Jess Gartner, Author at ChangingMedia

Jan 17

0

The Lynchpin of Suspensions

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

This week, The Baltimore Sun‘s education reporter, Erica Green, ran a story on a controversial Baltimore City Public Schools incentive program: teachers and principals are eligible for monetary rewards up to $9,500 for successfully reducing suspension rates.

Great, right? Educators can be compensated for reducing suspensions: improving school culture and decreasing disciplinary issues to keep kids in school and safe environments.

Oh, logical fallacies are so sneaky!

Logical fallacy: A reduced number of suspensions are necessarily the result of improved school culture and/or a decrease in serious misbehavior.

Likely reality: A reduced number of suspensions are the result of assigning fewer suspensions.

If Destiny and Jaqueline get into a physical fight in class, the suggested disciplinary action in the Code of Conduct is a suspension, but the actual disciplinary action comes down to administrative discretion. If the principal is eligible for a monetary reward for reducing the number of suspensions, on which side of the disciplinary action spectrum do you suppose that discretion will fall? It doesn’t take a doctorate in behavioral psychology to imagine the negative consequences of this policy.

Unfortunately, the attention to the flaws of this initiative obscures the crux of the matter: suspensions don’t work. Suspensions have almost nothing to do with school and everything to do with home and parenting.

In 13 years of rigid Catholic schooling – where you could get detention for the wrong-colored socks, being one minute late, or wearing a flagrant hair accessory – I never got a single detention. Why? Well, because I was a goody-goody. But ALSO, because I did not want to even fathom the sort of wrath I would incur from my parents for receiving disciplinary action. Because I was terrified of even a single indiscretion on my “permanent record,” which I believed was very important because my parents told me so since forever. Because I knew the disciplinary action I received from school would pale in comparison to whatever my father deemed a suitable punishment. I did not worry about school infractions. I worried about what my father would say when he found out. I still shudder to imagine.

So what happens if this sort of disciplinary support doesn’t follow through at home? Nearly all of the punishing effect of detentions and suspensions are predicated on parents reinforcing the seriousness, legitimacy, and severity of these consequences at home.

In reality, many of my students viewed suspensions as a mental health day: a day of video games, Cocoa-Puffs, and Facebook. At worst, they were bored. At best – vaaaaacation!

As a teacher, I had many students with incredibly supportive parents – we chatted frequently on the phone, via email, and at conferences. They checked homework, helped with studying, and monitored grades. Not so coincidentally, these students were never in danger of being suspended.

For fairly obvious (yet complex) reasons, it is the students who do not receive adequate support and attention at home who are usually the repeat offenders for misbehavior, violent conduct, and truancy. Suspensions won’t work, because the lynchpin of the punishment is missing. Unfortunately, sending a message that extreme or violent misbehavior will be ignored or downplayed is a recipe for school chaos – that message travels fast.

What to do? These students do need some form of disciplinary action to send a clear message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. However, they are also likely in desperate need of additional support services. Unless you have an intensely Hobbesian view of human nature, it’s fair to say that students don’t generally go around cursing, punching, and threatening people without an underlying cause.

Without digging deeper to unearth and address the root causes of the misbehavior, those students (and their schools) will be caught in a vicious cycle of crime and punishment. Maybe they need therapy and counseling services, maybe they need a positive outlet for aggression (like joining a sports team), maybe they need a personal tutor… but one thing’s for sure: a mental health day won’t fix the problem, and neither will sending them back to class.

Jan 03

0

2013 ResolvED

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

When I was a teacher, I made my annual resolutions in August.

I will not grade papers in bed.
I will eat lunch.
I will have a social life this year.

Much like the late-January decrease in gym attendance, I usually had sheets stained with red ink and highlighter fluid and was back to raiding the vending machines by October 1st.

Lately, I’ve noticed a trend in thematic resolutions versus quantitative resolutions. Instead of resolving to “lose 10 pounds,” we resolve to “be healthy.” We pledge to be brave, be disciplined, be frugal, be honest.

The thematic approach to reform fits nicely with trends in education. Even the most data-driven reformers are beginning to realize that learning is less about scores, more about growth. Teacher motivation is less about salary and hours, more about motivation and autonomy.

Here are my prescriptive resolutions for stakeholders in teaching and learning to make 2013 “the best year ever” for education.

Teachers: Be Fearless.

