher’s refusal to use a certain exam, a teacher should comply with the request (insubordination is not acceptable when filing a grievance), but could then insist the union (Hinsdale High School Teachers Association—HHSTA—in this case) file a “demand to bargain” on that issue as required by law. Should the district stand firm that using a certain exam is, in fact, a condition of employment—that a teacher will be disciplined and possibly fired if he doesn’t use them—then the district could be forced to re-open contract negotiations in order to bargain this new clause into the teachers’ contract. How do I know this? Well, a few years ago, a certain English teacher at Hinsdale South (who also happened to be South’s HHSTA Grievance Chair) objected to being forced to use the school’s on-line grading program—which didn’t allow him to maintain a grading system he’d been using for twenty years and which he had proof was successful— and informed his bosses that he would be filing a demand to bargain grade program requirements for teachers. A brief legal consultation or two later, the administrators recognized the reality of the law and backed off. So after a couple of weeks of complying with my boss’s order that I use the program, I never used it again, except to enter grades at the ends of quarters (we still had quarters way back when).
So, in addition to rampant passive resistance from teachers who will seemingly acquiesce to the new common curriculum but quietly do exactly what they did before, you will also have a few who go through the motions of accepting the top-down edicts but insist on time-consuming negotiations over the terms of how this new policy works.
We also should not forget the fundamental flaw in this curricular approach—the population of each school is different from the other. There are many ways to parse those differences, but there are really only two which have been shown over and over again to have a significant impact on how well students achieve in school: Parental level of education and socio-economic status both relate to student success in school, and Central’s parents have always been more educated and wealthier overall than South’s. With 6% low income students at Central compared to South’s 31%, it makes little sense to demand the same curriculum for both schools. From numbers of minority students to those who need after-school jobs to those with a single parent to those with two-income households, the school communities are different. That the curriculum offerings reflect those differences is the reality of public schools. Yet, the educational heights South students can reach compare favorably with any student body in the country: District 86 has done an outstanding job in providing educational opportunities to each and every student fortunate enough to attend either school. Unfortunately, the district leadership has never been particularly adept at publicizing this fact—disparities in test scores and numbers of advanced classes have been misinterpreted as signs of inferiority at South, rather than different starting points for some students, many of whom are NOT products of area elementary schools
And how successful can a program be when it has to be forced on teachers? State mandates have proven over the years that outside pressures do little to enhance educational practices. As part of the No Child Left Behind law of the Bush administration, schools were required to come up with some kind of reward system for students. Hinsdale South formed a committee, led by an assistant principal, which came up with a stamp system: Students caught being “good” would receive a Hornet stamp in their school-issued planners. (Every teacher was supplied with a Hornet stamper and an ink pad.) Once they had accumulated enough stamps, students would qualify for some privileges or prizes. Yep, they actually had drawings in the school where students could win an i-Pod, parking space for a week, or a TV. Thankfully, this practice died quickly, but not before countless hours of planning and implementation—to say nothing of the taxpayer money for stamps, prizes, and curriculum work—had been wasted. Yet every teacher who sat through the first-day institute where this new process was introduced could have told you—at that very moment—this program had no chance of anything but ridicule and disappearance into the mythology of really bad, expensive ideas.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that more communication between the two schools about what is being taught isn’t a good thing. While I worked at South, I regularly criticized the district for its lack of inter-school activities and how little time teachers from the two schools ever spent with each other: The last three years I worked in District 86 (2009-12), the only times the English Departments of the two buildings ever met on school time was once a year for half an institute day. And for all three of those years, a guest speaker was brought in so that the only interaction between South and Central teachers occurred in the fifteen minutes before the speaker began and the ten minutes when everyone was leaving. Don’t misconstrue my objections to the “identical” goals of the school board as an objection to more communication between District 86 teachers. One of the few positive trends in public education over the past few years has been a recognition that teachers need more time to talk to one another, to interact without students present, to share their successes and concerns in order to learn from each other. THAT should be the goal of the board of education, not this misguided attempt to get principals and department chairs to homogenize the two schools. Instead of outside influences, experts, and expensive evaluation packages, just letting the freshmen English teachers at the two schools spend some time together would do wonders for helping both schools coordinate objectives, share materials, and gain insights into making each teacher’s classroom better.
Nor am I opposed to common goals for both schools. While standardization is one of the worst words in public education today, standards are crucial. Nothing is more important than determining what a South or Central graduate should be capable of doing after four years, what that diploma means. But those goals—being able to write effectively depending on audience, for example—are subjective in nature and can’t be easily measured. Everybody would agree that a high school graduate should be a critical thinker, but critical thinking today faces challenges unheard of thirty years ago—the Internet, 24-hour news reporting, and thousands of new media choices have complicated and altered the challenges of teaching clear thinking. From attitudes toward sexual orientation to climate change debates, it’s harder for students to find truth; but the responsibility of helping them figure it out continues to fall largely on teachers. Addressing the best ways to tackle those issues only intensifies the need for teacher-to-teacher communication on a regular basis and illustrates how silly it is to have administrators and school board members mandate a one-size-fits-all approach. Teachers will still need to make individual choices based on specific classroom situations, but having other resources to lean on is vital to figuring all this out.
The last thing those teachers need, however, is some bloated, bureaucratic, slow-moving entity above them issuing edicts on the only way to deal with the complexities of our society and the intricacies of educating young people; e.g. telling them what curriculum, textbook, and test they have to use. Yet, that’s exactly what District 86 is now promoting as somehow a step forward for equity. Anyone with experience in working within an organization can tell you how pointless it is for isolated leaders—most of whom don’t even teach classes—to claim omniscience when it comes to the daily functions of those down the line. Trying to standardize something as complicated as a high school course with some 25 unique teenagers enrolled makes absolutely no sense. To placate a few individuals who might change their votes in order to gain additional funding, the school board is abdicating its responsibility to provide the best education for the students of District 86. While I’m pretty sure that teachers will undermine this foolish plan and most of the damage this move would inflict on the schools will be mitigated, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when teachers have to hide what they’re doing in order to serve their students’ best interests. That’s precisely the scenario this new initiative will lead to.
Sadly, it may be too late for this bad decision to be reversed. Already heralded in the media with no negative reaction from anyone that I have heard, the curriculum equity movement seems destined to be official District 86 policy as administrators force teachers to modify their courses to fit the demands of those who know virtually nothing about how those courses currently work. Given the HHSTA’s support of the referendum—significant funds from the HHSTA’s state organization (the Illinois Education Association) were used to campaign for the defeated November proposal—there might be little vocalized opposition to this misguided plan. But I can guarantee you that a significant number of District 86 teachers will resist. Whether this takes the form of passively ignoring stupidity from above or aggressively asserting rights to negotiate working conditions as provided under the law, the board’s actions will only result in more wasted time and money. And that’s pretty ironic in a district claiming to be unable to fund football or band next year. “Curriculum equity” is not a valid concept in evaluating whether or not District 86’s proposed referendum should be approved, much less lauded as a sound educational practice. Here’s hoping common sense will eventually rule the day, and the board will back away from forcing changes which will only hurt the schools in a futile attempt to convince the community that both schools are the same.
If you’d like to read more on District 86, check out this section of my blog. For more on teaching and education in general, my e-book is also available.
Autonomy Does Not Preclude Accountability
One of the key dichotomies for teachers in public schools, especially when you speak of education reform, is autonomy versus accountability. Many experts and politicians regularly attack the current system as providing too many protections which enable teachers to avoid being held accountable. Those against teacher tenure, unions, and collective bargaining rights emphasize how those things shield teachers from being called to task for academic outcomes; when employees in business don’t deliver demonstrable results (increased sales, more profits, or work productivity), the reasoning goes, they are subject to being fired with little recourse: Produce or get out. Teachers, on the other hand, (as claimed over and over by tenure foes) achieve job protection early in their careers and are never again under any pressure to do anything except show up and get a paycheck, regardless of lackluster results, typically as shown by standardized tests.
But people like me will counter that without commitment, dedication, and creativity in our teachers, our kids won’t get a quality education. Teachers coerced, demeaned, and rated like brands of toothpaste will not be happy in their work, nor will the most talented individuals be attracted to a profession which is not valued in terms of either prestige or monetary reward. I have always wanted my children to have motivated, energized, happy people teaching them; and the best teachers have always insisted on a certain amount of freedom to conduct their classrooms as they saw fit. Although we’ll discuss how curricular decisions need to be determined collectively as well as updated frequently, individual teachers need to feel in charge when it comes to their classrooms which can only come through a sense of autonomy, the belief that what you are doing matters and that you have control over how you do your job.
