The schizophrenic nature of teaching

I have been thinking a lot lately about what can only be described as the schizophrenic nature of the teaching experience in America today.

Just like Margaret Rodrigues last month, I cannot let the passing of former teacher Sandy Snively go unmentioned. Sandy was an inspiration to so many of us. She could teach anything, and do it better than most anyone. She was brilliant, she had a wonderful sense of humor and she didn’t take any nonsense from anyone. As a teacher, she was talented beyond measure. You could not do anything better for a class of students than to put Sandy in front of them and then leave her alone to teach them.

When teaching is a calling for you, you look to extraordinary teachers – like Sandy Snively, and like Bob Caredio who also passed away not so very long ago – and you try to emulate them. They are, of course, so exceptional that this becomes a career-long undertaking. They have extensive knowledge of the subjects they teach (in Sandy’s case, that was a lot of subjects), the insight to design instruction in such a way that the material is accessible to students, and an enthusiasm which inspires their students and their colleagues alike. These extraordinary teachers epitomize teaching as a craft.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to measure this kind of excellence in teaching. And so too often teacher quality is measured instead by student scores on standardized tests. This is as poor a means of measuring true teacher quality as it is of measuring student learning. But it is increasingly the measure that is used, and so dedicated teachers turn their attention to boosting student test scores, even when that means marching in exactly the opposite direction from the one indicated by the pursuit of excellence and inspiration and innovation.

I am not suggesting that there is no place for standardized testing. But I am suggesting that it is not the path to exceptional teaching. And for those teachers seeking that path, well you can imagine the dilemma.

On the other hand, I must acknowledge that teaching AP (Advanced Placement) classes has led me to realize that teaching to a really good test can improve instruction, especially if there is student buy-in. Even in this case, however, I find myself frequently forgoing meaningful examination of a topic in favor of broader coverage of material. I am not convinced that this is inspirational for students.

Another area is which teaching feels schizophrenic these days has to do not with content but rather with instructional models. We measure all students by the same standards, but we want their instruction to be differentiated (tailored to meet their individual needs). Teachers should be able to relate how we have modified a lesson in various ways in order to differentiate instruction, yet we are given larger and larger classes to teach. And if we complain that this is unreasonable, invariably someone offers up the example of Japan – where I’ve been told they successfully teach with class sizes of 100 or more. (Class sizes in Japan are actually comparable to California’s – in the 30s, and sometimes more than 40.) Of course, when this comparison is made there is no mention of the fact that Japan does not seem to differentiate instruction. Nor of the fact that we should also be more like Finland, with its small class sizes, teacher-directed curriculum and absolute lack of standardized tests.

Another push in education is to make learning more personal, and therefore more relevant, for our students by giving them special projects that allow them to apply what they have learned and to express their creativity. This is supposed to help close the achievement gap by allowing students from different backgrounds to draw upon their own experiences and cultures and abilities. I am all for this. I do think learning is more meaningful when students are allowed to be creative and to personalize their work.  

However, I have also noticed that when we assign these projects there are students who are disadvantaged because they do not have money to buy craft supplies, and they do not have someone at home who can help them with their schoolwork.  

And so I would like to offer a challenge to the community, because I know that there is not the money in the public school system to take care of this. We need an after school project lab at each of our schools, staffed by volunteers at least one day per week, where any student can go in order to get materials, and help if needed, to complete assigned projects. Then, at least teachers won’t have to be conflicted any longer about assigning projects. And more importantly, students won’t have to give up.