Trust that you know what’s best for your students and stick to your guns. If curriculum, tests, and policies don’t make sense for you and your students, push back (thoughtfully, intelligently, peacefully). You are the teacher. Your playing small does not serve your students well. If you have a union, use it well. Organize other teachers and campaign for better professional development, more comprehensive evaluations, more flexibility with curriculum, smarter school spending practices. When you advocate fearlessly for yourself, you also advocate for your colleagues, your students, their parents, and the community at-large.

Parents: Speak Up, Show Up.

If you think a school system is failing your child and other students, speak up. This doesn’t (necessarily) require controversy, picketing, legislation. If you’re concerned about your student’s progress, call the teacher and ask how you can help. She’ll be thankful for your support. Even better – call your student’s teacher to say “Great job!” once in awhile. You know that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you receive a good report? It works both ways. A little positive praise goes a long way. If you have the time, show up at school once in a while, even if it’s just for 10 minutes. Your presence will do wonders for your child and other students. If you want to get involved at a higher level, by all means: blog, tweet, and campaign away.

Principals: Lead from Behind.

This quote has gotten muddled in recent foreign policy scandals, but the phrase is derived from a Nelson Mandela quote: “It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur.” By granting autonomy and leadership privileges to your teachers and students and refraining from micro-managing them, you not only empower staff and students, but also allow more time for observing classrooms, providing feedback, and cultivating local partnerships. When teachers feel a sense of autonomy over their curriculum, class environment, professional development and resource selection, passionate instructional leaders will blossom and thrive. When students assume leadership roles in school (through student council, hall patrol, internships, and teacher assistantships), school culture will improve with ease.

Reformers, Pundits, Thought Leaders: Think Progress.

Some of the public commentary on public education is downright vitriolic. There is an enormous spectrum of opinions on how to “fix” American public education. Let’s try to find some common ground, folks. There’s no need to attack people and policies with such venom. Let’s remember the students – isn’t that the whole point? Let’s think about progress, instead of tearing each other down. Let’s value different experiences, different perspectives – wouldn’t we teach our students to do so? Let’s disagree with civility. Let’s propose solutions and encourage experimentation and innovation. Some of the language I witness among educators would have warranted detention in my classroom – and definitely an apology letter. Instigating hyper-polarity among educators and other stakeholders will only stagnate reform. If we’re educating future congressional representatives, we must model more productive politicking.

Dec 20

0

Stand to Reason

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

In the wake of tragedy, we scramble to make sense of the senseless, derive meaning from the meaningless, identify causality (or at least, correlation) in the randomness.

We…

politicize
criticize
proselytize
sanitize
quantify
qualify
verify
justify

the violence.

Our ability to reason is a hallmark of humanity.

And humans have been trying to make sense of violence among men for thousands of years.

“For as humans are the best of all animals when perfected, so they are the worst when divorced from law and right. The reason is that injustice is most difficult to deal with when furnished with weapons, and the weapons a human being has are meant by nature to go along with prudence and virtue, but it is only too possible to turn them to contrary uses. Consequently, if a human being lacks virtue, he is the most unholy and savage thing, and when it comes to sex and food, the worst. But justice is something political, for right is the arrangement of the political community, and right is discrimination of what is just.”

– Aristotle, Politics

“Hence arose the first obligations of civility even among savages; and every intended injury became an affront; because, besides the hurt which might result from it, the party injured was certain to find in it a contempt for his person, which was often more insupportable than the hurt itself. Thus, as every man punished the contempt shown him by others, in proportion to his opinion of himself, revenge became terrible, and men bloody and cruel. This is precisely the state reached by most of the savage nations known to us: and it is for want of having made a proper distinction in our ideas, and see how very far they already are from the state of nature, that so many writers have hastily concluded that man is naturally cruel, and requires civil institutions to make him more mild; whereas nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive state, as he is placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes, and the fatal ingenuity of civilised man. Equally confined by instinct and reason to the sole care of guarding himself against the mischiefs which threaten him, he is restrained by natural compassion from doing any injury to others, and is not led to do such a thing even in return for injuries received. For, according to the axiom of the wise Locke, There can be no injury, where there is no property.”

– Rousseau, Second Discourse On the Origin of Inequality

In the wake of tragedy, we search for meaning.

To reason is human.

