Imagine that you are hiring a new English teacher. None of the people who apply have any of the qualifications to teach English. No teaching degree. No English degree. No experience in the classroom. Would you hire any of them? Probably not. Now here is the irony. Many of the people making curricular and legislative decisions about education don’t have the qualifications to be hired within education. This is a problem. In this episode, we hear how standardization, high-stakes testing, and policy decisions made by non-educators may be contributing to teachers’ decisions to leave education.
Music:
Theme Song By Julian Saporiti
“So Stark (You’re a Skyscraper” by Matt LeGroulx is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA license.
“Cat and Mouse” by Scott Holmes Music is licensed under a CC BY license.
“Space (Outro)” by Andy Cohen is licensed under a CC BY license.
“Home Fire” by Nul Tiel Records is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA license.
“Press Conference” by Blanket Music is licensed under a CC BY-NC license.
“Things Change” by HoliznaCC0 is in the Public Domain.
“Living Life” by Scott Holmes Music is licensed under a CC BY-NC license.
“Boulevard St Germain” by Jahzzar is licensed under a CC BY-SA license.
“Hungaria” by Latche Swing is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA license.
“Business Getaway ” by Scott Holmes Music is licensed under a CC BY license.
Transcript:
I used to listen to the Dixie Chicks’s song “Wide Open Spaces” before wrestling matches because I would get too wound up. It helped me slow down my breathing and relax.
In junior high and high school, I was fixated on winning and losing. I’d get a pit in my stomach, psyche myself up and out, all to my detriment. I was terrified of failing, of being a disappointment or an embarrassment.
Then I went to college. I walked-on to the University of Wyoming’s wrestling team. During my meeting with Steve Suder, the head coach, he told me, “You know, you’ll be walking into a room with a bunch of state champs. Are you worried about that?” I told him, “No, I’m not” because those were the guys that I wanted to be wrestling against. I was a two-time state placer and I had nothing to lose. Suder said, “Good,” and then told me that he never won state either, but he ended up being an All-American for the University of Wyoming, so there was hope for me.
During our conversation, in between adjusting this chewed up yellow cushion he used as a back support, he told me that I was like the pretty girl’s funny friend at a party. I’m not someone he noticed right off the bat, but once he got to know me, he was happy to have me around. He meant this in the best way possible, and I didn’t mind.
I made the team, worked my butt off, won some matches, and lost more than I won. And I hate losing, but it felt different. I was excited to be wrestling, not nervous. Suder made it clear that his expectations were low, but he was happy to have me. I focused on gaining experience and the process and growing as a wrestler and a person. And I got to wrestle a guy named Brent Metcalf, who is the only person I wrestled that had a documentary made about him. When someone asked Metcalf why he didn’t celebrate wins, he said, “I don't want to give my opponent the satisfaction of watching me celebrate, which would make it look like a big deal that I beat him.” This dude is a monster.
It was an extraordinarily humbling match. I had no control of my own body - his fingers were in my mouth at one point, but I learned what it was like to wrestle the best. It was eye-opening.
My tenure as a collegiate wrestler only lasted that year,but I remained in contact with Coach Suder off and on until his passing in 2019. And I had changed. My priorities shifted from valuing product to process.
When I became an assistant high school wrestling coach, the head coach had also wrestled for Coach Suder, and so we continued his tradition of emphasizing process. And what I noticed is that the wrestlers felt less pressure. They only tried being better today than they were yesterday. And when they have that mindset, success, though not guaranteed, is more likely. They are wrestling to compete and to score points. And even if they don’t have success, they do the best they can do at that moment, and that’s always worth being proud of.
In education, we focus on the product, on assessment. There is an obsession with passing or failing and we seem to have forgotten the value of process, which is where many teachers live. So today, we are going to look at how a structure of education that values standardized assessments could be contributing to teachers deciding to leave the profession, and because some of the frustrations with standardized assessment is a federal issue, which is too much to address here, we’ll explore a possible solution to the high stakes assessment issue in Wyoming, which would hopefully keep teachers in education.
This is Those Who Can’t Teach Anymore, a 7-part podcast series exploring why teachers are leaving education and what can be done to stop the exodus. I’m Charles Fournier.
Here is part 5: “Education has a Tourist Problem”
Mark Perkins: I do think that for a lot of teachers who are leaving, and this is speculative, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if you alleviated some of the assessment requirements within their schools, their satisfaction would increase. I don't think that that's a jump.
This is Mark Perkins, he is an Assistant Professor of Education Research Methods at the University of Wyoming and he is talking about the survey results he gathered about teacher attrition in Wyoming. So many teachers, both teachers leaving and teachers staying, reported that they were not happy with assessments.
As we’ve heard from teachers that left teaching, there wasn’t one thing that pushed them out of teaching. It was the layering of factors. And if we want to keep more teachers from leaving, it would be worth trying to address some of the most consistent factors. Aside from overall well-being and feeling supported, assessment is one the most consistent teacher frustrations.