And that’s one reason teacher unions have come to play an important role in getting teachers some freedom. It would be quite disingenuous of me not to let you know that I was a union activist over my 33-year teaching career: Not only did I teach junior high and high school English, but I also served in my teachers’ unions in several positions for the bulk of that time, as local president, contract negotiator, and grievance chair for example. Obviously that experience does color my perceptions on this issue, so you’ll have to keep in mind I am decidedly pro-union when I analyze how public schools can improve. It will come as no surprise, then, that I support tenure, collective bargaining laws, and independent teachers. I’ve explained all the reasons why many times before: You can check out other essays on my blog (or if you’d like even more detail, my book) to get those explanations more specifically. But like that quick take above, unless teachers are enthusiastic and motivated (aka autonomous), your kids won’t learn as much as they could. If you want your teachers to give their best and work their hardest, you’d better be sure they like what they do. Treating them like interchangeable, faceless clerks who need to stock the shelves with material you have forced on them while insisting they handle that material in identical, proscribed ways—which is what some claim as necessary “reform”—will not create the environment or workplace morale which can enhance the education of our country’s children.
But if patronizing standardization isn’t the answer, leaving teachers wholly to their own devices isn’t either. One persistent issue over the years has been how the quality of instruction varies from teacher to teacher and school to school. Because teachers have been largely tossed into their classrooms without much day-to-day support, there is no question that some have floundered more than they should. Don’t get me wrong: I believe floundering is one of the best learning tools for anyone in a new job, and I heartily endorse a healthy amount. Learning by doing is the fastest way to become competent, so trying lots of different things in order to figure out what works is one of the best ways for new teachers to grow. (Be sure to catch my enlightening workshop: “Floundering—Going Down with Style” coming soon to your child’s desperate-to-fill-institute-time school district. And no, I don’t really explain anything during the three-day workshop; good teachers will flounder around until they figure it out on their own!) Really, I’m not sure I’d want to keep any teacher on staff who believed he had all the answers after teaching for one year; making mistakes, second-guessing lesson plans, and the Sunday-night “dreads” (becoming uncomfortable as the wonder of your school-free weekend fades into the reality of the approaching Monday morning) all help motivate young teachers to figure things out, to get better. But like all “good” things, too much struggle can lead to habitual bad techniques, cutting corners, and out-of-control classes. All of which leads us right back to the original American Enterprise Institute article which has stimulated my last three essays (Numbers one and two are still available if you haven’t read them.)
Those essays and that article review the ambitious goals two schools implemented with teachers providing students with challenging curriculums and pushing the highest standards, while being provided with quality resources in the form of up-to-date facilities and opportunities to collaborate. But we also discovered that no matter what anyone tells you, no two schools will require exactly the same treatment: Many outside factors (parental support, community educational background, and available resources—to name a few) play a role in how ready students are for the material they are expected to handle. Forcing all schools to follow the same path to achieving those high-level standards is not only a foolish goal, but logistically impossible. Classrooms are always inhabited by unique sets of human beings who must cooperate and concentrate to complete purposeful actions in the hopes of attaining something useful (knowledge). That’s a challenging, complex set of variables which will interact in a myriad of ways. Results will never be constant because it’s impossible to control all the things which will impact the final outcome. Not only will each individual and class react in one-of-a-kind ways based on their unique backgrounds, but you also have the wild-card factor of rapidly changing/growing young people. There’s no question that you will see a large change in both students’ personalities and habits from kindergarteners through seniors in high school. I certainly did as the school year progressed in the students who made up the bulk of my 33-year teaching career, ninth graders (fourteen going on fifteen)—a first-quarter freshman can be very different from that same human being in the fourth quarter. Blend all those ingredients together and you can have a significant variance from year to year with a single teacher and the same curriculum. That’s not speculation; that is a fact, as any teacher will tell you.
But good teachers will focus more on what they can do to “fix” whatever doesn’t work well, rather than fixating on all the other variables. Understanding those things which impact readiness for and obstacles to learning is one thing; using them as an excuse to give less than maximum effort cannot be acceptable in a teaching staff. And right there you have the rock and hard place of teaching: Teachers can never stop doing their utmost to provide students with the opportunity to learn, but they have to accept that there are many factors beyond their control which can impede progress. The challenge for teachers is to ensure a baseline performance which meets the minimum standards which have been collectively worked out by the school’s community. No, those should not be left entirely up to any one teacher; this is a key issue for accountability: Teachers have to understand that simply because they disagree with or haven’t signed off on parts of the curriculum doesn’t mean they shouldn’t teach them or work just as hard to help students attain the goals which have been mutually worked out over the years. Because of those non-academic items which affect every child’s capabilities to achieve standards, teachers must recognize that the curriculum which has evolved for any one school is the product of many years’ experience and work from other teachers, administrators, school boards, and community members. A school’s “culture,” therefore, is much too significant for any individual to ignore, and new teachers have to learn the larger gestalt in which they work. But equally important is that every teacher has a vital role to play in that culture’s progression.
Accountability, then, is based on the way a teacher fits into a school’s process. All too often, teachers are given little education on the background of their school—what the community expects and how that has been changed over the course of decades. Instead, they are assigned classes to teach, textbooks to use, and provided no help figuring out how they can use their unique talents to assist their students to achieve established standards. And those standards might not be very clearly spelled out either; teachers have to learn those mostly on their own, too. Finally, even less time is spent helping new teachers to understand how they are a crucial part of evaluating and modifying the curriculum from which the standards flow, that their opinion based on their own experiences will now contribute to how the school operates. No matter how many decades more one teacher has been teaching than another, both the first-year rookie and the thirty-year veteran will have roughly the same number of students to teach; and thus equal responsibility for the school’s success or failure.
But because schools generally do not foster a sense of teacher community, instead leaving that mostly to chance, every school has developed extremely varied identities which will veer positively or negatively, way too dependent on the charisma or quirks of individual teachers, principals, superintendents, and school boards. Teachers have to fight to be heard, and most never even understand how important they are to the school’s function. Instead, they have shielded themselves from the capriciousness which regularly seems to flow from their bosses, politicians, and communities, accepting responsibility only for what happens in their classrooms and ignoring their rightful place as an important piece of the larger picture (often using the insulation provided by strong unions to stay out of the fray).
But as we noted last time, the trend in many schools is toward more time for teachers to plan and work together, which could help develop that unified purpose, that feeling of community which allows the sum to be much greater than that of the parts. And you can rest assured that once a sense of teachers’ belonging, involvement, and being valued as important to the school has been instilled in a school, that school’s teachers will expect all members of their community be accountable for their efforts toward that end goal. The widely criticized tenure process is supposed to be a trial period for new teachers, a time to evaluate if they have what it takes to join the rest of the teachers as shareholders in “ownership” of the school and its legacy. Tenure is a significant achievement, not because it guarantees lifetime employment, but rather because it means a teacher is now a full-fledged, accepted member of the staff, a partner in the firm. When you work with kids, you have to feel like what you’re doing is significant, that it matters. Which of course, teaching does.
Consider the memorable people with whom you have interacted over the years. The odds are high you will list at least one teacher among the top two or three important non-family influences in helping you to become the person you are. Granted, teachers do spend a great deal of time with the community’s children and are entrusted to make sure their students are provided with worthwhile learning opportunities. But that quantity only emphasizes how important quality matters in teachers who are shaping our communities of the future. I feel a personal disappointment/responsibility that with over 3,000 of my ex-students now eligible voters, Trump could ever come close to being elected President. I do take some solace on Illinois’s overwhelming support for Hillary, but still… Regardless of my overblowing my own importance in Presidential elections, every person who attended public schools bears the impact of many teachers; they participate in the growth and development of all of us. We tend to ignore their importance in how our society turns out, but after family, teachers are the most significant influence on our kids.
Accountability, then, can become institutionalized once teachers who actively participate in their schools’ curriculums and cultures work more closely with those new to the profession. It’s already happened to some extent in virtually every excellent school in the country. The challenge is figuring out the correct environment which allows that culture to develop so the process is not so haphazard. The encouraging trends of permitting teachers more time to interact through more student late-arrival days and the increased numbers of teachers working together to team teach are definitely steps toward helping teachers to learn their schools’ cultures more thoroughly. It will also lead to everyone’s becoming more familiar with each other’s methodology which can only lead to inexperienced teachers learning how to do better and skilled teachers to a clearer understanding which teachers need help or another career. No, the veterans won’t try to create clones of themselves—that would take way too much time and work, given their normally busy schedules. But as all teachers get more time to interact with their colleagues, they will instill a sense of mission in each other that accepts nothing less than hard work, dedication to common goals, and a ruthless devotion to finding even better techniques, materials, and/or technologies to increase their effectiveness. Those who can’t or won’t commit to that level of performance should be obvious to everyone, certainly during the multi-year probationary period currently in place prior to achieving tenure, and politely but firmly shown the door.
