Has the NCTQ figured out what's wrong with teacher preparation?

The National Council on Teacher Quality recently published its Teacher Prep Review, an exhaustive study on teacher effectiveness, based on how we prepare educators to be classroom teachers. The 94-page study asks plenty of interesting questions about teacher preparedness. 

Photo credit: PBS.org

This lengthy study should give all educators a moment of pause. Indeed, the fact that such a study even exists speaks volumes about the current state of education. However, there is plenty to be concerned about, with regard to how this study is conducted. Note page 1 of the report:

"As the product of eight years of development and 10 pilot studies, the standards applied here are derived from strong research, the practices of high-performing nations and states, consensus views of experts, the demands of the Common Core State Standards (and other standards for college and career readiness) and occasionally just common sense."

See any problems here? The studies are based on so-called high-performing nations and states and the views of so-called experts and, you guessed it, Common Core State Standards. The credibility of research that measures educators against other nations and against the CCSS must immediately be called on the proverbial carpet. Here's more from the report:

"Fewer than one in nine elementary programs and just over one-third of high school programs are preparing candidates in content at the level necessary to teach the new Common Core State Standards. . ."

Hmm., what is meant, I wonder, by "at the level necessary to teach the new Common Core?" Just who has decided what this necessary level is? In fact, rarely are the people most knowledgeable in a subject area the best teachers. I've known engineers and attorneys, who attempted to be teachers but couldn't escape back to the private sector fast enough, once they encountered the real issues that the everyday classroom presents.

The NCTQ report is hard on colleges and universities that allow educators to "enter the classroom as teachers without institutions having ensured they possess adequate content knowledge," which the report states will not fix a broken system.

Is the education  system broken? Absolutely. Does the NCTQ have the solution figured out? Absolutely not! In fact, I'm frustrated that the NCTQ would spend eight years studying over 1,100 teacher prep programs, only to pin most of its findings on how well educators can teach the Common Core State Standards.

Teacher preparation needs to be changed. Comparing us to nations no larger than Montana and looking at the tactics of dilettantes like Teach for America is simply not the best approach to fixing teacher preparation. I have some ideas, but I'll save those for a future post.

Meanwhile, what do you think?


Don't miss Mark's book ROLE Reversal: Achieving Uncommonly Excellent Results in the Student-Centered Classroom, now available in the ASCD store, Barnes & Noble and at Amazon.com

Excerpts from my Kappa Delta Pi Webinar

I recently presented a Webinar to nearly 180 Kappa Delta Pi members. The webinar is based on the concepts in my book, Role Reversal: Achieving Uncommonly Excellent Results in the Student-Centered Classroom (ASCD 2013).

The video below contains a few highlights of the webinar, in which I discussed the value of student-centered learning over a traditional classroom and narrative feedback, and I answer a few audience questions.

If you'd like to view the entire archived webinar, learn how at this KDP.org website.




Don't miss Mark's book ROLE Reversal: Achieving Uncommonly Excellent Results in the Student-Centered Classroom, now available in the ASCD store, Barnes & Noble and at Amazon.com

How dare you chew gum in my class!

photo credit: viewzone.com

Our student discipline handbook is jam-packed with rules, designed to keep students from running amok. It is, after all, critical that order be maintained.

One such rule is "no gum chewing."

Many of our would-be learners are dismissed from classes for this awful breach of the school's judicial system. These destroyers of education are often banished to our Student Management Room (a euphemism for detention center). And why wouldn't they be? How could any teacher be expected to engage students in a place filled with these bubble-blowing, lip-smacking, eye-rolling miscreants?

Imagine your child missing an opportunity to learn, because she was jettisoned for chewing gum. Would you expect anything less? I mean, how dare she chew gum in an institution of learning?

I keep wondering, is there anything that merits more consideration in the world of education than this insidious gum-chewing? Something has got to be done!

Do you suffer from the Lemming Condition?