Now before we get into what specifically teachers don’t like about assessment, I think it’s important to think about why education currently has assessments, and this goes back to what we talked about last episode: the purpose of education and needing to be able to measure success for whatever that purpose is. Simply put, we need to reflect on what we want kids to know and how we can measure what they know. Mark explains.
Mark Perkins: And so what does school success really look like? That sounds like an interesting, easy question. It's like, Well, kids know how to do math. Well, okay. What does that look like? Well, they can add, subtract, divide. All right. So what? When you start drilling into the actual requirements to exist and inhabit the world, the factors become much more latent than what we measure. But we fixated ourselves purely on content.
During our conversation, Mark explained that there are a ton of other things that we want for students: self-awareness, identity development, civic consciousness, the ability to have some gumption and as Mark phrased it, drag a horse through the mud. But none of those qualities are easy to measure, which means it’s more difficult to measure a teacher’s overall effectiveness. This brings us back to the focus on content.
Mark Perkins: But all of the focus has been on reading math, science and somewhat government. How does a teacher who navigates let's call it the multivariate universe of being an educator. How do you evaluate teaching for the holistic aspects of the job? While we don't?
It would be difficult to assess students and teachers in the Multivariate Universe of education, as Mark puts it, so we assess a few content areas, and only a few things in those content areas. Many mission statements want to acknowledge the whole student, but we only assess a fraction of the student.
For example, I have a grant application unit for my sophomores. They do research and write a grant to receive hypothetical funding that they can use to address a real problem within our community. I don’t limit students on what kinds of problems they want to address, so students have looked at drug use or homelessness or access to sports or social justice issues.
When students submit their grant applications, we go through a selection process. Students read each other's grants anonymously and identify ones that meet all of the grant requirements and would, in their minds, best serve our community. By the end of the process, all of my classes vote on the one grant that should receive the hypothetical funding. Every year I’ve done this, the grants that make the final vote, the ones that all of my students have pushed forward, are philanthropic and genuinely kind. And I tell my students this, usually as I tear up, that this project gives me hope for the future because through their research, writing, discussions, and voting, they prove that they are empathetic humans.
I learn much more about what my students can do through this project than any standardized assessment that I’ve been required to administer. And this is a frustration echoed by teacher after teacher. If the thing that is used to reflect a district’s success is a bubble-sheet test, that can feel pretty disheartening. Because from the teachers’ perspective, the results of those tests, the results that are reported in the paper and raise community questions like, “What are they even teaching kids in school?” those tests lack validity. They’re not the best way to measure whether the kids are alright, and Mark has questions about how well these tests show what kids know and how well they predict the future success of students, which is often how standardized tests are used.
Several teachers pointed to the frustration that rather than getting students ready for life beyond high school or to be a life-long learner, they are forced to think that the be-all-end-all was the ACT or SAT. So engaging and authentic instruction gets replaced with teaching to a test. From Mark’s research and work in assessment, he sees that those assessments might not be worth the time we are putting towards them.
Mark Perkins: And I have a suspicion that the predictive validity of these tests is not that good. And my suspicion comes from a very large body of literature that has looked at ACT/SAT versus high school grade point average and college level English math and general college grade point average. And yet, we invest an amount of time, pressure and money on these measures.
What this means is that a grade point average, though imperfect in its own right, is a better predictor of future student success, whether they are college or career bound, than a standardized assessment. So what a teacher measures in their classroom is a better indicator of future success than what a standardized assessment shows.
And if this isn’t enough, the amount students are tested is tremendous. This saps their energy and the energy of teachers who have to say, “I know this is the 573rd test, but you’ve got this.”
Mark Perkins: We need to simplify and make assessment parsimonious. We do need to assess, but we certainly only need to take our temperature one time and evening, maybe two, when we have a cold because we know that it's going to say the same number every time. Measuring is not teaching.
I want to reiterate what Mark just said - measuring is not teaching. I also want to clarify something about assessment. Teachers use informal assessments all of the time. And these are different than the high-stakes standardized assessments.
Good teaching makes use of valid and authentic assessments often. When I was writing this episode, I got talking with my wife, Jennie, about assessment, because this is what you do when you marry another teacher. When she taught Advanced Biology, she created these elaborate group tests that students would get excited about. She used assessment as a learning tool. Her thought is that you don’t know what you know until you need to apply your knowledge.
This is why I like the writing process because it's an act of creating and synthesizing. It’s a great form of learning.
So the right assessment can be an informative learning tool, but the high stakes, fill-in-the-bubble, standardized assessments that teachers are frustrated with are not that. Mark explains that in order for those standardized assessments to be more valid, there should be some adjustments.
Mark Perkins: I think that we could more wisely use measurement, and education. I think one of the first problems with high stakes testing, is the fact that the majority of these tests have no impact on students. Now. You don't have to be draconian about it .But we make intelligent decisions based off of test scores. And we provide students with logical and rational incentives.
