Education Week - April 15, 2015 - 20

COMMENTARY
Problems With Teaching
Lie in the Profession
By Jack Schneider
W
iStockphoto
"
L
ike most educators, I got into
the field because I wanted to
make a difference for children.
And I've been fortunate to
have that opportunity. But it's
heartbreaking to think how
much more we could do if we
just wrote the rules in a way
that favored the children most at risk.
As both houses of Congress, governors,
state chiefs, teachers' unions, the Obama
administration, and various policy organizations
debate the future of the federal K-12
education law known currently as No Child
Left Behind, few people are talking about an
issue that could do more to drive equity than
any other.
One of the goals of the federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of
which NClb is the latest reauthorization, was
to foster "comparability" in funding by forcing
states and districts to equalize the amount of
money going to schools serving higher-income
and those serving lower-income students, and
then to provide the latter with extra federal
funds. The theory of action, embraced by
Today, state and
local funds are so
far tilted to the
wealthier
districts and
schools that the
federal funding
barely makes a
dent in closing
the gap between
poor and wealthy
students."
e need better teachers. It's
a mantra in education reform
circles. And as Congress
gears up to reauthorize
the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act
of 1965, last rewritten in
2001 as the No Child Left
Behind Act, the refrain will only grow louder. That's
because, despite deep ideological polarization, politicians
on both sides of the aisle are in general agreement
that our teachers are inadequate.
The aim of strengthening the teaching force is
a laudable one. Research indicates that, among inschool
variables, teacher quality does exert the strongest
influence on student achievement. But policy
conversations surrounding the issue have tended to
be disturbingly misguided, manifesting themselves
all too often as attacks on educators. Groups like the
Partnership for Educational Justice and StudentsFirst,
for instance, have pushed for repeal of teacher
tenure and the institution of performance-based incentives
for teachers. As they appear to see it, the
teaching corps is full of rotten apples-many of whom
need to be rooted out, and the rest of whom need to be
goaded into greater efforts.
There's a logic to this kind of thinking. Yet it is also
characterized by a fundamental assumption about
what shapes teacher quality. And insofar as that is
the case, it raises a serious question: What if the problem
isn't with our teachers but, rather, with teaching
as a profession?
Because the truth is that American teachers are,
on the whole, quite competent. They're well-educated,
highly motivated, and hard-working. They just happen
to work in a profession where growth is actively
thwarted. And as a result, many never realize their
full potential.
So how is teacher professional growth hindered in
the American educational system?
Perhaps the most obvious challenge to teacher
growth is the absence of downtime in the profession.
The average teacher has one period each day for preparation,
grading, and review. For the rest of the school
day, teachers are with students-teaching or engaging
in supervisory tasks. Consequently, not only are
they constantly working-compared with the average
American employee, who wastes an average of two
hours each day-but are also constantly engaged in
acts of performance. As a result, they have little time
for practice, reflection, or innovation.
Another challenge teachers face is related to their
workload. Once a mechanic learns how to work on a
car, or a doctor learns how to identify flu symptoms,
he or she can apply those lessons almost universally.
Teaching, however, is quite different. Because each
student is different-in such factors as background
knowledge, motivation, and support at home-effective
teaching requires not just a set of general
practices, but also highly specific knowledge of the
student. This is a significant challenge in its own
right. And we ask teachers to work with up to 150
students-a massive number-with class rosters
turning over entirely each year.
A third challenge teachers face is the lack of autonomy
inherent to the profession. In fields like psychotherapy,
for instance, practitioners can choose their
clients, determine their own measures of success, and
generally exercise professional discretion. Teachers
have none of these autonomies. They are assigned
their students, their curriculum, their textbooks, and
even the standards of achievement. As a result, much
of what teachers know is wasted because they do not
have the freedom to put their wisdom to use.
A fourth factor worth considering is the structural
isolation teachers face. During the workday, teachers
have no time to collaborate with peers or provide
each other with meaningful support. Teaching an avA
Better Way to Reach the Poorest Kids
By Jean-Claude Brizard
most other developed countries, is that it costs
more to educate poor kids than wealthy ones.
America, on the other hand, spends less to
educate low-income children than wealthy
children. This is partly a function of school funding
systems that are overly reliant on property
taxes. In 2010, the state of Illinois, for example,
provided as little as 28 percent of the cost of
public education, well below the national average
of 43 percent.
Nationally, 30 states today remain at prerecession
funding levels, and with less money
coming from states, the disparities between
wealthier school districts and poorer school
districts grow even larger. A few years back, the
wealthy northern suburbs surrounding Chicago
served by the New Trier Township High School
District spent $21,465 per student, while the
Farmington Central Community Unit School
District in central Illinois spent only $7,259 per
student.
Today, state and local funds are so far tilted
to the wealthier districts and schools that the
federal funding barely makes a dent in closing
the gap between poor and wealthy students.
Worse yet, most states and districts are dodging
the comparability provision of the law, thanks
to a loophole written into the statute. The result
is that even within school districts, quite often
the kids who are most at risk still get the least.
Here's how it works:
Typically, in a large school district like Chicago,
pricier, more experienced teachers work
in wealthier schools. The poorer schools tend
to have more turnover and mostly replace lost
staff with younger, less expensive teachers. This
means that the schools in higher-income communities
are getting more of the district's limited
resources to pay for these higher salaries.
The problem is that no one can really "see"
this because current federal law allows districts
to report "average" district-level teacher salaries
instead of actual school-by-school salaries. This
is sort of like agreeing to pay two different car
owners enough gas money to travel a certain
distance, and ignoring the fact that one of them
drives a gas guzzler while the other drives a
hybrid. The dollar amount will be very different,
and as costs rise each year, the differences will
grow even greater.
Political pressures also serve as a disincentive
to take action at a local level. Every superintendent
or school board member knows how
hard it is to cut or shift resources away from
schools serving high-income students, with their
often-more-demanding parents and communi20
| EDUCATION WEEK | April 15, 2015 | www.edweek.org/go/commentary
http://www.edweek.org/go/commentary
Education Week - April 15, 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - April 15, 2015