And that’s without even getting into my challenge that if the current tenure process is used as it was designed to function (at least here in Illinois, one of the more “liberal” teacher union states), it will effectively police the teaching profession. Accountability coupled with autonomy in schools already exists; you need only look to those which are successful and you will discover its proliferation. The question is how to replicate that atmosphere more consistently and systematically: Setting up situations where teachers have the time to cooperate with each other is the single best way to ensure an accountable outcome and a more robust school culture filled with autonomous teachers.
For more on how public schools can be improved, you can check out my e-book, excerpts of which can be seen here.
Two More Public School Ambitions
Last time, we took a look at an article—in the American Enterprise Institute’s What to Do: Policy Recommendations for 2017 series, included in the K-12 Education section—where AEI researchers summarized three key approaches used in two charter schools sponsored by the University of Chicago. The first, “Provide an ambitious model of instruction,” led us to many digressions on how we determine what the model should look like: Since that area includes what’s in the curriculum, what methods are used to impart that curriculum, and to what standards students are held as evidence of meeting those goals, it’s a gnarly topic—and it’s pretty much everything that matters most about education. So naturally, the debate over how public schools can maintain excellence when that’s what they deliver, improve when it isn’t, and the ways we can tell the differences between the two has been anything but smooth or consensual.
Rather than review that contentious recent past (or rail against the present, given who is now leading our country on educational policy), we need to look at the second two “ambitious” principles good schools need to incorporate, according to the AEI. (I keep referencing this very conservative policy source because it’s relevant that two parties—the AEI and me—typically so far apart in our opinions on…well, almost everything else, can agree on these fundamental premises.) Those other two ambitions would be as follows: Schools should “organize teachers’ work to provide ambitious instruction, and (school systems need to) provide broad supports for ambitious instruction.”
Of course, we’re back to debatable abstractions, but there’s really no way to organize and support ambitious instruction without more time for teachers to interact with each other. There is much truth to the assertion in this article that as schools exist right now, teachers are left to their own devices too much. The AEI sees current practices as teacher-centric, that teachers develop into divas, one-of-a-kind artists who free-lance and expect to be able to do whatever they want since they know everything, almost as though teachers went into education solely to flaunt their individual skills, prima donnas who never have their egos checked. They also complain that teachers claim no one can question what they do since only teachers understand what is needed. (Did I mention that AEI and I often diverge in our views?) No, I wouldn’t phrase it that way, but in the spirit of trying to find educational foundations on which all can agree, I’m overlooking their slight negativity toward my ex-colleagues. (I could never have been accused of arrogance during my 33 years in the classroom—truly, I didn’t consider myself to be half as wonderful as I actually was.) Instead, I would point out that the workloads and schedules of teachers don’t allow for enough time to interact in any significant way on curricular/methodological/evaluative standards. (That bit about nobody questioning their expertise will be addressed next time.)
Regardless of our disagreement over the evolution of teachers’ isolation in enacting crucial educational issues, we do agree that teachers need to work together to develop approaches to all those important pedagogical questions.
But they can’t be expected to generate methodologies, goals, or standards which are the same as any other school’s. In the first part of our analysis of these ambitions, we pointed out how any single set of standards applied uniformly to every school will not succeed. The needs, backgrounds, and abilities of American students simply won’t cooperate with such a limited view. For proof of that just look to the failure of the Common Core’s evaluative arm, the PARCC tests. which some 63% of the 42 states who are still using the Core’s standards have stopped administering. It’s especially easy to understand the folly of trying to administer any standards uniformly: For example, we all agree with the goal that high school graduates should have high levels of critical reading skills. But we’re likely to part company when it comes to how we measure progress toward that goal, what evaluation instrument we use to assess it, and the grading scale we use for different sets of students—and let’s not even get started in how we would define “critical reading skills!” Each school has to consider its students’ previous educational experiences, natural ability, family support, economic status, and national/state/local financial investment before tailoring the educational curriculum, winding up with different approaches to that overall objective, different ways to evaluate progress towards it, and different levels of achievement deemed as acceptable. It just isn’t realistic to demand the same results from wildly varying starting points. (This is the issue Senator Al Franken tried to get then-nominee, now Secretary of Education DeVos to discuss when he asked for her stance on the proficiency vs. growth debate. She had no clue what he was talking about, which is another significant problem we currently face.)
The only answer to this challenge, then, is to allow individual schools latitude in determining how to assess where students begin, where they finish, and which approaches work best to aid that growth. And if we expect harried teachers to do all this in a directed, coordinated way, we’ll have to get them the time to work together and provide them with the resources they need to get the job done.
We’ll talk about accountability, which has become a huge public relations issue (aka: buzzword, smokescreen, distraction) in the future, but the real problem with these two ambitions will be that they cost money. I worked in two school districts (Itasca Elementary #10 and Hinsdale High School #86) which did an excellent job in providing the resources I needed to do my job: supplies were abundant, technology was good if not cutting edge (I don’t believe you ever want state-of-the-art electronics since it means you’re paying double for something that still has major bugs in it, compared to the duller-but-significantly-more-reliable-and-cheaper versions down the road), and the facilities were well-maintained. (My chief complaint at my first school—which was having to compete with noise from O’Hare’s takeoffs and landings every few minutes on some days—got solved just a couple of years after I left with soundproofing and air-conditioning. My big complaint at my second school—stifling classrooms for many days each school year—got taken care of the first year after I retired with air-conditioning for the entire building. Clearly, I was the key obstacle to building improvements where I worked.)
The money problem is definitely tied to the way public education is funded: Here in Illinois, property taxes dominate, meaning wealthy areas have great schools, including facilities. Recent legislation has attempted to even out some of the disparities through larger state contributions to poorer districts, but we’re a long way from anything remotely resembling equity when it comes to public education funding. (And even the modest steps made in Illinois were partially offset by a tax break for those who choose to send their children to parochial schools and the elimination of the crucial requirement that students have physical education every day.) In other words, fair school financing is one of those huge issues that creates too-large an explanation/digression for my purposes here. Rest assured, I do have suggestions for better ways to fund public education (see my e-Book for much more on this), but we’ll have to put off getting into that one again, at least for now. It is an important key, absolutely.
But the time issue is more manageable since there are economical ways to address it that don’t require millions of dollars to be levied by a taxing body (local and/or state); they will, however, mean reassessing the traditional school day as well as how teachers interact.
More time for teachers to work together is clearly a trend in area schools: My daughter’s Downers Grove High School District #99 has begun late arrival days, for example; most Mondays this school year will begin at 9:20 A.M. Teachers will report at their usual 7:20, providing two hours each week for more collaboration. Other school districts in the area have also begun working more staff time into their schedules. Given how much teachers have to get done as it is, this time will have to be planned carefully to assure quality collaborative opportunities, lest busy teachers circumvent the program’s intent by using the time to do regular class work (grade papers, record scores, contact parents, fill out forms, and the like). Despite the potential pitfalls, this type of teachers-working-with-teachers space is exactly what the goal of more “organizing teachers for ambitious instruction” is all about.
Another positive sign is that more peer coaches are becoming available. Many school districts now regularly grant release time (typically one less teaching period) to free up classroom teachers to assist other teachers with tasks with which they might need help. From using technology to reading techniques to mentoring younger teachers, it is always easier to ask a colleague a question, not to mention your colleague’s expertise is based on actual teaching experience. You’d be surprised at how high a percentage of the scant time allowed for institutes during my thirty-three-year career was spent with outside experts who didn’t have any first-hand knowledge of my school and students; you’d be even more shocked that a significant percentage of those trying to instruct me didn’t even have any teaching experience or education background at all. Giving teachers assignments where they can help other teachers is a much better way to spend institute money that is currently used on outside experts, who provide mixed results (and that’s being kind).