From the teacher’s perspective, it’s hard to convince students that the tests matter because students don’t see how they are relevant to their lives. I try to give students some perspective before tests, like “No it doesn’t impact your grade, but if you go through and randomly click answers to finish early, the people who care about these tests will think you’re not learning anything, and then they will change curriculum and make you guys only learn from a textbook. Do you want that?”
They usually shake their heads no, but that doesn’t mean they care any more about the test. Many teachers struggle to care about the tests as well. They don’t like the kind of standardization the tests force that does not allow for freedom in the classroom. Shane Atkinson, who we heard from in the first episode, left teaching after 13 years, and part of his decision to leave had to do with a lack of autonomy, some of which is tied to standardization. He pointed out that there are some districts that are so standardized, their days are mapped out in a binder.
Shane Atkinson: This is what you do, then you do this, here's the question you should ask, have them fill out this worksheet. Day two… I think that's been done under the guise of equity. You don't want a kid in this classroom at this school to get a much different or better education than a teacher in the classroom next door. And I get that. So the idea is, well, to keep it equitable, they should be doing the same thing in both of those classrooms during that period of their US History class. Again, you're making decisions based on a minority and applying them to everybody, even if you're doing good work. That does everybody a disservice.
The hope is that every kid will receive the same quality of education, so teachers are expected to stick to a curriculum, and in some instances, stick to a script. Much of the push towards national standardization came from the George W Bush Administration’s, 2001, No Child Left Behind Act. Jaye Wacker, whose voice we heard in the first episode and who quit teaching after 31 years, felt like the No Child Left Behind Act did a lot to undermine public trust in education. And it did it through standards.
Jaye Wacker: No Child Left Behind set impossible targets. And basically year after year after year, it undermined public confidence in education. So then we needed the standards we needed to prove that we're doing something and yeah, I get it and I agree with it. You know, let's prove what we're doing. But this homogenization that we've talked about _____ High School in their curriculum, the most diverse curriculum in the state, and their kids are outperforming all these homogenized curriculums.
Part of the impossible targets from the No Child Left Behind Act included a 100% proficiency rate for all students by 2014 - this meant that all students would be able to perform at grade level by 2014. This sounds nice, it is great rhetoric because of course no one wants to leave any kids behind, but this goal disregards so many variables. Many students are below grade level because of severe physical and or learning disabilities, and some will never make it to grade level. This doesn’t mean an effort to get all students to proficient is a bad goal, it’s a great goal, but not reaching this goal made it look like schools were failing. But the Act made it so schools were destined to fail. Though this Act has since been replaced, along with the unrealistic proficiency rates, its negative impact on the view of education is still present.
Wacker also pointed to the reality that homogenized education doesn’t necessarily produce the best results. This is a pretty common view of standards. A teacher who wanted to remain anonymous said. "On a societal level, I think standards are the worst thing about education, and that’s a wide-open race... In my opinion, standards have lead to a homogenization that is stunting our growth, and solve problems that don’t exist. I don’t want education to be the same everywhere; I want to be a local restaurant, not a McDonald’s."
For a more scientific point of view, my wife, Jennie, who left teaching after 7 years compares standardization to evolution.
Jennica Fournier: So I think that standards homogenize things. So I don't know if your high school teacher was too afraid to teach you about evolution. But in general, we evolve best as a species if we have a really diverse gene pool. Basically if our education system was a gene pool, we’d be fucked.
So from an evolutionary perspective, species that are standardized or homogenous, don’t survive adversity very well. Diversity is necessary for survival, and this includes diversity of curriculum. Jennie explained that we might struggle as a country to solve problems when everyone has been exposed to the same standardized curriculums. Jennie points out that there would be benefits to having students prioritize local issues.
Jennica Fournier: So essentially we need kids to have a set of skills that match their environment at a local level in order to solve problems at their local level versus everyone in the US only knowing how to solve a generic set of problems.
So many teachers see standards as an impossible bar to be reached that stifles their ability to be creative in their classrooms. Another part to the frustration with standardization and standardized assessments comes from the preparation required to take them and the pressure associated with the results. This is preparation and pressure that Mark, who discussed assessment earlier in this episode, says might be unnecessary. Molly Waterworth, who we heard from in a previous episode and who left teaching after 8 years, explains how frustrating that process of preparation was.
Molly Waterworth: ACT/SAT prep, hated that. Totally hated it. And I never really figured out a way to do it super meaningfully. It just felt really meaningless because I just couldn't connect it to anything relevant. I just have to say to the kids, “I'm doing this so that you know the format of the test, and that's why we're doing this.” It's not fun. There's no way to have a discussion about whether or not somebody answered the correct question on ACT/SAT practice. My biggest motivator and the thing that brought me the most joy in teaching English was discussion and parsing through complexity and finding our collective way through something big and doing ACT/SAT prep just didn't ring that bell.
Having to teach towards a test that doesn’t seem valuable, or to work towards standards for the sake of standards can leave teachers feeling powerless. I don’t know that anyone likes to feel powerless, to feel like their hands are tied behind their backs. Several teachers decided to leave education for jobs that gave them more autonomy, where they didn’t feel like they were jumping through hoops.