Award-winning actor and author, Alan Arkin, tells a brilliant tale in his young adult novel, The Lemming Condition. The story is an allegory on conformity, as Bubber, a lemming, is faced with following his entire race to self-induced extinction.

Bubber struggles to decide if he should participate in what appears to be an insane death walk, only to constantly be told by family and friends that this is just the way things are.

I won't ruin the ending, but let's just say that Bubber isn't your garden variety conformist.


Several conversations with colleagues have me wondering if Arkin's lemmings could have just as easily been today's teachers -- legions of people who conform daily to the principles of traditional methods and administrative pressure to teach to the test.

Like Bubber, we are constantly told this is just the way things are.
Bubber was faced with extinction. One must wonder, are we next?

Top 5 reasons I don't give grades

One of the focuses of the ROLE Reversal blog is the elimination of grades. Like homework, there are many reasons that grading is detrimental to learning. Here are the top 5 reasons I don't give grades.

5 -- Grades are always subjective. Since the teacher decides how material is taught and assessed, it's subjective. You can argue that many activities and test questions are either right or wrong, but if you don't give students a variety of ways to show what they know, as well as chances to relearn lessons, then objectivity is compromised.

4 -- A points and percentages system discriminates. Students who are motivated by grades complete assignments. They always turn them in, earn their points and, consequently, get high grades. Students who don't see any value in the activities that garner points don't complete them. They, in turn, receive zeroes and failing grades. Hence, the grades create a culture of "good" and "bad" students. The high achievers are promoted to advanced classes, while the low achievers are placed in remediation. This sort of academic discrimination can scar a child for life.

3 -- Poor weighting of activities punishes some students while rewarding others. Most teachers struggle with weighting activities (another practice that should be banned). I've seen teachers whose tests are 75 percent of a marking period's grade, while others value homework at 50 percent or higher. Consider the student who does all of his homework but is scared out of his wits on test day. In Mr. 75 Percent's class, this kid fails. Conversely, an intelligent student, who wants to manipulate a bad system, will ignore all of the activities and projects, ace the tests, and easily pass.

2 -- Grades turn even honest kids into cheaters. In the study hall that I supervise daily, I see a shocking amount of cheating. I've often asked students copying a peer's work why they do it. The answer is always some version of the same thing: "It's due next period, and I'll get a zero, if I don't hand it in." In a class with no grades, students never have a reason to cheat. There's no punishment awaiting them, if something isn't done.

1 -- When students perform for points or letters, they lose any interest in real learning. Grades are nothing more than the carrots and sticks of education. They reward the "good" kids, whose parents browbeat them nightly to complete all activities, study hard and get those A's. Promises of Honor Roll, Merit Scholar and other elite badges await those cunning enough to maneuver the flawed system of grading. They may even get to the Ivy League, having learned very little about learning. Meanwhile, their counterparts, many of them likely impoverished, hungry and struggling to comprehend the value in the assignments and tests they see daily, face a life of remediation, retention and ridicule.

Sadly, some of these kids are the brightest of them all, but they are doomed by letters, the numbers and the grades.

Do we encourage our students to cheat?

I've seen more cheating this school year than I have in the last few years combined. It seems that every other day I find a handful of students copying a peer's homework or a worksheet that is supposed to be some sort of study guide for a test.

When I inquire about this "borrowing" of other student's work, I'm usually given a strange excuse like, "Oh Mrs. so-and-so doesn't mind; it's just for review." I don't even want to know if this is true, as that would lead to an entirely different topic.

As I stroll around my study hall, I sometimes ask students about the homework or other activities they're working on, curious about what their traditional teachers are assigning. I may ask a student, "What's the purpose of this assignment?" Occasionally, I get a reasonable answer; others, I get a shrug and an, "I don't know."

If the activity is so ill-conceived that the student has no idea of its value, what incentive does he have to complete it?

Don't bad activities and homework encourage students to cheat?