Finally and most significantly, more teachers are being allowed to work together. Right now, this occurs mostly when special education teachers work in regular/average classrooms with the subject area teacher. The special ed teacher is primarily there to service the students in the class with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) who have had a learning or psychological issue documented. These students might otherwise be in special education classes. The unintended upside is that the more integrated the teachers become as they work together, the less any differences are perceived by everyone. It’s just two teachers in the same class teaching everyone. This can be beneficial for the non-IEP students in understanding that students with differences are just like them and don’t need segregation or being singled out for those differences; however, it can have an invigorating impact on the teachers as well. They come to understand each other’s subject matter, learn state regulations/mandates, and help each other to utilize methodology they might not otherwise know about.
That last benefit is a key to helping schools get the most out of their teachers. Most outside experts come into a school with “all” the answers: some program or approach they insist, if properly applied (which generally means a hefty investment in whatever they’re selling—usually consultation services, software, texts, workbooks, and/or courses), will dramatically improve any school…forever! That we’re having this discussion at all shows you just how well those promises turn out. But teachers—who spend their days doing the same things other teachers do AND who have the time to impart to others the special skills/insights they possess—are infinitely more helpful and useful to faculties. Not only do they know the technology, technique, or methodology better than others, but even more importantly for making that specialized skill beneficial, they understand what teachers in their buildings need and want. As was pointed out earlier, teachers are used to going solo in the classroom and can be reluctant to confess weakness or ignorance to others. But working with a colleague you’ve known for years makes it much easier to ask that awkward question and get an answer which might unleash some beneficial tactic for helping students.
Cooperative teams working together to improve worker productivity has been standard in most large corporations for quite some time now, but schools still tend to operate with dozens of independent entrepreneurs who don’t communicate with each other all that often. But even more radical (translated: expensive) solutions are possible: I’ve speculated about some in my eBook, and in another blog entry suggested a way for new teachers to be incorporated into a staff through a cooperative program where new teachers and veterans are assigned the same class for a year. Assuming the benefits of this idea are as bountiful as I believe they would be, the concept could be expanded to having all teachers work cooperatively with another to teach classes on a regular schedule. Coupled with the increased collaboration time we’ve already seen many school districts incorporating, we could see increasingly effective schools in no time.
And this cooperative teaching model wouldn’t be limited to teachers—every administrator should be required (although I would prefer the term “granted the privilege”) to teach at least one class every school year as well. As was shown in the schools the AEI found to be successful, not to mention the countries where school systems have been highly rated for years, when educators have the opportunity to work together, they will find answers to the specific challenges their unique schools face much more effectively than when teachers are left in their current isolation with only outside experts pretending to know what is best.
This ambitious agenda definitely places more control with individual schools and teachers rather than a centralized bureaucracy (like county, state, or federal governments), which inevitably leads to concerns about accountability. We’ll take on that issue next time.
For more on how public schools can be improved, you can check out my e-book, excerpts of which can be seen here.
Ambitious Education I
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is not an organization with which I normally agree, as I have discussed before. From the environment to taxation to consumer protections, we tend to diverge: They prefer fewer controls and less government involvement in most things, while I believe the government must play a significant role in order for humans to progress, especially in areas where human greed and self-interest conflict with overall societal well-being . AEI’s most influential donors, the Koch brother billionaires, rarely support candidates I vote for (although I think we agreed on not voting for Trump), and their push to eliminate regulations and restrictions on their energy projects (coal and natural gas) scares me. But, this article, in AEI’s What to Do: Policy Recommendations for 2017 series, included in the K-12 Education section, is quite astute in its suggestions for how good schools should be run. Amid the pro-DeVos (I’m not) and we-need-more-charter-schools (we don’t) articles, they tucked in this one, “To Reform Education, Be Ambitious,” by Nat Malkus (AEI Research Fellow) and Ian Lindquist (AEI’s Program Manager of Education Policy Studies). Although “ambitious” might be a stretch, the process they outline is what many teachers have been advocating for a long time as really the only way to approach improving (where necessary) and maintaining (where already successful) public education.
Based on a book which analyzed steps taken in two University of Chicago charter schools, The Ambitious Elementary School (authored by University of Chicago’s Stephen Raudenbush and Lisa Rosen, along with Elizabeth McGhee Hassrick of Drexel University), Malkus and Lindquist cull their AEI presentation into three fundamental approaches all schools should incorporate into the way they operate: Provide an ambitious model of instruction, organize teachers’ work to provide ambitious instruction, and provide broad supports for ambitious instruction. In essence, what this means is that teachers need to be provided with appropriate resources so they can collectively cooperate to hold students to mutually developed high standards. That’s not particularly “ambitious,” especially to those of us familiar with how public education works in suburban areas with the financial means to provide good educational facilities. But it does at least get to the heart of what it takes to have a good school without going off on tangents which demean teachers or attack their unions (which tends to be more typical of the “conservative” approach to education). In an era of polarization, that a group like the AEI can produce anything with which those in education can use as a basis for discussion, is pretty good, so this ex-union activist will do his level best to meet them halfway. (I’m no longer a member of the education world, having retired after thirty-three years of teaching.)
Briefly delving into the first Principle of Ambition, providing an ambitious model of instruction simply means each and every student should be pushed, should break an intellectual sweat, should be expected to achieve. That’s pretty basic, and I would expect it to be a given at any public school. The challenge, though, is working out the best ways to do that, which is at the heart of a significant portion of the reform movement and its many controversies: Is tracking (ability grouping) the best way to enhance student outcomes? Can you get the most out of special needs students in main-streamed or separate classes? How do the answers to those first two issues combine to work in schools with diverse ranges of abilities? How can we know that students are progressing at acceptable rates? Does providing school choice enhance or detract from the overall educational outcomes? Who determines what those outcomes should be? An ambitious model of instruction has always been the clear mission for public education; our democracy depends upon clear-thinking citizens, and that will only happen if their education is rigorous. But just what that should look like has been difficult to define or assess (plus, those previous questions are just a few of the dozens confronting public schools), which has led to countless school reform battles.
We need only look at one of the more recent attempts to sort that out to see the challenges: The Common Core. No one can read the standards set forth in the Core and fault them as unworthy goals. Problems, however, quickly arose on how best to apply them, how to measure progress towards them, and how well the grade-level objectives matched up with any school’s students. As of this year, only three of forty-five states which adopted the Core’s standards have totally dropped out, but a whopping twenty-six will no longer use the recommended Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) tests to determine how students are progressing toward those standards. And of all the testing being done, only twelve states require passing the required tests in order to graduate from high school. In other words, standardized testing is still being done, but using a variety of different instruments with few consequences for those who do poorly. Thus, we’re still seeking an answer to how we can find reliable ways to determine exactly how effective any public school might be.
Yet, there are many school districts in the country which are producing excellent results, if you consider how well their graduates function in society. So, there must be some things which are working. We need to look more closely into the reasons these schools succeed. Clearly (in light of the Common Core’s white hot controversy during its brief existence), a single set of standards universally applied to all students will not be effective; each school has to work towards finding the correct balance of challenging its students at the appropriate levels without overwhelming them to the point where discouragement sets in. Somewhere between getting an A for showing up and students’ failing despite intense effort is the sweet spot, but that huge range shows how difficult it will be to locate just where it is. And as is pointed out by Malkus and Lindquist, an excellent way to get there is to have an individualized plan for each and every student, a tough benchmark to reach when teachers deal with 25 kids or more at a time (and for many, 150+ in a single day). That focus on rigorous objective standards, however, still needs to be of paramount importance since success can never be achieved unless everyone is clear on just what that success should look like. But at the same time we can’t forget that each unique student requires his/her own measure of success, that one-size-fits-all instruction can never be effective for all students. And yet… You can see the challenges which public education will always present classroom teachers when on the one hand, unique students require unique approaches, but high school diplomas need to be based on similar standards.
Therefore, teachers need to focus on finished products (graduates) who meet a high level of achievement, but must adjust their techniques for reaching that standard constantly to match the unique skill set each student has. And we have seen public education yanked back and forth between those two poles over and over again. School choice proponents, for example, push toward more individualized needs: The school to which my kid was assigned doesn’t meet her needs, so I’m going to shop around until I can find a school that does. Accountability advocates, though, pull back in the other direction, arguing for standardized tests based on objective data which will rank students and schools according to a fixed scale, with little room for any qualifying comments or extenuating circumstances.
The hard thing, then, with any attempts to distill the desired ambitious model of instruction into practical applications is figuring out how to apply those disparate objectives in schools which differ so dramatically in their needs since students come with varying abilities and backgrounds.