I personally have never been a fan of doing things just because. If I am required to give a test, I want to know that it matters. I do the same for my students, I want all of their work to feel relevant beyond the classroom. Most teachers are the same. They want to know that what they are doing is relevant, and many don’t feel like the layers of standardized tests are relevant.Students, like most other humans, want to feel like what they do matters.
At least that’s what Anjel Garcia wanted from her education.
Anjel Garcia: Kids just don't have any respect or like reason to care about school, and I think that connects back to they don't know what they are doing there.
Anjel took my college-level English class and graduated last year. She is a phenomenal artist - I have one of her paintings hanging in my classroom - and she is going to college for art. For Anjel, she thinks school should help students find a direction for their lives.
Anjel Garcia: I think it's to find a passion and to find something that you want to pursue in life. But we're at the point where you're only doing it so that you can cram and learn that information, and then forget it the day after the test. They're not actually doing it in a way that's teaching kids how to find interests.
Which is something that many teachers enjoy. Engaging students in the joy of learning to find their interests is such a gratifying part of the job. And helping students identify interests means teachers would be able to individualize education for students. As we heard last episode, this is what many students want in their education - individualization. So a shift in the mission and a deprioritization of standardized assessment could create a structure that ends up valuing individualization. If we don’t make this shift, we will continue with a structure that devalues individualization and does not promote the joy of learning. This is what that feels like to Anjel.
Anjel Garcia: It's kind of extreme…with the prison system, they treat everyone the same way. They treat them like animals. They aren't treated in a way that rehabilitates them to be better people or to be prepared in the world, and I think that sort of connects to school.
Students shouldn’t feel like this, and teachers often feel powerless when it comes to assessment. To ease student pushback they rely on the district, state, or national mandate. The “Sorry guys, we have to do this.” So a shift to prioritizing the joy of learning will be a positive shift not only for keeping teachers but for making education something that students find joy and value in.
Still, despite teacher frustrations and the possible lack of validity of standardization and standardized tests, they are present because there has been a historic problem with equity in education in the United States. This is why Marguerite Herman sees value in standardization. Marguerite has a master’s degree in education, has some experience teaching, and served two terms as a School Board Trustee. And she agrees that there are some downsides to the standards, but she was pretty adamant that they are necessary.
Marguerite Herman: To standardize things, you lose a lot, but you also have these assurances that again… I use the term bean counter. I don't want to be dismissive of that responsibility - bean counters have to answer themselves to others.
I’ve known Marguerite since I was in Kindergarden - she used to help with religious ed when I was little, and I went to high school with her kids. When she was on the school board, I could always count on her to attend events I put on for my students - author visits or student projects. Marguerite is involved and someone I knew would be well-informed and honest with me about her role on the School Board and about education policy.
When I told her that teachers are frustrated with standardization and assessments, she acknowledged teacher frustration but defended assessments because they offer quality assurance and a way to make educational funding decisions, even if the standardized assessments are imperfect.
Marguerite Herman: You know, with funding comes accountability. And to some extent, people want a number, especially legislators who are not educators. They want to know, what's your competence here, what's whatever you're proficient in. Anytime you index a number, there's just a lot of data that's lost because you're reducing, you're obscuring, a lot of nuance. You don't get any nuance, frankly. It's imperfect, but you need something, and I’m not challenging that.
Marguerite explains that something is needed to ensure that all students are benefiting from their public education. And her job as a Trustee on the School Board was to ensure that.
Marguerite Herman: Well, once again, the statute kind of lays it out. At the school board, we are elected as trustees, and let me just dwell a moment on the word trustee, which is that you have undivided loyalty to a beneficiary. That word was picked. It's not like a delegate and something like a representative. You don't represent a sub constituency. You represent every child in this district - they are the beneficiaries. So everything you do, you should have in your mind, “I am using all the possessions, the assets of our district, to provide for the educational benefit of every child.”
I want to pause on this definition for a moment because there has been some divisiveness on school boards across the country. Marguerite’s definition is succinct - Trustees serve their beneficiaries, so Board Members serve kids. This means the tribalism that has moved into school boards across the country should get left at the door. School boards serve students and no one else. And when I say students, I mean all students across the religious, racial, sexual, gendered, intellectual, and political spectrums. This is no small feat to serve such a diverse spectrum of students, but that should be the goal despite what interest groups think or who is in the capital. And this is why Marguerite is adamant that even if our current system is imperfect, we need something.
I agree, we need something, but I don’t think what we have currently is that something. And Marguerite explains that the data that the legislators want don’t come from what a teacher sees.
Marguerite Herman: The feds want their numbers, and the legislature wants its numbers. “This is the teacher’s honest opinion of the learning that went on” and said, “Yeah, that's fine. But you know, show me the test score, show me the performance I want to see”. And so, you know, we dance to a lot of different bean counters.