Dec 06

0

Baltimore Startup Weekend Edu

By Jess Gartner | Art & Social Change, Design, Education, Social Enterprise | No Comments

Last weekend was the first Baltimore StartupWeekend Edu, a 54-hour entrepreneurship competition. StartupWeekends take place every weekend in 90 countries and 300 cities around the world. StartupWeekend Edu is an offshoot of the original Startup Weekend program with a specific focus on innovative technology related to education. Both brands share a similar structure and goal: pitch ideas, form teams, and launch a startup in just 54 hours before presenting the final pitch to a panel of judges.

Show Them the Money? Why Merit Pay Doesn’t Work

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

Last week, Newark school district revived the debate on merit pay for teachers when the union passed a new teacher contract that awards $5,000 bonuses to highly effective teachers and up to $10,000 bonuses for highly effective teachers in low-performing schools and high-need subject areas like math and science. Proponents of merit pay argue for rewarding effective teachers, while opponents of the measure claim that it will pit teachers against each other to the detriment of students. Merit pay doesn’t work, but not for the reasons cited by the opposition.

A Four Point Plan for the Next Four Years of Education Policy

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

Decentralize Funding – Bloated bureaucracy and red tape at the district level creates unnecessary logjams at the school and classroom levels. As teachers and students move increasingly towards individualized and highly personalized teaching and learning, the system must decentralize decision-making about curriculum, funding, hiring, technology, professional development, and evaluation to the school and classroom level so that education professionals can make decisions that are appropriate for their school and students. In Baltimore, CEO of Public Schools Andres Alonso decentralized school funding and gave principals full autonomy over their school budgets. This allows principals to collaborate with teachers and the community to assess the needs of the school and prioritize funding dollars to provide the appropriate resources. Furthermore, by valuing every teacher salary in the budget at the mean cost to the district, this budgeting structure has completed eliminated Last-In-First-Out hiring practices.
Read More

Oct 25

0

A Dream (Act) for Evodie

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

Ethiopia. Iraq. Iran. Eritrea. Cameroon. Democratic Republic of Congo. Nepal. Sudan.

In my first year of teaching, I had students from all of these countries in my 7th grade world studies class. What a dream for a Social Studies teacher: our very own United Nations! Unfortunately, not all of my native Baltimorean students (and fellow teachers) shared my joy for diversity. It wasn’t long before these students – many of whom were new to the United States and spoke little or no English – were taunted for the way they spoke, dressed, walked, laughed. Their skin was too dark or too light. They were too religious or heathens. The math teacher put “those Africans” in the back of the room. What was she supposed to do with them? Some of them had never held a pencil. Some spoke three languages fluently.

In Response to “The Imaginary Teacher Shortage”

By Jess Gartner | Education | One Comment

On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Jay Greene, “The Imaginary Teacher Shortage,” which posits that while the United States has added a million teachers to the rolls since 1970, student performance has remained unchanged, proceeding to make an argument based on the kind of flawed, simplistic logic that is so damning to contemporary “reform” efforts.

“For decades we have tried to boost academic outcomes by hiring more teachers, and we have essentially nothing to show for it. In 1970, public schools employed 2.06 million teachers, or one for every 22.3 students, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s Digest of Education Statistics. In 2012, we have 3.27 million teachers, one for every 15.2 students.”

Come on, teachers! We took 7.1 kids out of your classrooms – why haven’t the test scores budged? Firstly, I’m curious to know how Greene is measuring student stagnation. To date, our best measure of student achievement is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which did not begin testing in reading and math until 1983, at which time, special needs students were exempt from testing. The other standard indicators of national student achievement at this time were the SAT and ACT, whose scores only represented the averages of college-bound seniors, not the entire student population.

Metrics aside, Greene’s statement that the United States has “nothing to show for it” is patently false. It not only assumes that all other factors have remained consistent in the classroom (including the very purpose of schooling), but also completely fails to acknowledge educational progress by any measures other than test scores and class size, (which are nearly useless in the aggregate, anyway).

In 1970, just 12.5 percent of three and four-year-olds were in pre-school, which research has consistently shown to be crucial to later academic success. Thanks to federal funding for programs like Head Start, nearly half of three and four-year-olds receive a pre-school education today. What about the other end of the education pipeline? In 1970, just 6.7 percent of males and 3.8 percent of females over 25 completed four years of college and the median number of years of school completed was 12 – the equivalent of a high school degree. Between 2007-2009, 38.8 percent of 25-34 year olds had completed an associate’s degree or higher.