My experience in junior high (eight years) and high school (twenty-five years) suggests this needs to be clearly and specifically analyzed much more often than is typical. Schools are classic examples of institutions which tend not to see the forest for the trees: The day-to-day tasks of planning for each class period, never-ending paperwork, administrative demands, and state/federal mandates (to name a few non-teaching issues) all too often leave little time for high level, more abstract discussions of what exactly the students need to be able to do, what activities will help them reach those skills, and what means teachers will use to determine how well those skills have been achieved. Oh…and those discussions need to be supplemented with insights into different learning styles as well as finding myriads of methods to individualize instruction as much as possible given the one-of-a-kind abilities each student possesses. During my teaching career in two middle-to-upper-middle-class schools, we rarely had the time for those discussions; even our institute time was largely devoted either to administrative “initiatives” typically designed to incorporate some state or federal mandate, or to outside “experts” who would come in and try to convince us that they knew better than we did how to teach our kids.
We won’t get an ambitious model of instruction unless our teachers can work together to resolve—at the building level—how to reconcile those competing goals of all students reaching challenging, important standards coupled with instruction which tailors a school’s curriculum to the idiosyncratic needs of each student. You can hardly be expected to figure out a plan of action to achieve that during a couple of meetings of entire faculties for a few hours two days before school starts. (Most districts begin the school year with one or two teacher institute days, and those days are often up to 50% of the allotted teacher training time for the year.) And we must accept that how those key issues are resolved will vary from school to school (and even within the departments of specific schools). Teacher A’s school has a history of academic excellence in an affluent area with students proceeding on to elite colleges as their parents closely monitor every test; Teacher B has many English-deficient, economically disadvantaged students who would be the first in their family to graduate from high school, with little parental participation due to crushing work schedules and single-parent households. To expect the same ambitious method of instruction in those two schools is more than short-sighted—it is a waste of time and resources. We need to be able to get to a place where those on site have the means to work through the knotty issues of achievement as contrasted with student needs.
And that’s where the AEI article offers some beneficial ideas on how schools can walk that tightrope. Next time, we’ll take a look at the other two ambitious goals which, if applied appropriately, could lead to much better balance.
For more on how public schools can be improved, you can check out my e-book, excerpts of which can be seen here.
Hinsdale Township High School District 86: New Year, Same Problem
As the 2017-18 school year begins, one district continues to deal with an old problem. If you’re at all familiar with the attendance-balancing conundrum faced by Hinsdale Township High School District 86, home to Hinsdale South and Hinsdale Central High Schools, the news that the school board is planning to hire a public opinion research firm to figure out what the community believes should be done to solve the matter might have led you to some significant eye rolling. Since I taught English for twenty-five years at South, as well as having been active in the Hinsdale High School Teachers Association (HHSTA) for most of that time, I could only shake my head at the prospect of an outside agency being hired ($52,000 is the proposed budget) to gauge (gouge?) public sentiment while soliciting input on the solutions most favored by the community. Yet, I do understand the difficulty the board faces, which has led to this course of action.
In case you don’t know about all the drama in District 86 over attendance: For the past several years, Central’s student population has been rapidly growing while South’s is shrinking. On the most recent Illinois Report Card, Central had 1281 more students than South (2834 vs. 1553). More problematic is that Central’s numbers are above what district administrators feel the building can handle, while South is roughly 400 below its capacity. “Not much of a problem,” you might think, since it seems obvious that students could be moved from one high school to the other. And even if the district chose not to transfer any students who had already begun attending Central, you might conclude it would make sense to shift some incoming freshmen from Central to South each year, which would gradually even out both schools’ totals. But you would be very naive to underestimate how challenging either of those actions would really be.
You see, parents in the Central attendance adamantly do NOT want their children to go to South. This has been proven repeatedly whenever the board has even hinted at moving students. Last year, when the board broached the topic of changing the district’s “buffer” zone (an area in the middle of the district where parents can pick which of the two high schools their children attend—almost all choose Central) so that those students would now have to attend South, hundreds of parents showed up, with the overwhelming majority protesting the possibility of not being able to send their kids to Central. Soon thereafter, the board tabled even forming a committee to look at attendance issues, preferring to bury the matter in the overall strategic plan for the district. (For me, one particularly surreal moment occurred at that meeting when a board member apologized to Central parents for “stressing” them by considering shifting their kids to South.) Then, this past spring, the board attempted to pass a referendum which would have funded a Central building expansion to accommodate the growing Red Devil masses, effectively increasing the imbalance with an ever-growing Central campus. But district voters soundly rejected the proposal by a three-to-one margin.
If you’d like to read a more detailed account of all this (flavored liberally, of course, with my own insights), you could check out my other essays on this topic, starting chronologically with this one from May 2016, followed by another one in September that same year, topped off by this analysis after the referendum was voted down in April, 2017. While I heartily recommend this journey down memory lane in its entirety (and there are others, if you’re game), the bottom line of all this doesn’t offer any solutions which won’t anger a hearty portion of one section of the district or the other. Current Central parents will be livid if they can no longer send their kids to Central, and South folks will not be happy to see their taxes increased to add on to Central when there is more than adequate space already available in South. There really aren’t many solutions to this problem outside of these two, which would seem to lead to disgruntled residents no matter which is selected.
But you would misjudge human creativity if you felt those two options couldn’t be finessed to make them seem more palatable, or at least hidden—it’s just that those are the only two that follow the letter of the law and spend tax dollars most reasonably. Another couple of ideas floated over the years are even more radical or risk being horribly offensive and morally questionable. First, some have suggested merging the two schools, which would result in one campus inhabited by freshmen and sophomores, with the other populated by juniors and seniors. This new Hinsdale Township High School would definitely solve all the balancing problems (even though it would create others—most notably to some, the elimination of half of the district’s varsity sports programs), and there could be little question that this would offer all District 86 students equal academic opportunities. One high school instead of two would be such a huge change for everyone, though, that it is hard to see it getting any serious consideration, or being endorsed by many on the proposed public opinion surveys.
The other, shadier idea which has been suggested would be creating an elite “school within a school” at South which would house a small, advanced group of students. I’ve disliked this idea from the start as a somewhat cynical publicity stunt to convince Central people it was safe to journey into the wilderness they believe South to be, where their sheltered children could pursue their more advanced studies, isolated from the unwashed masses that populate the rest of the building. The official concept District 86 has considered for this is an International Baccalaureate program, which I have nothing against and appears to be a solid, worthwhile concept. The catch, however, is that the Advanced Placement classes already in place serve essentially the same purpose, and no one is suggesting the elimination of any A.P. classes in District 86. Instead, this idea is a misleading way to trick parents into thinking the school-within-a-school approach would be much better than the programs already in place, an extremely shaky premise given the excellent education currently being provided at both schools. What the I.B. proposal really facilitates is a way to segregate any Central students who might enroll in it from the general population at South. No one will ever admit that, and I’m sure this hidden bias would be denied vehemently by all District 86 board members and administrators; but it is a bit odd that during my twenty-five years teaching high-level classes at South, nobody ever broached this idea or even hinted our honors programs were lacking. In my opinion, the I.B. idea has surfaced as a means to balance attendance, not as something for which there is a curricular need. That it takes several years and significant retooling to be certified as an I.B. school, however, makes this approach seem unlikely to address a problem which needs decisive action sooner rather than later.
The one tried-and-true method for solving overcrowding is for the school board to use accumulated tax money combined with issuing new bonds in order to add on to Central without subjecting these new expenditures to the referendum process. You might be shocked that the board would be able to circumvent the normal process for new building projects (that is, seeking permission from its electorate before committing millions of tax dollars to expansion; i.e., a referendum), but this has been done repeatedly over the years. Any and all new building in District 86 since South was constructed in the 1960s was funded this way—and that would include field houses, science lab wings, air conditioning, and annexes, to name a few, totaling over $75 million (conservatively). That the board sought referendum approval in the spring of 2016 before proceeding with additions is actually an outlier when compared to typical District 86 operating practices: No property tax increases for new construction have been approved through referendums in over fifty years, yet many significant building projects have been completed during that time.
So it is still possible that Central could be expanded over the decisive margin of objections evidenced through the recent referendum of District 86’s electorate. To its credit, however, school board members are trying to involve the community in the ultimate decision, hence the proposed hiring of a public relations firm to assess community opinions. Yes, it would seem pretty obvious what community opinion is at this point given the crushing defeat of the referendum proposal this past spring, but that defeat did not resolve the overcrowding at Central, which is only getting worse.
And it is possible, maybe, that the survey could provide helpful information on the key question that has impeded the most fiscally responsible solution to this problem: Why are Central area residents so opposed to redistricting attendance boundaries for better balance, which would mean some students currently slated to attend Central would be moved to South?