So the people that want to track progress, as Mark pointed out earlier in this episode and Marguerite reiterates here, don’t necessarily want to hear what a teacher has to say about a student’s success - even though a teacher is an expert and is highly aware of their students’ capabilities. And even though, as we heard Mark explain earlier, a student’s gpa, made up of teacher grades, is often a better indicator of a student’s future success than the results of a standardized assessment. But teachers aren’t trusted. The feds, the legislature, whoever it is that is running quality assurance wants an easily read progress report that covers a few content areas.
Remember the idealism about the purpose of education from last episode - it often fizzles at the feet of a standardized structure that takes the word of a test over that of a teacher, the human who actually knows the kid. Idealism and authentic learning and genuine human growth are harder to measure than the few content areas that can be measured on a bubble sheet. Still, I know Marguerite is right - the assessments and the standards are a way to document, in an easily measurable way, that an effort is being made to assure an equitable education for all. That does not mean the way we assess nor the assessments themselves are valid, good for kids, or good for teachers.
So let’s change them! Let’s make our purpose of education, our assessments, our measurements good for kids and good for teachers! Right? It should be easy! We know that kids want to feel like what they do matters, that they want curriculums that are more individualized. Right? So we need to talk with someone who understands how these things work, and how changes could be made to the current system.
Here’s Chris Rothfuss. Chris has been a college professor, he has run a college summer program for high school students, and he is the father of kids in the public school system. He is also the Senate Minority Floor Leader in the Wyoming State Senate and a member of the Joint Education Committee. Chris was one of two Wyoming legislators to get back to me, and the only one who agreed to meet with me.
Chris Rothfuss: The intent of that Accountability Act, as it ended up looking, was to figure out which districts and specifically which schools were struggling, and then provide them with the resources, a system of supports, to build them up and make them better.
The Wyoming Accountability in Education Act was adopted in 2013. It took over federal accountability requirements established by the No Child Left Behind Act and preceded by the Every Student Succeeds Act or ESSA. ESSA requires states to give annual statewide tests in reading/language arts and math to every student in third through eighth grade and once when they are in high school, and in science at least once in each of grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. So the Wyoming Accountability Act, through the Legislature and Wyoming Department of Education, interprets federal requirements and sets goals for student and school achievement. So what assessments are used, how students are assessed, and how many assessments are given beyond the federal requirement is dictated by the state. And Chris acknowledges that there might be an issue with assessments.
Chris Rothfuss: We may be overtesting. If there were a way that we could do sampled testing if we could be a little more thoughtful about how we're doing it, if we're not using it as a direct educational instrument, then we don't need every student tested, we really just need a statistical representative sample.
But at this point, testing for a statistical representative sample is not how assessments are being used. Federally we have to test every student in most grades at least once a year, but many students are tested much more than this. Even so, I like the idea of shifting to a statistical representation especially if it means less tests. Statistical representative sample testing is already used at the federal level by the National Center for Educational Statistics - an entity of the US Department of Education. The National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP tests, also known as the Nation's Report Card, are given every two years to randomly selected fourth and eighth graders to test English and Math. So we already have a model for using these statistical representative sample tests, and it might be worth seriously considering how to do this - to quit overtesting. Chris calls the amount of tests part of the unintended consequences of standardization.
Chris Rothfuss: So we in Wyoming adopted some world class standards. The unintended consequence, though, as you set that as your mission, teach all of these students all of these standards, is that you've only got so much time in a day. And you've got more standards than you're capable of teaching in a school year. So when that becomes your priority, and you know, you're going to be tested on your knowledge of those standards, and you know, you're expected to improve your knowledge of those standards. As you're thinking through our well, what are we going to do with each of our days, you don't think head to the mountains?
I think about heading to the mountains on a daily basis, but that doesn’t mean we get to go to them. These unintended consequences of standards and assessments are a reality. The individualization of instruction and the exploration that teachers talked about last episode are often a casualty of an overwhelming amount of standards that must be covered. But a move towards individualization, and less emphasis on standardized assessments is possible. But it will require a legislature that is informed and understands what adjustments should be made in education.
Chris Rothfuss: I don't think there's necessarily a misconception that the folks that are making decisions about education, don't understand education. That's regrettably probably accurate.
Chris points out that many of the people with the power to make policy decisions about education think they are qualified to make decisions about education because they once went through the education system. Many of these people want to run education like a business, like a factory. They use words like stakeholders and incentivize, and they want annual progress reports. These are people that don’t necessarily acknowledge or make decisions about education based on best practices.
Chris Rothfuss: I spent the first I don't know how many years of my time in the legislature trying to ensure that our Wyoming education model did not utilize that pay for teacher performance. Because the literature makes it very clear that that is the wrong approach. Best Practices make it very clear that that's the wrong approach. But policymakers so often choose that approach because they don't take the time to really understand why it's an awful approach.
Folks like legislators disregarding best practice or research-based practice is a foundational aspect of why teachers are leaving education. Teachers are experts in their field, but education has a tourist problem. You know, those people who are close enough to education to feel like they are a part of the system, but the actual educators, the educational locals if you will, don’t see it the same way.
And teachers are tired of being dismissed or treated like they aren’t experts. The educational tourists assume that their time as students makes them an expert in education - policy is put into motion by folks who aren’t informed enough about education to be making decisions.
