By Tom
My colleague Kelly posted a wonderful review of HB 1410/SB 5444, which, as she pointed out, is causing quite a stir among teachers, especially within the WEA. Kelly challenged us to "Pick a passion and carve out a piece of the negotiation." So that's what I'll do.
There's a lot to like and a lot to dislike about these bills. (Frankly, there's a lot to read, which is why it's taken us so long to respond to them.) What I like most is the focus on early education. What I dislike most is the timing. Our state is looking at an $8 billion budget hole. Therefore, everything in these bills (and every other bill brought up during this session) will be evaluated in that context. That said, let's assume that parts of these bills will actually be judged solely on their merit, regardless of cost. (Author's note: I've since learned that there isn't any money at all in this bill.)
Given that premise, I'll focus on something that disappoints me more than I thought it would. If passed, Washington State will phase out the practice of compensating teachers for getting a master's degree. Instead, there'll be a new salary scale, which will reward teachers based almost entirely on their demonstration of effective teaching skills. Now, I certainly don't have a problem with paying for those skills that will lead to increased student learning. I've already put up several posts to that effect. But I like things in balance. Specifically, these things: knowledge, skills and dispositions.
Skills, as I've said, are important. They're what enable smart and knowledgeable teachers to impart those same qualities onto their students. That's why most inservice training rightly focuses on instructional skills. But I'm concerned about what will happen to our profession when we focus - and pay - solely based on skills.
Knowledge is good. And I'm not talking here about content knowledge. I'm talking about the body of knowledge that adds the context, history and gravitas to our profession: educational psychology, instructional theory, statistics, and all the other stuff you learn in a well-planned master's program. Many of which don't directly translate to better teaching and learning. Can you teach third grade without knowing what a standard deviation is? Certainly. Does that mean we don't want third grade teachers understanding basic statistical concepts? Certainly not. I understand how IQ tests are scored and I know how to correctly explain them to parents. I also know that doing so will probably have little direct effect on student performance. But that doesn't mean it isn't important.
Dispositions are also important. I think we can all agree that it's important for teachers to be ethical, compassionate, curious and culturally competent. But you can be none of those things and still be effective in the classroom. Believe me, I've seen it. And while many people are born well-disposed for a career in education, a well-balanced master's program will focus on developing those qualities in teachers.
We need to be very careful when we decide what to pay for and what not to pay for. In the short term, paying for better teacher performance will result in better learning. And that's good. But in the long term, what will we sacrifice if that's all we pay for? I can name one thing: Teacher Leadership.
Teacher Leadership depends on teachers who are more than just instructors. They see the bigger picture. They understand what needs to happen at the school, district, state and national level in order for the whole educational system to improve. And then they do it. They lead, but they do it from the classroom. An effective teacher leader needs strong instructional skills, solid content and professional knowledge, and the attitudes and dispositions required to create a welcoming learning environment for both students and other teachers.
And I contend that the best, most efficient place to get the knowledge and dispositions to go with strong teaching skills is in a master's program. If we stop giving financial incentives for teachers to pursue advanced degrees, many will stop pursuing them. And then we risk turning our profession into a system with learned leaders at the administrative level, supervising a corps of skilled technicians. Kind of like the army. I'd prefer to work in a profession where leadership is shared by those in and out of the classroom.
ShareThis
I'm enjoying the conversation, but I want to respond to a couple of comments.
1. Susan: Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify my statement. When I wrote that a teacher can be effective without being compassionate, etc., I meant in the short term. I think a teacher can deliver a lesson in which kids learn something. Obviously that isn't the same thing as having a compassionate, caring teacher in the classroom delivering effective lessons and actually caring about the people he or she is teaching. Thanks, Susan.
2. I agree with Travis. Getting a master's degree is not like buying a donut. It's more like buying a book, or even starting a relationship. You have to choose carefully, and then you have to put something into it in order to get something real out of it. I know teachers who get more out of little-known on-line programs than other teachers who get their degree from the University of Washington. And some who don't.
3. I'll take this opportunity to put in a plug for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, or NCATE. Many people don't know about it, but it's our profession's way of accrediting teacher education programs. Many states require that all schools of education operating within their borders be NCATE accredited. Washington doesn't. It takes a lot of work for an institution to achieve NCATE accreditation, but when they do; their students can be assured that they received their degree from a school that met the highest standards in the country. Check them out on-line: NCATE.org.
Again, it sounds like people will get out of a master's program what they put in, or what they want.