Clearly, the answer to that pivotal question is not simple, direct, or even totally understood at a conscious level by many opposed to the change. Without a doubt, the most significant and readily accessed reasons have to do with the quality education Central has provided over the years. Consistently rated as one of the best high schools in America, Hinsdale Central has a proud tradition of academic and extra-curricular excellence as evidenced by the success its students have in elite colleges, their professional lives after graduation, and how often Central racks up Illinois High School Association (IHSA) sports championships. Most people resist change, especially when that which is to be changed is regarded as exemplary. Many residents of the Central attendance area selected their homes and paid a premium price (Oakbrook, Hinsdale, and Clarendon Hills are NOT cheap places to buy real estate) particularly because it meant their children would be able to go to Central. To have that switched to South will not be received well, regardless of South’s own excellence.
But that’s where things start to go wrong, to get twisted, to get an ugly sheen which contains hints of racism, class snobbery, and economic bigotry. As someone who taught for twenty-five years at South, I know how good it is, and the shrill resistance of Central residents to sending their children there often seems hurtful both to the teachers and students who go to South every day. I’ve been over my opinion of South’s high quality several times (see the previously referenced blog entries for more on that), but the rumors and myths many Central people accept as truth about South destroys anyone’s ability to convince them of how good the school is, and most significantly to believe the opportunities afforded South students are in every way equal to those at Central. Unfortunately, it will come as no surprise to anyone when the public opinion firm verifies what everyone already knows—South is perceived within the Central attendance area as more dangerous, less academically rigorous, and generally a huge step down from Central in preparing kids for college and providing them with an education anywhere near as good as the one Central provides. That the top students at South go just as far as Central’s elite—although fewer in number—is disregarded; some may even believe those kids achieve despite going to South, not because of it. Unless this public opinion firm can somehow alter those negative perceptions many Central residents have about South, nothing but confirmation of the status quo will come from the $52,000 the board is planning to spend.
Why South has such a bad reputation on the Central side of town and how that can be changed is a discussion nobody wants to have, but it’s at the heart of any solution to District 86’s attendance issues. To some, the whole time-consuming exercise (to say nothing of the cost) of public opinion surveys does little but delay needed resolutions to the issue. And others would argue that more time is all the board is really seeking by postponing a direct confrontation on this controversy, now that the referendum solution has failed. As the last board did a year ago when it tabled any discussions of what to do; in hiring a public opinion company, the current board could be accused of kicking the controversy down the road another year or so. And as has happened each time the board has avoided hard decisions, the problem hasn’t gone away, emerging later in an even more acute state.
While we can empathize with the difficult situation in which District 86 school board members find themselves, it is hard to believe that an outside public opinion research firm will be able to discover a magic solution which will make everyone happy. Regardless, something concrete has to be done. In an extensive demographic report created in 2015, attendance estimates were made based on “enrollment projections assuming turnover of existing housing units and family in-migration which are A. less than anticipated; B. as anticipated; or C. greater than anticipated through 2029-2030.” And under all three scenarios, significantly more students are projected for Central until at least 2030. Even more ominous is that last year’s attendance at both schools was closer to the high projection (C) with Central actually 37 students beyond that largest projection (2797 projected vs 2834 actual). Eventually, the school board will have to decide if it is going to change attendance zones and send students who originally were slated to attend Central to South (and anger the parents of those students) or spend millions more than is necessary through increased taxes/bonds so that Central can be enlarged despite all the space available at South (and anger everyone else).
This day of reckoning can only be put off for so long. Not only are Central students suffering with overly crammed facilities and decreasing course offerings, but South’s students face issues too. Numerous faculty members have been transferred to Central, which leads to an unsettled atmosphere and fewer services (like the English Department’s Writing Lab) offered. It’s hard not to see actions like hiring a public opinion research firm as anything more than delaying tactics which will make necessary solutions even more unpalatable to everyone later.
For more on the challenges facing public education and common sense ideas to meet them, check out my e-book, Snowflake Schools, which can be previewed here.
Going After the Poor
Now that we’re past the embarrassing Presidential world tour where the headlines seemed most focused on Melania’s brushing off Donald’s attempts to hold her hand, the Pope’s dour facial expressions, handshake duels, bogus arms deals, and GolfCartGate, but before we all become engulfed in memos detailing Trump’s attempts to force high-ranking national security officials to ignore potentially treasonous acts; everyone needs to devote at least a little attention to the budget the White House proposed to Congress right before Trump left the country. As the details of this recommendation become clearer, so does the Republican party’s fundamental priority, philosophy, belief, or however you’d like to label their mantra: If you have resources, you can buy whatever you want; if you don’t, too bad. We all need to recognize just what kind of country the Republican party envisions—at least the Republican party with Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell at its head. While everyone is understandably distracted from this reality with Trump leading a seemingly endless parade of foolish acts and inane tweets, in one area Donald, Paul, and Mitch have been pretty consistent: Rather than proposing anything new or trying to improve current programs, they are dedicated to the “good old days” when wealthy people had an even greater share of this country’s resources and power than they do now. And from health care to withdrawing from the Paris climate accord to huge investments in weapons (all of which, conveniently, can be manipulated by Washington to profit friends and family), every position they stake out screws over those who don’t have very much to begin with.
Naturally, it’s no different with education. The foundation of public schools for many years has been what is basically a socialist construct: We all contribute so that every kid in America can learn the basics every citizen should know. No, that’s hardly an absolute standard since every state legislature or local school board can interpret what those “basics” are in a variety of ways, but at least the cost of however that ideal comes out is shared by all. And yes, the system of paying for education has also been significantly corrupted since it is generally financed through local funding (property taxes here in Illinois) which has created huge differences in how much any one school district spends per pupil. But the Trump administration as led by Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos (a billionaire in her own right), is now proposing an even more dramatic shift in resources which will allow parents more “choice” over the schools that receive their tax dollars. Many rich people already send their children to private schools at their own expense, but DeVos believes they should be able to direct any money they pay in taxes for education to whichever school they wish. In effect, these vouchers would take money originally going to public schools and redirect it to the schools parents select (which would include private and parochial institutions), robbing public schools of crucial revenue when they can ill-afford any decreases whatsoever.
Schools would thus compete with each other to attract parents and their money, with institutions already struggling being left even further behind. And the children whose parents don’t have the resources to get their children out of those impoverished schools? Well, they’re just stuck with an under-funded, second-rate education forever. This is social Darwinism at its worst with those already well-off being subsidized at the expense of the poor who stay trapped and powerless with little hope of their future being any different. That theme plays over and over again in the proposals in Trump’s budget, which is entitled “A New Foundation for American Greatness” (another ready-made lesson in irony). Budgets for health, welfare, education, art, and social service programs are slashed with funding for some sixty-six programs ended entirely.
There are dozens of other sources which can give you more specific details on the ramifications of Trump’s budget, including many which document how directly some of Trump’s staunchest supporters—working class whites—will be hurt by his draconian spending cuts, the better to benefit the wealthy. But it’s crucial for everyone to acknowledge exactly what’s going on here: The gap between the haves and the have-nots in the U.S. has increased significantly in recent years, and Republicans are doing everything they can to encourage, magnify, and accelerate both the gap’s size and the pace at which it widens.
Now, many are pointing out that this budget, like the horrific health care act which came out of the House on May 4, will never be enacted as currently written, that both are “DOA” in the Senate. And let’s all hope that is true. But regardless, this document shows exactly how Trump and his cronies view their constituents. Of course they hide behind the claim that they are cutting ineffective, wasteful programs, but the clear good which comes from things like Planned Parenthood, the National Endowment for the Arts, or Meals on Wheels has been evident for many years. Eliminating or reducing the government’s support for these programs in order to buy more weapons can’t be explained any other way than a preference for getting rid of things which help people so our military can obtain more things which kill them.
I understand that some Republicans would respond to my views with the argument that there are better ways to achieve the goals of the cut programs, but merely repeating that endlessly offers little solace to those who need help. What ideas, programs, or approaches do Trump, Ryan, McConnell and the rest of the Republican Party offer as better alternatives? It seems that they have nothing but “glittering generalities” rather than any concrete, workable solutions. For those of you who have forgotten the propaganda techniques you learned about in high school, a glittering generality is something that sounds good, but has no substance or validity behind it. The most glaring example of this comes from Trump as he was campaigning for the Presidency and regularly characterizing Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) as a “disaster” (it isn’t). His alternative was that he would replace it with “something terrific.” Now that we’ve actually seen his replacement, we know what a ridiculous scam his campaign rhetoric was, unless by “terrific” he meant “awful for anyone who isn’t already a millionaire.” Then there are the flat-out lies he told: His terrific plan would cost less, cover everybody in the country, and make no cuts to Medicare. The reality, though, is that the Trump plan would increase rates for low-income seniors by as much as $12,000 per year, lead to over 20,000,000 Americans losing their coverage, and include some $800 billion in Medicare cuts. Ryan has been the cheerleader for this monstrosity, and we’ll see how McConnell handles the Senate revisions of the highly unpopular proposal in the weeks to come.