This is so frustrating as an educator. Nothing irritates me more than a non-educator, upon finding out I’m a teacher, starts telling me how I should do things. It’s almost as bad as sitting next to an arm-chair quarterback trying to explain how Josh Allen should be throwing the ball differently.
Chris is aware of this frustration of having unqualified people making decisions about education, and he is at a loss as well.
Chris Rothfuss: Education is certainly not a business. But at the same time, imagine you were a business and you were hiring for the job. Instead of electing for the job, you would immediately eliminate the entire slate. And this would be true of so many of the things so many of the positions, so many elected officials. If it were a list of applicants and you were the hiring officer, you’d just be like not qualified, not qualified, not qualified. How did we get to the point where our elected officials And the folks that we put in charge could never even get a job at the institution they're being put in charge of.
Think about that. Many of the people in positions to make policy decisions about education do not have the qualifications to be hired within the education system. Why do we accept this?
When the people in charge of the institution aren’t involved in the institution, they aren’t informed enough to be making decisions that are in the best interest of those people, the students and teachers and administrators, that are in that institution daily. This results in bad policy or policy fueled by animosity towards education or animosity towards any federal institution.
Chris Rothfuss: We've moved away from having a supportive team of pro-education legislators on the education committee that was struggling and working to do what was best for K-12 public education and really working hard to now over the last few years, embracing this mentality that our public schools are failing, and that somehow, for profit, religious charter schools from out of state will solve our problems, or decreasing funding will solve our problems, or belittling teachers and calling them out. Maybe holding them responsible for tiny actions or making them post everything that they're doing every single day online for parents to nitpick is somehow going to help. We haven't really in the legislature seen anything that I would call a strong positive pro education proposal in probably the last four years,
But what we have seen are policies that attack educators or education as a whole, and this is exhausting as a teacher. For many this adds to the feeling of being disrespected. If our elected officials, people who are seen as community leaders, are attacking education from an uninformed platform, it perpetuates a devaluing of education, thus a devaluing of teachers. And teachers are tired of it, and it’s contributing to why they are quitting.
Chris Rothfuss: We have some of the least informed policy makers shouting the loudest about their beliefs in education, that they're entirely unqualified to bring forward and promote. And yet, by being the loudest voice in the room and an angry voice, it's just easy to generate a mob mentality of support behind you, and to advance what is effectively bad policy and bad legislation, so we're seeing that.
And what’s scary is that these poorly informed policymakers are in positions to make policy change, to make lasting impacts on education that will further ostracize teachers, hurt students, and likely make more teachers leave the profession.
Marguerite gave an example of a policymaker putting a footnote in a budget bill that tried to reject teaching Next Generation Science standards, which, as Marguerite put it
Marguerite Herman: Which is like modern science. We hear about evolution, you know? I think we kind of got that one settled. Let’s question gravity, shall we? Okay. I'm making fun of it, but it was, teachers had no idea it was awful. That's what happens when the legislature, which is politics, let's face it, folks, gets into the curriculum, they do not have the expertise. And then Pollock's politics doesn't always produce the greatest results, let's just say.
Chris had examples of bad bills too.
Chris Rothfuss: Teachers Not in Legislature In fact, when we hear when we when we bring legislation when we got some horrible bill that's coming before us in the legislature, like the horrible bill we had last year that would have required everything that teachers were doing, be posted on the web. Awful bill, bad premise, and certainly awful motivation. As far as I can tell, the only motivation is, you know, we don't know which books to burn if we don't have a full list.
So that awful bill, we didn't have a lot of teachers come up and provide public testimony against that bill, you think the whole classroom would be full, right up until you realize that no, all of those teachers were teaching at that moment in time, and would have had to take time off from teaching to come provide testimony against that lousy bill. So we don't hear the chorus of voices from the expert educators, we hear the chorus of voices from the folks that have the free time to come and yell at us.
This is a great irony. Teachers who would have strong opinions about such a bill and who would be impacted by the bill, are not able to advocate in person because they are doing their jobs. And at a moment when substitutes are in short supply, leaving school to attend the legislative session is even more difficult.
Still, teacher advocacy was something that both Chris and Marguerite pointed to in terms of making a difference in policy. Policy includes curriculum choices and assessment choices. But for a teacher to speak up about assessment or curriculum requires a level of vulnerability that many teachers don’t feel comfortable with.
Chris Rothfuss: Well, it's certainly understandable that when the teaching community has its strong supportive views for diversity of educational materials that are and that view is effectively contrary to a school board that again, is usually not expert, or particularly proficient in pedagogy or or education. It's going to be disconcerting for the teachers to step up and advocate because again, they're in fear for the protection and preservation of their job, and it's a flaw with our system.
I have felt this constantly over the last eight months as I’ve interviewed folks, researched, written, and produced this podcast. I don’t know who I might offend or upset - Wyoming has a mighty small population And I don’t know what impact this series could have on my job. It’s a risk, but dammit, I’m tired of seeing teachers at the end of their tethers. I’m tired of being a teacher at the end of my tether. Something has to change. We need to fix this.