Just as not all MA programs are created equal, not all MA candidates may do service to the rigor or merit of whatever program they work in. I am proud of my MA (preservice, from a brick and mortar U), worked my tail off for it, and was sitting in classes every day with folks coasting through who earned the same degree as I did. I feel like I got more out of the program than others, not because of the dispositions that the program taught, but the ones I possessed prior to entering--though I concede these dispositions were enhanced and augmented by my experience in my MA program because I was open to such change.
I'd like to respond to Tom's statement that "it's important for teachers to be ethical, compassionate, curious and culturally competent. But you can be none of those things and still be effective in the classroom." Teachers who are not ethical, compassionate and culturally competent may be effective for some students while leaving others in the dust, or worse! I've encountered many high school students who've lost years of instruction because of unfair treatment, messages that they can't achieve or learn, making them feel that there's no point in trying. Stuff like this can be very subtle, and we all need to be alert to the fact that we may unconsciously be losing kids in our classrooms by being unfair or simply unaware of their needs. For these kids, this kind of teaching is the opposite of effective.
@Michael, while I know your intent is not to totally slam the universities to which you refer as degree "mills", I do want to bring up that your comment is a broad brush stroke for a fine line application. There is no way to know the situations in which a person chooses to attend a university or a program.
Here is an example, Teacher "A" is looking for a different approach to pursuing a master's, something that involves quite a bit of relevance to his current job and is taught by practicing teachers, principals, and a superintendent. That's better than most of BA programs we all took.
While some people are out for the easy path, some are looking at the programs, the people teaching the programs, and the projects involved. I am the latter. I looked at what I was going to take, not who offered it. Names, labels, superficial attachments mean nothing to me.
So I guess I have a master's from a degree mill. Oh well, I hope my students can still find purpose in my teaching.
Similarly, I would cringe at anyone who makes a statement like "Such and such a middle school is not a good school", when, in fact, that statement ignores the teachers within the school, or the counselors, or the principal. What about the math teacher in room 507 who reaches and teaches his students in this "not a good" school?
I think we all need to be careful when thinking about our colleagues and those who choose to serve our state. I did not post this comment because I took offense and felt personally attacked. However, I feel that I have an experience that I can share that counters the given statement thereby providing breadth of information for discussion. --cheers
Point well taken, Michael. Which is why ALL facets of our profession need to work together; not just teachers and administrators, but also education schools and the agencies (like NCATE) that acredit them.
I appreciate all of the comments above.
One thing I did not see mentioned was the extent to which teachers are using the education degree mills. Those places that offer online Master's degrees. I see so many teachers in Washington with an MA in Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, or Curriculum and Instruction from places like City U, Lesley U, Walden U, and the like.
I balance my criticism with two conflicting thoughts: I doubt that those places improving teaching and learning yet I know colleagues who are excellent teachers making a difference every day and just using those degree mills to justifiably increase their pay, which I find acceptable.
@Tom, I can relate to your last sentence. I love teaching. Love it. My family on both sides, and my in-laws are all teacher-types. I think teaching even when not at school. I dream of ways to improve my craft. Whenever I hear of an educational goings-on, I start to analyze it and come up with a new, stronger plan. I am a strong teacher, respected by colleagues, parents, administration, and students. Teaching is my niche so note that I do not make tis next statement lightly. However, getting a nursing certificate is looking pretty good right about now.
Getting back to Kelly- I'm not sure what my idea of a perfect compensation system would look like, but I'm not quite ready to part with the existing table. One idea might be to set up checkpoints within the table, so that, for example, you wouldn't get the pay increase for your fourth year unless you were performing at a level that one would expect to see in a fourth-year teacher. The same concept could be applied to the horizontal axis: no pay increase unless you had acquired and applied the knowledge, skills and dispositions of a "master teacher." What I like about the current model (and what some people loath) is the way it keeps good teachers from leaving; rewarding them for staying in the classroom. Unfortunately, that's exactly why critics hate it. Bad teachers are encouraged to stay and stink. Teaching is a profession, but it's also a job; the sole means of support for many families. If a pay scheme is too risky or arbitrary, many potential teachers will choose something else.
What often comes up as a query to this restructuring of education $ whenever it happens and is going to be linked to performance is, What about the SPED teacher? I taught SPED for many years so I can relate. Or what about the severely-profoundly disabled? My father taught that for many years. Will there be adjustments for these sorts of classes? And if so, where is the line drawn? What about the class that is 99.99% some-thing-or-other and does not qualify for the adjustment but really is....? You understand the thinking.
I fid these situations depressing and lack every bit of focus on student learning.