That’s not to say that the Democrats are perfect or have all the answers to the many problems which our country faces. But no matter how you try to spin it, Democratic proposals have generally tried to improve things for those less well off—Obamacare, environmental legislation, and a host of other programs now under attack all provided benefits for the poor. You can argue about the effectiveness, sincerity, or cost efficiency of these initiatives, of course, but there can be no denying the fundamental humanity on which the intent of the programs is based. That is in sharp contrast to the callous indifference Republican initiatives show toward anyone who is struggling. From immigrants to decaying urban neighborhoods to senior citizens barely scraping by on social security, the Trump/Ryan/McConnell vision for America works to shift resources away from the neediest to those already well off.
Let’s hope the brazenness and crudity of Trump’s approach will finally help everyone to recognize this key difference and vote accordingly. Many of us are praying that the Trump administration will be short-lived, ending in impeachment (my prediction is he will resign long before the Russian investigation proves how corrupt he is so that President Pence—which sounds almost as bad to me as “President Trump”—can immediately pardon him), but wishing for an end to Trump is hardly much of a strategy to minimize the damage Republican leadership could still do.
Instead, we have to recognize that Donald is not the source of this heartless approach to governing, but merely the loudest symptom of that which has taken over the Republican Party. As someone who spent his younger days criticizing the eight years of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, I can’t believe how wonderfully progressive his policies seem today. Some have argued that this saint of conservatism would never be even seriously considered in today’s Republican party given that he cooperated with liberal Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, approved tax increases (his two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together constituted the biggest tax increases ever enacted during peacetime), instituted an amnesty program for undocumented workers, and even lobbied on behalf of stricter gun regulation (all these and more can be found here). That the Republican Party leadership has moved so far from what most Americans (and, I think, Republicans) believe is really quite shocking, and I still don’t understand how we Americans allowed them to take over. Regardless, that needs to be changed as quickly as possible.
Although the circus surrounding Trump’s ignorance and self-absorption will continue unabated for as long as he inhabits the White House, we have to recognize that it’s not just him, that Republican leaders are supporting and enabling him every step of the way. Regardless of what happens with His Orangeness, we have to recognize that the Republican Party is being taken to extremes by others as well.
Thus, every election from now on provides us with the opportunity to alter this tilt toward heartlessness. We need reasonable people to run for office who, regardless of party affiliation, will represent the interests of all of us and who will oppose those who would appeal only to our fears and prejudices. That applies to all parties: While many current Republicans will have to answer for backing Trump/Ryan/Mitchell, I would hope that voters will be astute enough to listen to any candidate—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—to assess her/his level of opposition to our current directions. From the air we breathe to the helpless we protect, nothing about the current heads of our executive or legislative branches represents the best humanity has to offer. We are capable of so much more, and through our actions—especially in voting—we must take steps to make sure our leaders are too.
Hinsdale 86 Voters Pick the Hard Way
Several weeks ago, a referendum was put before the residents of Hinsdale High School Township District 86 (which is composed of Hinsdale South and Central High Schools). The referendum outlined plans to raise property taxes by $76,000,000 in order to upgrade aquatic areas at both schools and to add more classrooms at Hinsdale Central to accommodate its increasing enrollment. The communities of District 86 (Darien, Hinsdale, Willowbrook, Oakbrook, Burr Ridge, and Clarendon Hills) voted down the tax increase by three to one—75.1% against and 24.85% in favor in DuPage County. This will leave the District 86 school board (four of whom were elected as new members on the same ballot with the ill-fated referendum) with significant challenges immediately as this board takes charge.
My knowledge of this excellent school district comes from its astute hiring practices: I taught English in Hinsdale South for twenty-five years, and became familiar with the district’s workings (at least somewhat) in my roles for the Hinsdale High School Teachers Association (HHSTA—the union which represents all District 86 teachers): president, contract negotiator, and grievance chair at different times for much of my career. So I followed with interest this particular referendum since it was the first one attempted in District 86 since the 1960s. There has also been much controversy about the two high schools and how they are perceived in their communities through the years, most recently over the expansion of District 86’s “buffer zone,” an area in the district where some residents can select either high school for their children to attend (almost all currently in the zone have selected Central). That, coupled with a declining enrollment at South while Central’s attendance sky-rocketed, led to the referendum’s being not just about adding on to Central, but instead a forum on the two high schools. Why, many asked, should homeowners vote to increase their property taxes so that Central can add classrooms when there is significant space available right in the district, just a couple of miles away at Hinsdale South? To some, though, the answer was obvious—addition was necessary, so no one currently eligible to attend Central would have to go to South.
I’ve written about this issue several times. You can find the essays (along with links to various news stories which motivated them) on my blog, with this one and this being two which ought to give you the highlights. I’ve never tried to hide my bias in favor of Hinsdale South as an excellent high school and that the opportunities provided by its amazing staff (I can say that now since I’ve retired) compare favorably to every high school in the country, including and (what school board members and administrators need to keep reminding everyone) especially Hinsdale Central.
And now that distinction needs more emphasis than ever: For the past decade or so, as the enrollment has gone up at Central, several additions and upgrades have been made to the facilities there. From library remodeling to new science labs to air conditioning, tens of millions have been spent to improve the physical plant at Central. And yes, most of those upgrades were also made at South as well. But in the last few years, South’s enrollment has declined from over 2000 students at its peak to less than 1600 on its most recent 2016 school report card. With Central still growing (not to mention the expansion of the aforementioned “buffer zone” last year), this meant any new building was only going to take place at Central, unless the board shifted attendance areas for the two schools in order to send more students to South.
The discussion of the transfer/redistricting solution to Central’s overcrowding lasted about two board meetings last year, as parents from the Central attendance areas turned out in droves to protest the possibility. That board (of whom three members are still on the current board) quickly backed away from the idea, pledging not to broach the subject again when determining whether or not to seek a referendum and even apologizing to parents for “stressing” them with speculation about their children being made to attend South. That led to the proposal for a $76 million tax increase, and we know how that turned out.
So now the whole South/Central issue comes into play once more. The overcrowding at Central is not going to go away; facilities are limited, and there is only so much room available (especially in specialized areas like science labs). Increasing class sizes is never an appealing solution (nor should it be), and the growth in Central with South shrinking has already led to the reallocation of the most valuable resource any school district has: its teachers. Many have been transferred from South to Central, which leads to some uncertainty and tension, especially when department chairs have to agree on which teachers should be moved and younger teachers need stability in order to polish their craft. Any involuntary transfer will create some negativity; the goal should be to minimize that kind of disruption of the staff.
But that leads right back to the much more unpopular and difficult disruption of students who were supposed to go to Central being told they have to attend South. And with the referendum’s being soundly defeated, there aren’t many alternatives. Temporary classrooms could be used at Central as a stopgap, depending on how long the enrollment bulge lasts, but that is hardly a palatable solution, especially in one of the more prestigious high schools in the country. Other than that or a population shift to South, the board could try for another referendum or use its excellent credit rating to issue some bonds which could finance Central’s expansion.
That last option is basically how past additions and building modifications have been funded, so it would hardly be surprising should the board take that direction. But as I’ve also previously pointed out, the intent of property tax laws is for residents to have a say in approving funds for building projects, among other things. A referendum is the more letter-of-the-law method to get necessary money for projects, but the key point opponents of the recently defeated District 86 proposal made was that much of this building wasn’t necessary, that needed classroom space was already in place. With that kind of controversy at the heart of this spending proposal, then, a referendum is by far the best method to determine the will of the people. And that just happened, without much doubt as to what community members feel about increasing taxes. So, guess what—we’re right back where we started with one question each before both sides in this issue. For the No Transfer people: How will the district provide adequate facilities for so many students without changing any attendance boundaries or increasing property taxes? For the “Fill South First” advocates: Why is attending South so unpalatable for parents in the Central attendance area?