We need to listen to the experts, to teachers who know what they’re doing, who know what good assessment looks like, who know what engagement looks like, who know the power of relationships, and who know that teachers are stretched thin. And Chris says, teacher voices could make an impact.
Chris Rothfuss: And public testimony does make a difference. And believe me if those 250 educators were able to show up and weren't obligated to be teaching at that point in time. That'd be very compelling.
Beyond speaking up in legislative sessions, part of the solution to retaining teachers, might require some reflection on the roles of everyone in the multivariate universe of education.
So my question to both Chris and Marguerite was if teachers should have more of a role on school boards. I asked this because many teachers point to the reality that school boards are made up of non-teachers. Not many other professional boards are run by people outside of the particular field.
Marguerite was adamant that teachers should not be on school boards - she explained that’s not how the statute is written. And Chris worked through the question in a very diplomatic manner, but he acknowledges a problem with people getting on school boards who are there for the wrong reasons.
Chris Rothfuss: This gets back to the question of who should govern whom and how. You'll have some people on an average school board, typical school board, that know something about education, hopefully. And then you've got people that are just mad about education. And then you've got people that are pointedly trying to slant education towards specific interest groups interests, that might be fully counter to K-12.
Chris sees value in teacher expertise, but like Marguerite, he points to the possible conflict of interest with having teachers on the board.
Chris Rothfuss: It is hard to have someone on a governing body that is in the role that the body is governing as a voting member, although that can be dealt with, you can have some votes that they're there for, like the policy decisions they are included in, but maybe not the personnel decisions, there's a lot of possibilities there. So I'm one that certainly is concerned that we do not have anywhere near enough expertise on our school boards. There's no obligations for qualifications. So a lot of the problems we have stem from that lack of expertise. And ideally you want to balance.
Having some balance is a step towards a system that will retain teachers. In order to keep teachers in education, it will be important that teachers have a voice in education policy and decision making. Teachers shouldn’t be a scapegoat when things go wrong, nor should they be excluded or put in positions where they exclude themselves from decision making positions because they fear retaliation or because they are so busy that they can’t make room for something else.
We need to reimagine and consider the roles of everyone tied to the education process because right now, the teachers working with kids and engaging in the education process are often left out of the conversation. Dylan Bear, a teacher we heard from a few episodes ago, had the best analogy for how we should think about everyone’s role in education.
Dylan Bear: Imagine, a fence, you know, like a round pen for a horse. The respect has to come from all angles for someone to learn. And you have to have the community showing respect of the education system, you have to have parents showing respect, you have to have the students show respect to the teacher showing respect for that. And so this ring of respect has to be there, of the education system. Or else if one of those falls out, like have a parent, dad or mom say, I'm not dealing with my kid at school, I call the principals and then once that happened, that kid got out of the pen because now he goes the path of least resistance to leave the education system.
The key image that Dylan is presenting here is the ring of respect that requires everyone associated with education to have a role, and trusting each other to cover their role. And for Dylan, even though he points to an analogy of a horse pen, he says this could take place anywhere.
Dylan Bear: And it doesn't have to be four walls and bricks and the fence at the school. I think that's such a weird way to learn. I love going to the mountains and going on trails where now you're vulnerable, and you want people to respect you and trust you. You look at the different environments for education, so different. But yeah, trying to get what needs to change to me is you have to have communities that value teachers that don't want to use that negative language. You have to have kids who value it.
So education has to be a collective of support with and around kids. To gain that support and trust and collectivity we need to have a clear purpose of education - this echoes last episode. Right now, we base the purpose of education on how we evaluate students or how we can cover a tremendous amount of material.
An unintended consequence of having so much material to cover is that education might feel like a grind to students. A grind without a sense of purpose makes it difficult for students to care. So to shift what is happening in the classroom and to create a structure in which roles are clear and supportive of one another in education, Chris thinks legislators should start by listening to teacher concerns.
Chris Rothfuss: So when we hear from our teachers, what their real concerns are right now, and when they come back to me as a legislator and say, mental health is the problem for both students and teachers. We should listen. And we should adjust because at the end of the day we're not these rulers that are supposed to be at a distance and making proclamations. Our job is to listen and to learn from folks that know what they're talking about. And then try to put in place policies that affect change that enable everyone to do what they want to do and are trying to accomplish. And particularly in the public education system, we have that constitutional obligation to provide this high quality education for all.
For Chris, the role of legislators is to seek out experts to inform their decisions about policy that will impact those experts. So, for policy about education, legislators ought to speak to educators. And to do so in a way that is welcoming and doesn’t just put more work on teacher plates. Chris also pointed out that to help mental health, which would contribute to keeping teachers, he thinks there should be a push to shift our priorities away from developing workers, which ideally means a shift away from high stakes assessment.
