#teacher corps

[gravitascivics]

“TEACHER” AS A COMMONPLACE, I

Moving on from the “student,” this blog will now begin its review of the “teacher” as the next commonplace of curriculum development.[1]  That is, this blog will address the factors concerning teachers as they relate to the proposed curricular change for implementing a liberated federalism construct.  That construct is proposed to guide the teaching of American government and civics at the secondary level. 

Specifically, subsequent postings will answer the following questions:

What general conditions or characteristics typify the teacher corps in relation to accepting changes that would result in instruction of high-level thinking activities?

And what factors regarding the teacher corps would be helpful in implementing the liberated federalism approach?

Teachers play a very important role in social studies classrooms.  Back in 1991, Stephen Thornton describes this role as one of gatekeeper:  “As gatekeepers, teachers make the day-to-day decisions concerning both the subject matter and the experiences.”[2]  Before and since that claim, the literature is full of citations regarding the importance of teachers in the education of young people.[3]  Commentary on the teacher’s role in terms of the ultimate experience students will have with all the subjects they take at school and that includes social studies.

With these introductory remarks, the next posting will more specifically address teacher receptiveness.  With this context, it would be crucial for the implementation of any curricular change to have a willing teacher corps to carry out the prescribed elements of that change.  In terms of instituting liberated federalism as the guiding view, teachers would embark on what promises to be a transformative change from content guided by what is prevalent, a natural rights view – a highly individualistic approach – to a more communal view.

[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).  The commonplaces can be defined as follows:

The subject matter refers to the academic content presented in the curriculum. 

Learners (students) are defined as those individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a particular curriculum.

The teacher is the professional instructor authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom setting.

Milieu refers to the general cultural setting and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.

For readers who wish to read previous postings that review the commonplaces, subject matter and learners (students), they can begin that series of postings with the posting entitled “From Natural Rights to Liberated Federalism” (June 2, 2023), at the URL, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2023_05_28_archive.html.

[2] Stephen J. Thornton, “Teacher As Curricular-Instructional Gatekeeper in Social Studies,” in Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, edited by James P. Shaver (New York, NY:  Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1991), 237-248, 237.

[3] For example, “The Role of Teachers in Society,” Allison Academy (2023), accessed October 7, 2023, URL:  https://www.allisonacademy.com/parents/parenting/the-role-of-teachers-in-society/https://www.allisonacademy.com/parents/parenting/the-role-of-teachers-in-society/.

[corinnefriesenblog-blog]

[gravitascivics]

LET’S GET REAL ABOUT TEACHERS

In a past posting, Mr. Chips Ain’t So Bad (July 10, 2015), I reviewed some commonly voiced complaints against teachers in general. The attacks, it is understood, are mostly leveled against public school teachers.  In general, my message in that posting is that teachers, as a group of professionals, are not “so bad.”  I want to pick up on that theme in this posting.  If you are interested in this topic, may I suggest you click on that site to review the points my previous posting makes.  As for this posting, I want to revisit the reporting that Dana Goldstein[1] provides.  She tells us that despite the general beliefs many hold as to the unwarranted advantages enjoyed by teachers regarding job security, the facts point to surprising realities.

 One, around 50% of new teachers leave teaching within five years.  That is a heck of a turnover.  Goldstein informs us that studies indicate that those who leave teaching in those initial years are not the more successful teachers, but, by and large, are among those who don’t perform as well as those who stay in the profession.

 Two, the evidence concerning whether teachers are anymore protected – characterized by low termination rates among teachers exhibiting poor performance – is difficult to find and interpret.  Goldstein cites numbers:  in 2007, teachers being terminated for poor performance amounted to about 2.1 percent among American public school teachers; among workers in companies of over one thousand workers (comparable to the typical school district), the termination rate in 2012 was 2 percent (this includes firings, resignations, and layoffs); and for federal government workers, firings for poor performance account for .02 percent of that workforce.  Therefore, the teacher, as compared with these other two employee populations, are the most apt to be fired for cause.

 Three, much of our conversation about teachers and teaching is a bit unrealistic.  The tacit message is often that since what teachers do is so important, they should be as talented as the average doctor or lawyer, yet the resume of most teachers does not compare with that of these other two professions.  They, the teachers, often don’t have the academic credentials that characterize these other professions as measured by college admittance exams – such as SAT scores. The lack of realism stems from a very important fact – one I have stated several times in this blog:  we need to hire many more teachers than doctors or lawyers.  How many more?  The number is roughly five times greater as compared with each profession.  There are 3.3 million teachers in the US; there are 691,000 doctors, and there are 728,000 attorneys.  Overall, four percent of all civilian workers are teachers.  This math dictates certain rates of availability in terms of talent.  Add to this the perceived inequitable levels of compensation one can expect among teachers, much lower than that for doctors and lawyers.  Teachers do not fare well in those comparisons.  Therefore, the costs to equalize the level of talent among teachers and other professions would be significantly greater than what is currently being spent and success is not guaranteed.

 And four, there is little evidence that better resumes result in better teachers.  Yes, nations like Finland have instituted a teacher corps made up of “star” students; that is, they have put in place very high academic standards by which teacher hiring is conducted.  In addition, Finland does have one of the most successful systems among advanced nations.  Yet, in other parts of the world, there are instances where school systems have found ways to develop high teacher performance rates among average talented people.  Cited is the Shanghai system.  Shanghai has dedicated more time toward preparation and training best practices. This has proven to be effective in producing quality instruction and impressive results in terms of student performance.  As for Finland, there are probably other factors affecting how effective its schools are, not the least a relatively unified approach to education among and within its schools.  So, given the potential costs, lack of any assured results, lack of agreed upon educational strategy, and the numbers of hires needed, we in the US should not hold our breath for significant upgrading in our hiring standards when it comes to recruiting new teachers. Goldstein observes that teaching for the foreseeable future will be made up of average folk.  She cites John Dewey back in 1895:  “Education is, and forever will be, in the hands of ordinary men and women.”[2]

 While in this blog I am seriously critical of our efforts concerning civics education, I do not blame teachers, as a group, for these shortcomings.  As with any profession, there are those who should be doing something else for a living.  This, quite honestly, is going to be an unavoidable factor of life.  Yes, we can improve and we should dedicate reasonable resources to do so.  But teachers, in common parlance, have been overly blamed for our educational problems.  I would point out, with pride, that the reporting of the unfortunate and recurring accounts of tragic shootings and other tragedies from school sites seems to consistently describe the actions of those affected teachers in heroic terms.  The Sandy Hook Elementary School case is prominent in this regard.  When I hear of such cases, a sense of pride overtakes me when I know I was a teacher for most of my professional career. Believe me, I do not count myself as being capable of such heroism, but to think that those who have behaved in such ways are of my calling provides me with warm feelings that include gratitude. It is, therefore, with a certain amount of pain that I hear commentary that belittles our teacher corps. Overall, I believe we should admire these professionals much more than we do and be more supportive of their efforts.

[1] Goldstein, D. (2014).  The teacher wars:  A history of America’s most embattled profession. New York, NY:  Doubleday.

[2] Ibid., p. 9.

AA==z�����.