I no longer work in District 86, and I only lived in district for a few years a long time ago (a rental unit, of course. I could definitely digress on the irony of teachers’ being entrusted with the education of children in whose neighborhoods they can’t afford to live), so I will refrain from analyzing or judging the reasons so many strongly oppose redistricting so that more students wind up at South. I’m sure some of those reasons are based solely on a positive perception of Central, of familiarity and experience. But as someone who worked at South and dealt with many from Central-land, I do believe there is a strong streak of irrational horror at the idea of having to slum it by going to South. No one in any of the towns which feed into Central would ever accept that racism, class-snobbery, or “white trash” stereotyping has anything to do with not wanting to attend South; yet that vibe is impossible to avoid if you listen to some of the rhetoric when South is discussed.
And that’s what will have to be confronted by the new board. Regardless of what happens with the overcrowding at Central, the divided district needs to move toward more unity, toward more respect for each school, and toward a celebration of the equity of opportunity provided for all students in District 86. And there is some positive news to report in that direction. #WeAreHinsdaleSouth is a new organization created by parents of Hinsdale South students (both past and present) which has formed to promote South since “South’s reputation took some unwarranted hits in the past few years, including from a member of the school board,” according to one member of the group. #WeAreHinsdaleSouth has plans to make sure that everyone in the District 86 attendance area is aware of that which makes South such a good school, publicizing accomplishments, opportunities, events, and people which show the school in its best light. You can read more about them here, as well as finding out about attending their next meeting on Monday, May 8.
I certainly wish this group well and hope they finally help South to be better recognized for the stellar school it is. I also hope that #WeAreHinsdaleSouth is in this for the long haul—it will not be an easy task to enhance South’s image on the Central side of town; patience, creativity, and diligence need to be the key strategies since reputations are quick to form but hard to change. And regardless of #WeAreHinsdaleSouth’s efforts, the school board must accept the challenge of fostering a more unified approach to the district. Although wanting to change the South vs. Central dynamic for the better might not have been the key reason voters rejected District 86’s proposed referendum, a potentially beneficial unintended consequence of that vote could lead to a stronger, less divided community. This is definitely not the easiest path, but it is the right direction for the district and something everyone should be rooting for.
To find out more about #WeAreHinsdaleSouth, go to their Facebook page. For more on how school districts can improve, check out my eBook, Snowflake Schools.
Referendums Should Be for Teachers, Too
On April 4, 2017, voters will be electing local governmental leaders—village officials, school board members, and the like. Additionally, several communities will have to vote on referendums advanced by their school districts seeking additional funding. Two of those involve districts in which I have an interest: Hinsdale Township High School District 86 (where I worked for twenty-five years), which is seeking $76,000,000 for additional classrooms and swimming pool remodeling; and Center Cass School District 66 (which is the elementary district my two daughters attended), which needs over $12,000,000 for various repairs and safety updates. (You can find the official referendums here–just click “Propositions.) Yet, one aspect of funding a school district for which you will not see any new monetary requests is the single most important factor in any school’s success—its teachers.
Just to be clear with my background, I taught English for thirty-three years, retiring in 2012 after working in both a junior and senior high school as well as being active in my school districts’ unions (President, negotiator, and grievance chair). Thus, I have an extreme bias in favor of teachers and the role they play in public education: No matter what kinds of reforms, programs, or experts you can cite; nothing will impact a school more than the quality of its teachers. And despite myths to the contrary, our public schools are not rife with incompetent teachers hiding behind unions or school codes in order to maintain their “cushy” positions. Of course there are some bad teachers out there, but they are a minuscule number of the millions of dedicated public educators. Most teachers work extremely hard to make a difference in the lives of our children.
But it has become more and more standard for school districts to downplay any and all expenses associated with maintaining their staff. I receive several Google news alerts for a variety of public education issues which provide me with over thirty news stories from around the country every day. But in the last five years, I have yet to see an article covering a school district, national leader, school board member, or any organization (other than those quoting teachers’ unions during contract negotiations) who will argue that school funding should be increased in order to attract and retain the best possible teachers. The referendums shown above make absolutely no mention of needing more money for teachers—whether it be to lower class size or to gain a competitive edge when hiring the best teaching candidates—and I can’t remember hearing those in charge of our schools ever advocate for higher teacher salaries.
Instead, it’s become a standard procedure for many administrators and school board members to claim that teachers cost too much, that things like steps on a salary schedule are no longer “sustainable,” or that ”greedy” teachers are bleeding taxpayers dry. I do understand that resources are not infinite—How many times during contract negotiations did I hear that there were “only so many slices of financial pie”!—but that line of reasoning won’t come up when discussing more funds for school expansion or repair, even when the need for more classrooms isn’t always dire, as is the case in Hinsdale 86 where shifting some students from one school to another is a money-saving option which the district has rejected. Yet, the attacks about “easy” work schedules and “Cadillac” insurance programs arose every time I fought to improve the working conditions for teachers I knew were doing an amazing job.
The most galling argument I ever heard was during one negotiations when, frustrated by the district’s claims of poverty and refusal to agree to a reasonable salary increase, I suggested that if money were so tight, perhaps the board should seek more funding for our salaries. The response was that requesting a referendum for salaries would be like “re-financing a mortgage to buy groceries.” Since teachers are mere transitory expenses, the reasoning went, one should never “waste” a difficult process like promoting unpopular tax increases on raises for them. Needless to say, my reply (that having the necessary money to eat was significantly more important than saving a percent or two on a mortgage interest rate, thus rendering their analogy idiotic) didn’t go over well.
The most essential element by a wide margin in improving and/or maintaining the quality of public education is who is in front of the classroom. No matter what study you look at or how many factors are cited as important, all will have quality teaching near the top of the list of crucial characteristics. Everyone knows this, but it seems we refuse to recognize the relationship between good salaries and good teachers, unlike other professions. As all you baseball fans know, the White Sox recently traded one of the best pitchers in baseball, Chris Sale, and a key aspect of his value in the trade was everyone agreeing on how “reasonable” his contract was at only $38,000,000 for the next three years. Yet, when it comes to the people who are responsible for teaching and looking out for our children every day, we become enraged when they earn over $100,000 a year (which would require teaching for 380 years to earn what Mr. Sale—who is a bargain by baseball standards—will earn in three years). And I believe Chris is worth every penny; I just also happen to believe that teachers deserve a good wage too.
So as we vote this Tuesday on the referendums which are being pursued, we should keep in mind the unspoken reality that any additional money a school system receives at least indirectly might strengthen a district’s faculty. Hinsdale 86 is an excellent example of how a failure to use referendums can create a needless money crunch when it comes to maintaining a quality staff. My old district hasn’t passed a referendum since the 1960s, yet has spent tens of millions of dollars on new building: The district has added many classrooms, field houses, and science labs as well as extensive remodeling projects over the years. The money for all this was obtained through issuing bonds and spending surplus property tax revenues. This time, at least, it is going through the appropriate channel of soliciting taxpayer approval before embarking on significant building sprees. Unfortunately, though, the need for additional classrooms is less clear since much room exists in one of the two schools. (You can read more about this issue here, here, and here.) I would vote for this referendum, were I eligible to vote in Hinsdale Township, but it’s hardly a black/white choice. My rationale would be to support the superior teachers there, not the questionable building. The district will have major problems if this referendum fails, but the issues which failure would raise are important and should be addressed sooner or later. Sadly, though, those most likely to feel the pinch for a rejection financially would be the teachers, come the time for a new contract. (You can find an editorial which rejects this referendum as foolish here in the Chicago Tribune.)
In Center Cass 66, I would strongly encourage fellow residents to vote “Yes” on this tax increase (which I will also pay). Elementary teachers unfairly earn significantly less than their secondary counterparts, and the relatively small tax increase for repairs should allow Center Cass to compensate teachers more equitably. Of course, the teachers in the district will have to fight for their fair share, but assuming the referendum is approved, at least they won’t be competing as much with facilities expenses. (It was also a nice touch that over Spring Break, repairs to one of the schools’ roofs ( at Prairieview Elementary), have been on display for anyone driving by on Plainfield Road, right before the voting.)
One day, perhaps, we will see a school board courageous and far-sighted enough to push a referendum because teachers are cherished and valued more highly than the thrill of construction. There should be no question as to what is the most important resource in any school district, but we have a long way to go to acknowledge that teachers matter most and should be compensated accordingly. Approving referendums (even as they are currently constructed) is at least one small, indirect way to show some support for teachers.
For more outlier views on what goes on in the world of public education and ways we can strengthen this institution, check out my e-book, Snowflake Schools.
jamescrandell.wordpress.com 