Traditionalists still struggle with discipline problems

Here is a paraphrased conversation I walked in on, between two long-time teachers, struggling with discipline problems in the classroom:

Teacher A: "Every time there is noise in the hallway, we need to gather the students, leave the building and walk back in again in silence."
Teacher B: "Back in my day, we used to take one kid and put him in front of the others and. . . ." (You can complete the sentence with whatever horrible, demeaning act that comes to mind.)
Teacher A: "We can't do anything too extreme now, but I'm telling you, if you make them do something over and over, until they say, 'Enough already,' things will change."
Teacher B: "I just don't know. . ."

Normally, I'll jump in on these debates; in fact, both of these valued colleagues have  heard my opinion on using results-only learning strategies to solve the behavior problems that continue to plague them. This time, though, I said nothing.

I only pondered the conversation, wondering how long the traditionalists will continue to struggle.

Traditionalists teaching the wrong lessons

Traditional teachers, hammering students with homework, worksheets and tests, are teaching the wrong lessons and hindering students' ability to learn.

Although I have every confidence that students in my Results Only Learning Environment are learning, some are struggling with the progressive nature of the ROLE.

In a survey, given to my students at the end of the first semester, a surprising 22 percent of students reported that they want homework and tests. Of course, this means that 78 percent prefer the way the ROLE functions, without these traditional methods. However, having one-fifth of my students say they'd be fine with old-style teaching is a concern.

The problem, I surmise, is that students are so tuned into the traditional world of points and percentages that they don't know how to handle the freedoms of a workshop-style, project-based class that requires them to evaluate their own progress and set learning goals accordingly.

Furthermore, students are so concerned about acquiring points on homework assignments for other classes that they often disdain our projects, so they can complete the rote-memory activities my colleagues often assign. When I ask why they are doing a science or social studies homework assignment, instead of working on one of our year-long projects, I'm told that "it's due next period, and if I don't get it done, I'll lose points."

This creates a twofold problem. The most obvious one is that students aren't learning for learning's sake, when they are on a quest for points. Also, it puts me in a difficult spot, as I don't like to remove the choice that the ROLE provides.

As I continue to ponder this conundrum, I realize one thing: education's traditionalists are teaching the wrong lessons.

Classroom of work vs. a classroom of learning

In "Students Don't 'Work' - They Learn," featured in Education Week in 1997, the inimitable Alfie Kohn discusses classrooms of work and classrooms of learning.

"In the former (work), the tasks come to be seen as - indeed, are often explicitly presented as - means to an end. What counts is the number of right answers, although even this may be seen as just a prerequisite to snagging a good grade. In fact, the grade may be a means to making the honor roll, which, in turn, may lead to special privileges or rewards provided at school or at home. With each additional inducement, the original act of learning is further devalued."

This remarkably simple notion lies at the foundation of the Results Only Learning Environment. 

Incredulous colleagues often inquire about some of the tenets of the ROLE. They wonder how it's possible to teach without daily worksheets, homework or tests. "How do you measure your students?" is a popular question.

Many are shocked when I tell them that I have no desire to measure my students. I just want them to learn, I explain, and if I place numbers and letters on their activities and projects, it's only a matter of time, before my classroom of learning becomes a classroom of work.

Punished for not participating

While browsing YouTube, I came across this video by a student, enlightening us on the problems with grading participation in class. Sounds about right to me. What do you think?

It's time to put a square peg into a round hole

Photo via Flickriver.com

In a brilliant article, posted on Valerie Strauss's The Answer Sheet, San Francisco State professor emeritus Mark Phillips shares the following anecdote:

"Edwin Abbott’s classic book, Flatland, tells the story of a square that falls into a world of three dimensions. Returning to his two-dimensional world, he tries to explain his incredible experience. But how do you explain a cube to someone who can only conceptualize two dimensions? Ultimately he’s branded a heretic and jailed."

