In an ongoing series of posts, Barnett Berry asks a generic questions: What can raise the number and the quality of school teachers, especially in schools where students perform below minimum expected levels? To his credit, he created the Center for Teaching Quality to address variations of this question. He has attracted talented teachers and project staff to help. Their comments and reports are worth monitoring for their insights, whether or not you agree with their rhetoric.

In the spirit of respectful conversation, the generic question requires several assumptions that restrict available, practical responses, as considered by a teacher and business person. They appear, coincidentally, consistent with points made by Fredrick M Hess about what business can do for schools. Perhaps these counterpoints will raise objections, but they should remain on the table as viable options for addressing teaching and learning today. Here are some notes:

Assumption 1: An education system exists.

Counterpoint 1: Schooling does not equal education. Schooling exists as formal organizations to provide some, incomplete information and skill transfer from one generation of people to the next, especially as these contribute to survival of civilization. Second, a system of schooling or education does not exist. Many organizations loosely linked by statute and voluntary associations make up the dynamic of schooling across political units. At any moment, these relationships can change without necessarily affecting other relationships, except as someone wants to claim an affect. These distinctions reside in formal views of society.

Assumption 2: More teachers should exist. We must recruit and retain more teachers, for a variety of reasons.

Counterpoint 2: It's what you do with what you have that pays off in the end, not what you want to do with what you don’t have. Focus on existents. Given the number of incumbent and preservice teachers as well as their turnover rates, use what exists on-the-shelf in businesses to increase student learning rates promptly. For example, some of the best practical teachers are already trained and working at online help desks, are former engineers, and military personnel. Use their skills in classrooms. These are go-to people who get things done, including under extreme pressures, if increased learning results are what is wanted. Also, augment existing teaching staff with Tablet PCs, Ultra-Mobile PCs, and other state-of-the-art mobile PCs. Transfer some of the personnel budget to equipment purchases and support.

Assumption 3: Such an entity as a "good" or "quality teacher" exists by virtue of degrees, credentials, and tenure held, honors received, etc., and without considering student learning rates.

Counterpoint 3: The function of teaching occurs only when a learner changes behavior. All else is rhetoric. Those holding the organizational role of teacher in schools do not necessarily or sometimes sufficiently teach in this sense.

Assumption 4: That a different distribution of teachers should exist.

Counterpoint 4: Maybe, but that’s the choice of those who want to teach. If a school has a teaching vacancy, it seems reasonable for board members to ask: what’s going on in that school, so teachers don’t stay? Board members can ask such questions as a matter of duty. Another choice exists for board members: transfer part of the teaching personnel budget lines to equipment and software purchase and support lines. That’s doable now, without having to wait for recruiters to entice more teachers for vacant classrooms.

Some of these assumptions and counterpoints will be messy to handle! With that, I’m uncomfortable, but not deterred. Resolution of such differences is the nature of politics, as teacher advocates and school evangelists understand.

Given these foundations, a question remains, “Why teach?” (My response has been, “Because I enjoy seeing learners’ excitement when they crack the code or can manage the pattern of a lesson.) Patterns exist of where teachers have come from in the past.

Have these patterns changed? Has something moved against these patterns? Should patterns change again or more? Is recruiting teachers new and necessary? Is the operational definition of “teacher” changing irrespective of hiring practices, statutes, and professional standards? In short, yes. I’ll address these questions later.

Thanks, Barnett, for reminding me of why I like teaching.

Tablet PC Education Blog