Comparing teachers in 1970 to teachers in 2012 is futile, because the nature and purpose of schooling has transformed so fundamentally during the past 40 years that the demands of the modern teaching profession bear little resemblance to those in 1970. If the goal of schooling is to prepare young people for careers and citizenship, then the turn of the 21st century has necessitated the most dynamic shift of desired educational outcomes in American history. Globalization and the digital age have had an unprecedented impact on our workforce. In 1970, the majority of the student population was preparing to enter the manufacturing workforce, which required basic reading and math skills, but almost no high level critical thinking skills. Digital literacy was hardly a concern, since computers were still the stuff of science fiction for the average Joe. So it was wholly acceptable for less than 10 percent of students to be on the college track. Fast forward 40 years and politicians proclaim: everybody should go to college! Today, teachers are expected to have 100 percent of students on the road to college (never mind that it defies the law of averages and basic principles of economics).

“The path to productivity increases in every industry comes through the substitution of capital for labor. We use better and cheaper technology so that we don’t need as many expensive people. But education has gone in the opposite direction, making little use of technology and hiring many more expensive people.”

There are legitimate parallels between business and education in terms of motivation, culture, financing, and leadership. However, let’s stop short of commoditizing children, please. We are not making iPods (if we were, those manufacturing stats might not be so dire), we are educating human beings, who have a helluva lot more moving parts. Technology offers some wonderful innovations for education, but education technology should be designed to assist teachers, not replace them. I would like to see a computer break up a fight or mediate a conflict between angry adolescents. I would like to see an iPad dry a child’s tears or help him blow his nose or zip her jacket when it snags. I would like to see a SmartBoard smile or tie a tiny pair of shoes.

“Hiring hundreds of thousands of additional teachers won’t improve student achievement.”

On this point, I actually agree. One of every five children in America lives in poverty, disproportionately facing the added challenges of poor nutrition, single-family homes, drug use, physical or sexual abuse, gang culture and neighborhood violence. These challenges are not insurmountable, but we cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence that they significantly affect classroom performance.

As a nation, if we decide that schools should be the place to address all societal ills, we must provide them with the necessary resources. School equity means giving students what they need to succeed, not treating all students the same. Some students may thrive in a classroom of 30, while others need a small group setting limited to five students, and still others will need one-on-one attention. Some students may naturally develop socio-emotional skills in a 20 minute recess, while others will need years of counseling to overcome Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other mental health issues.

Simply adding more bodies to the classroom will not improve student achievement nor will it increase teacher satisfaction. If we want our teachers and students to be successful, we must provide them with adequate capital to provide resources at their discretion. Students will only be successful when we stop blaming teachers and start acknowledging that the true obstacles to education lie far beyond the classroom doors.

Sep 27

0

Have Teachers Outgrown the Union?

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

In 1857 America, blacks were slaves and women could not vote. And in 1857, the National Teachers Association was born, with just under 100 members. Although women were barred from joining until 1866, the Association later emerged as a leader in the women’s rights movement. During the next 50 years, the NTA became the National Educators Association, which championed civil rights, lobbied for child labor laws, and worked to establish national standards for American public education. The teachers union played an important role in ensuring educational freedom for marginalized populations in 19th and 20th century America and basic workers’ rights for teachers.

But that was then.

The demands of the education system in today’s globalized world are critically different than they were in 19th and 20th century America. The teachers unions have failed to adapt to the rapidly shifting needs of 21st century students. The mission of the NEA, as stated on their website, is to “advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world.” Unity and conformity are close cousins, and the unions’ recent actions seem to lean towards the latter.

Same standards. Same hours. Same pay. The only problem is that high achievers are not attracted to sameness. They are, by their very definition, achievement seekers. Difference-makers. Shaker-uppers. The United States has established global recognition and economic prowess through innovation and excellence. The opposite of excellence is conformity, and it has no place in America’s classrooms. The unions’ efforts to unite teachers in collective action strips them of their individuality as professionals and robs them of the potential for excellence.

By dictating a teacher’s monetary worth with arbitrary standards like the number of years in the system or educational credits, the union’s collective bargaining imposes inauthentic metrics on teachers’ careers and discourages innovation, experimentation, and achievement. By entitling teachers to career tenure after two or three years, unions delegitimize the value and presence of great teachers.

In 2012, teachers must be granted autonomy over their classrooms and careers. Teachers must be empowered to make decisions about which curricular content, curricular resources, and technology best meet the needs of their students. Teachers deserve the respect to pursue their own professional development. The best teachers must have the opportunity to demand incentives equivalent to the value they add to their schools and students, and the worst teachers should be encouraged to seek new professions.