This got me thinking about my own attempts at education reform. As I share with colleagues the results-only strategies I use, I'm often greeted with skepticism. Fortunately, I've yet to be branded a heretic, but some of the dissenters have recently become vocal. Still, it seems that many of today's teachers struggle with change.

As Phillips writes, "Most teachers and administrators, dealing with the daily challenges of teaching, don’t have the luxury of thinking beyond the present paradigm."

Some, however, simply don't know when it's time to put a square peg into a round hole.

Angering the traditionalists

It seems that I inadvertently upset a colleague. In fact, angered is a more appropriate word.

While the teacher was making students copy nightly homework into an agenda book (yawn), a frustrated student who also has me for a teacher, announced that "Mr. Barnes says homework has no value." Uh-oh.

Now, just to be clear, I do tell students when they ask why I don't assign homework that I don't see the value in it and that they'd be better off reading for pleasure. I always add that other teachers do what they believe is best, and the students should honor that.

My colleague responded with a rather pointed e-mail, suggesting that my philosophy was hurting the entire building.

My initial reaction was to reply with a cyber dart of my own, but I refrained. After further consideration, I decided that the word is finally getting out. Before today, I thought my colleagues weren't listening to my pleas for reason on homework and grades. This was the first signal that they are taking notice.

Hmm, I wonder what I can do next to anger the traditionalists.

The debate over methods continues

Joanne Jacobs' blog post on Direct Instruction (DI) ignited a spirited debate. The conversation there encouraged me to post a response here.

Jacobs posted a new blog, Progressives vs. traditionalists, and that conversation, too, has snowballed.

So, is there a winner?

Are we losing the fight?

An education blogger I read often, Joanne Jacobs, recently posted a link to a traditional teaching program, called DI (Direct Instruction), created by someone from the private sector.

Although I had heard of this, I only knew that it embraces everything I'm against in education: scripted lessons, rules, worksheets and tests, so I had previously dismissed it without further research. The eBook Jacobs linked to on her blog about DI confirmed my suspicions -- that DI is one more in a long line of traditional systems that provide crutches for bad teachers and turn students into mindless automatons.

I decided to share my opinion about DI in the comment section on the post; I was the first. A few days later, I returned to Jacobs' blog to find dozens of comments. I was not surprised by the opinions, most of which were directly opposite of mine. Some outraged fans of Direct Instruction thought I was crazy and defended DI and other oft-used weak practices, like lions fighting for their young.

I was not angered by the comments; after all, these people were only defending what they believe in.

Rather, I began considering how difficult it is going to be to overcome these outdated teaching methods, so we can reform American education. If programs like DI and other scripted, basal-type systems can so easily influence parents and educators, how will modern, more progressive teaching methods, like results-only learning, compete?

I wonder, are we losing the fight with traditional teaching?

Old habits die hard

Recently, I encountered several teachers, who are stuck in their traditional world, and it hit me that old habits die hard.

One teacher announced that her students were awful at following simple directions for bell work, which included putting a proper heading on the paper. (These are 7th graders.) "So," she complained, "We  spent the entire class period on bell work.

My thought? Throw out the bell work. Then, she'd have no lesson at all, but the students' enthusiasm might increase.
As students passed through the hallways, another colleague spied a young man who had a ball cap strapped to his belt loop. He was immediately dispatched back to his locker to return the head cover.

My thought? Seriously, is a cap on a belt loop worth taking a teenager's mind off of learning?

Later, a student asked me to go to the bathroom with only a minute left in class. "The bell is about to ring," I told him. He frowned, before informing me that his next teacher never lets students go. So, I told the teacher that a student said, "You never let them go to the bathroom." His response. "I don't."

My thought? What if you had to pee, and I told you it wasn't allowed?

It's remarkable to me that the simplest acts, things that build teacher-student rapport and encourage a thirst for learning, are constantly ignored by veteran teachers.

I guess old habits really do die hard.