Chris Rothfuss: Honestly, if our first priority was joy in learning. As job number one, just imagine how much more we would learn. And that's the message that comes if we want to set it at the legislative level, we want to set it at the school district level. It does come from the policy leaders setting what is the mission? And right now our mission is develop workers.
Chris explained that the role of legislators is to set the education mission, which could be seen as a purpose of education. And he thinks, especially at this present moment of teacher attrition and teachers and students both struggling with mental health, that the mission should prioritize the joy of learning. And if that mission is set, evaluative practices and accountability models can be adjusted. This will then dictate how school boards will work to achieve the new mission’s objectives. It’s a top-down shift, but if the top (legislators) consult the bottom (teachers and students) then it’s more of a down-top-down shift? Whatever it is, it might help.
Chris said that he would even be willing to take a drop in proficiency if we have happy kids and happy teachers.
Chris Rothfuss: My absolute ideal is to heavily prioritize joy in the classroom, and to focus our efforts, our resources, our activities, and our prioritization towards building joy in the classroom, with the expectation that with that joy, you would be addressing mental health issues, both for the teachers and for the students. And I'd love to see where that takes us. And what that means is ratcheting back this prioritization to build robots and the prioritization of score high on tests. And I'll take a 10% less proficient happy group. I will. At the end of the day, they can learn a little more math later. And if they're happy about education, then I think they'll have an opportunity to learn a little more about math later.
This mission would also shift the roles of us, the collective us, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators, community members, everyone, to not think of our K-12 experience as the only time we should be learning. If there was an assumption that learning was a lifelong process, Chris believes that we might have a cultural shift that results in valuing and enjoying learning, which would have a major impact on how teachers are viewed.
Chris Rothfuss: We think that you have an education phase in life. We've built a system around the idea that you have an education phase, phase one. Phase two and beyond never get any more education. Avoid, if possible. I would love a system where everyone just kind of keeps going back to school.
The move towards life-long learners that Chris is proposing would be a conceptual shift, but it could be supported concretely by a move away from overtesting or overemphasis on testing. Because our current system requires testing, this might mean we reimagine what testing looks like all together. Could it be a conversation? Something more authentic than a bubble sheet? Federal regulations have some flexibility there. Either way, the amount of attention given to Summative or End of Course testing is focusing on a product and not the process. Focusing only on the product is not creating a culture that loves learning - it’s kind of the opposite. It’s creating anxiety and pressure around learning. So if we can lessen the stress by drastically cutting back the amount and pressure of assessments, maybe we can focus on process and create a joy of learning.
So, by shifting priorities away from high stakes testing, we can stop structuring education in a way that prepares only for tests. This might mean loosening the grip on what curriculum can look like or what courses can be offered. For example, I once taught a course at the University of Wyoming called the history of Swing Dancing. We looked at the correlation of historic events and their impact on popular culture. When the class ended, a group of girls continued their final project and created a club on campus called Real Women Real Bodies. This class encouraged students to continue learning beyond the restrictions of the semester.
When I proposed to create this class for the high school setting in my district, it was declined because it didn’t fit within the Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum. So a shift might allow us to create new, novel courses that might inspire students to continue learning and growing well beyond the course. Such a shift will likely reinvigorate teachers who almost all have unique expertise and would love to incorporate such things into a course.
So, as Chris pointed out, to adopt a new educational direction, it must start with a shift in mission at the legislative level - hopefully fueled by teacher input. And I think it can happen, especially in a state like Wyoming that wants to be a national leader in education - it even says so in the Wyoming Accountability Act. So creating a mission that prioritizes the joy of learning by focusing on process over product could happen.
Then how the decision is implemented should trickle down. Hopefully, this would result in teachers wanting to stay in education. And if all of this happens, if we can make that allegorical ring of respect and support that Dylan mentioned, just imagine how much better the education will be for our students. Students will ideally feel that joy of learning and feel like what they do in school has purpose because that’s what many of them want from school.
This is idealistic. But when making changes, we need to strive for idealism and not be guided by fear. Because what we have now is not working. Many people are aware of this and are already taking steps to make changes that will hopefully make education better and help keep teachers in education.
Next episode, we’re going to take a look at what people are doing to help keep teachers in education. This includes Task Forces, Mentoring Programs, Fellowships, and more.
That will be next time on Those Who Can’t Teach Anymore. Thank you for listening. Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, leave a review, and share episodes with everyone you can think of.
This episode was produced by me, Charles Fournier. It was edited by Melodie Edwards. Other editing help came from Noa Greenspan, Sarah-Ann Leverette, and Jennica Fournier. Our theme song is by Julian Saporiti. All other music can be found on our website. A special thanks to Anjel Garcia, Mark Perkins, Shane Atkinson, Jaye Wacker, Jennica Fournier, Marguerite Herman, Chris Rothfuss, and Dylan Bear for taking time to sit down and chat with me. If you are interested in seeing Mark Perkins’ full report, “Teacher Attrition in Wyoming: Factors to Consider” you can find the link in the transcript for this episode and on our instagram page @thosewhocantteachanymore. This podcast is funded in part by the Fund for Teachers Fellowship.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