The union could adapt to the needs of students and teachers in the 21st century and hold true to their vision and mission. A 21st century union could lobby for school funding models that do not disadvantage veteran teachers. The union could advocate for better classroom technology resources. They could conduct or fund serious research related to teacher quality and evaluation. They could support experimentation in teaching through innovation grants. They could ensure that the curriculum of teacher education programs are aligned with the demand’s of modern teaching. They could ensure that the the curriculum of today’s classrooms are aligned with the demands of tomorrow’s workforce.

Teachers, and the education system at large, have outgrown the 19th century union model. American public schools need extraordinary teachers at the helm of classrooms, and there is no room for extraordinary teachers in a union that commands conformity. Excellence must be earned, not bargained for.

Sep 13

0

The Only Way Out Is Up

By Jess Gartner | Education | No Comments

“Ever since I was a little girl, I wanted to teach teachers,” said no one, ever.

You may be surprised to know that being a teacher of teachers is a highly coveted position in education circles. After a few years in the classroom, many teachers discover that their passion lies not so much with teaching children, but, as it turns out, other teachers. With all the wisdom of two, three, or five years of professional teaching under their belts, they will earnestly tell you of their newly realized professional ambition: supporting teachers.

As social beings, humans seek order and hierarchy in complex systems. Not unlike other industries, education professionals are organized in a complex and hushed hierarchy of respect, authority, and salary. But unlike other professions, the people most directly responsible for outcomes are at the bottom of the totem pole, scavenging for resources.

Teaching is a relatively static profession. There is no clear career ladder with universally accepted benchmarks of achievement. There are few, if any, promotions. In law, one might aim to someday be a judge or make partner at a prestigious firm. In business, young associates set their sights on the C-suite. In medicine, there’s a strict progression from intern to resident to attending. But in teaching, a prolific career could blossom in the same classroom, with the same title, over the course of 30 or 40 years. The salary increments are marginal. The prestige is limited and local. The accolades are private. An enduring teaching career runs counter to almost every indicator of success in our culture. It’s less like a ladder and more like a Ferris wheel.

But Americans, particularly Millenials, are not conditioned for success in stagnation. Raised on titles and trophies, we’re looking for the next rung before we’ve even steadied our footing. In a commencement address at Harvard Business School, Sheryl Sandberg compared the 21st century career path to a jungle gym instead of a ladder. But a jungle gym still contains a variety of heights – encouraging risky jumps and maneuvers to become king or queen of the playground. Rather than allow for some professional gymnastics within the teaching profession, the education industry has outsourced the monkey bars to various “Offices Of.”

It pains me to admit that a certain Miley Cyrus song seems particularly prescient here: it’s the climb, and young educational professionals seem to be always looking for the next mountain to conquer. Suddenly, dozens of new positions with fancy titles exist in schools and districts and Teach for America offices across the country. Instructional Support Teacher, Model Teacher, Lead Teacher, Program Director, Vice President of Leadership Development, Director of School Leadership, Director of School Design, Director of Teaching and Learning, etc. Surely, all of these roles are filled with passionate, well-intentioned, intelligent people working to improve the country’s education system and provide excellent learning experiences for children. But arguably, the easiest way to provide excellent learning experiences for children is to be an excellent teacher of children. Many of these newly invented roles are filled by former teachers, which begs the questions: are these new roles truly necessary for providing excellent education, or have they been created to make adults feel better?

Most of these positions are accompanied by salaries and benefits equal to or better than those of teachers. And instead of managing and catering to the unique needs of up to 150 young people every day, these other education professionals can retreat to comfortable climate controlled offices where they will engage with (mostly) rational adults all day. What sane person wouldn’t view this as a step up in the world: equal or better pay for an easier job that still serves a higher purpose. Certainly, these professionals make worthy contributions to education. However, I have to wonder if their contributions are absolutely essential to the education system, or if they are diverting the already scarce human capital and other resources away from the classrooms they aim to serve.

In its simplest form, education involves only a teacher and a student (think Socrates). What would happen if we streamlined all resources for the direct benefit of students and teachers? If instead of having PowerPoints and Curriculum Manuals and managers and managers of managers, every classroom had three certified teachers and one-to-one internet-ready technological devices? In which system would students thrive? In which system would adults thrive in their chosen professions? And might they be one and the same?