Who owns education?
In the Twitter feed this morning was a link to a blog from a teacher in Canada, Joe Bower, who was talking about a new agreement giving teachers autonomy in their professional development. The blog is here:
http://www.joebower.org/2013/03/who-should-control-teachers.html
Apparently the Calgary Board of Ed is not happy with this agreement because it believes PD ought ot be in the hands and under the directions of others, not the teachers themselves (well, you know us, we just cannot do thiese adult things; we need someone to tell us what to do, right?) Here are the points Bower makes that are so insightful and apply, of course, not just to the teachers in Canada, but to teachers everywhere,
1. There is a big difference between professional development and in-servicing. School Boards can still have their own focus and priorities via inservices. However, in-servicing is not professional learning. Professionals determine their own growth and efficacy.
2. The heart of local autonomy is with the child, and the best decisions for the child are made by the child in collaboration with a safe and caring adult who actually spends time with them. 3. Those adults are not trustees and they are not administrators -- they are the classroom teachers.
4. The problem with employing teachers to empower students to own their learning is that teachers might want the same treatment.
5. Teachers need to be trusted and treated as autonomous professionals.
Having just completed a full day of what I hope was PD and not In-service (though we tend to use the terms interchangeably, I fear), I can tell you the biggest difference I see between the group I had with me at the service center and the group that I have encountered from time to time when I am asked to come in and speak to the entire staff of a school:
1. These folks were here because they elected to come to this presentation. The service center has a cooperative that offers a wide range of speakers each year.
2. Many of the librarians who came brought along others from their faculty, some teachers, some administrators.
3. While I make it a point to highlight booktalks, displays, readers' advisory, and other elements, I am careful not to dictate how they should be done.
4. Some of what we talked about today focused on the questions raised by the participants.
I hope what I offered was helpful and was developmental in nature. I still tend to deliver the sort of workshop I would have liked to attend as a classroom teacher. I can tell you that the entire stock of the books, ARCs, F&Gs, and audio I brought were gone by the end of the day (we did different things to make sure everyone walked away with at least one freebie and I had loaded the car with hundreds of things to give away). Many talked to me during breaks and at the end of the day about what they had found helpful. They also asked lots of questions and talked about their favorite books.
It does concern me that so much PD these days is about STAAR (Texas tests) and CCSS. Teachers need PD that reinvigorates them, that tells them they are doing good stuff (there is something about hearing a speaker describe what you are already doing that is somehow like a pat on the back or an ATTA GIRL/GUY!), and that sometimes makes them look with a different set of eyes. I do not think (actually I know from tweets, posts, and emails) that all PD is created to do just that. This is particularly true when it comes to the scripted programs I see rising out of CCSS and other mandates. I do agree with Bower that teachers should drive their own PD. Taking autonomy away from teachers (AR and programs of its ilk are huge culprits here as are many other components of textbooks, of teaching approaches, of narrowed curriculum) is demoralizing. Given the current state of teaching, this further beating down is driving out good teachers.
If you want to see what I shared (and I ran out of time before I finished all of the things I had planned), you can see the power point here: www.slideshare.net/ProfessorNana. The session was called Tools of the Trade.
http://www.joebower.org/2013/03/who-should-control-teachers.html
Apparently the Calgary Board of Ed is not happy with this agreement because it believes PD ought ot be in the hands and under the directions of others, not the teachers themselves (well, you know us, we just cannot do thiese adult things; we need someone to tell us what to do, right?) Here are the points Bower makes that are so insightful and apply, of course, not just to the teachers in Canada, but to teachers everywhere,
1. There is a big difference between professional development and in-servicing. School Boards can still have their own focus and priorities via inservices. However, in-servicing is not professional learning. Professionals determine their own growth and efficacy.
2. The heart of local autonomy is with the child, and the best decisions for the child are made by the child in collaboration with a safe and caring adult who actually spends time with them. 3. Those adults are not trustees and they are not administrators -- they are the classroom teachers.
4. The problem with employing teachers to empower students to own their learning is that teachers might want the same treatment.
5. Teachers need to be trusted and treated as autonomous professionals.
Having just completed a full day of what I hope was PD and not In-service (though we tend to use the terms interchangeably, I fear), I can tell you the biggest difference I see between the group I had with me at the service center and the group that I have encountered from time to time when I am asked to come in and speak to the entire staff of a school:
1. These folks were here because they elected to come to this presentation. The service center has a cooperative that offers a wide range of speakers each year.
2. Many of the librarians who came brought along others from their faculty, some teachers, some administrators.
3. While I make it a point to highlight booktalks, displays, readers' advisory, and other elements, I am careful not to dictate how they should be done.
4. Some of what we talked about today focused on the questions raised by the participants.
I hope what I offered was helpful and was developmental in nature. I still tend to deliver the sort of workshop I would have liked to attend as a classroom teacher. I can tell you that the entire stock of the books, ARCs, F&Gs, and audio I brought were gone by the end of the day (we did different things to make sure everyone walked away with at least one freebie and I had loaded the car with hundreds of things to give away). Many talked to me during breaks and at the end of the day about what they had found helpful. They also asked lots of questions and talked about their favorite books.
It does concern me that so much PD these days is about STAAR (Texas tests) and CCSS. Teachers need PD that reinvigorates them, that tells them they are doing good stuff (there is something about hearing a speaker describe what you are already doing that is somehow like a pat on the back or an ATTA GIRL/GUY!), and that sometimes makes them look with a different set of eyes. I do not think (actually I know from tweets, posts, and emails) that all PD is created to do just that. This is particularly true when it comes to the scripted programs I see rising out of CCSS and other mandates. I do agree with Bower that teachers should drive their own PD. Taking autonomy away from teachers (AR and programs of its ilk are huge culprits here as are many other components of textbooks, of teaching approaches, of narrowed curriculum) is demoralizing. Given the current state of teaching, this further beating down is driving out good teachers.
If you want to see what I shared (and I ran out of time before I finished all of the things I had planned), you can see the power point here: www.slideshare.net/ProfessorNana. The session was called Tools of the Trade.