Schmoker

A collaborative environment would be optimal for educators. Such
collaboration stimulates creativity, and allows teachers to pursue
“best practice” with many minds working in synergetic fashion.
Unfortunately this is not a reality. In many schools, systemic
isolation prevents cross-curricular or longitudinal dialogue from
every occurring. There is no incentive structure for classroom
teachers to learn from there colleagues. Even the tenets of game
theory would indicate that teachers working in isolation would be
compelled to improve for fears of other teachers’ performance. Yet
there is no positive competition because there is no uniformly
accepted assessment in place to evaluate student progress or
teacher performance. Then why do we so willingly accept the
status quo?

In short, teachers don’t want to be told how to teach. There is an
inconvenient divide between the educational research community
and practitioners. University Ph.D.’s have rarely taught a 3rd grade
class; teachers have not performed regression analysis. Both
parties are quick to wave these ideas in the oppositions face.
Teachers who are “in the trenches” are hardened to believe they
know what is best for “their kids”. To them, educational research
varies or oscillates to the extent that there is no motivation to
adhere to one particular movement. Moreso, educators who have
accepted a certain philosophy or instructional style are reluctant to
leave it for another. It is because of a communication breach that
neither researcher nor teacher will be forced to deal with this
discord.

The relationships between administration, staff, and parents are
slightly different. These parties are often co-enabling; they ignore
school shortcomings for fear of igniting a powderkeg. School
leaders who are able to retain their jobs are often those who best
project an image of improvement/success amongst staff, parents
staff and students. . . all stakeholders willing to accept positive
assessment. Parents can leverage school districts into unhealthy
competitions for change. These changes rarely set up assessment
structure for evaluating the improvement yield…it is modern-day
keeping up with the Joneses. Inside of schools, supervisors are
taught to find positives in lessons, and incentive structures compel
them to focus on these positives. Acknowledging a shortcoming of
a school or staff member rewards an administrator with a mountain
of paperwork and long-term accountability for improvement.
Teachers are similarly motivated to accentuate the positive.
Educators who diagnose failing students are obligated to correct,
or “catch up” a student who has been neglected for years.

For those brave enough to cut through buffer and acknowledge
school deficits, the challenge looms large. Many well-intentioned
school leaders have found their ideas stifled by staff, past
precedent, or a skeptical community. I believe that real
educational change must come in systemic form, by those agents
capable of changing the incentive structures for educators,
administrators, parents, and students.