After the earthquake on the East Coast last week, I guess I had the term “Shake-Up” on my mind. I don’t know which I considered first, the title, or the post. The beginning of the school year has arrived as many of us do every year, I am wondering what I will do differently this year from those same classes that I had last year. This is something that many teachers consider as they enter a new year. It is also something that many teachers do not ultimately address, but rather settle for many of the same methods and tools of the previous year to get through the new.
If a teacher developed a lesson, worksheets, quizzes, and tests that worked last year, why reinvent the wheel. It takes a great deal of time to develop this stuff, and who has time today? This year’s students never saw this stuff before, so it is new to them. As a secondary teacher of 34 years, I have been in this very same spot. That is how I know it does go on. I have done this. I also recognized it as a fault as I did it. This practice, unfortunately, just reinforces the status quo, and that is the thing that has been under so much scrutiny lately.
If there is one thing that supports the status quo in the education system, it is the way teachers are assigned classes for their schedule. Some schools have almost a cast system. The youngest most inexperienced teachers get the leftover classes. The”problem classes” no one else wants. The teachers, who have been around awhile, the experienced teachers, get the cream of the crop. The result is that the kids who need the most experienced teachers get the newbies. The kids, who are self-motivated life-long learners and have the ability to search out content on their own, get the teachers who are there because they are recognized as content experts.
Teachers who are interested in starting classes often work very hard initially to develop curriculum and selling their course to their “superiors”. If they are lucky, they are given the opportunity to teach that class and it becomes theirs. They actually take ownership and it is their course and deservedly so. However, ownership of classes continues for many years with one teacher, teaching specific classes possibly over decades.
It stands to reason that a teacher who has taught a course over years is truly a content expert for that course. Up until now content expertise is what was demanded of educators in all the previous years of our system. Content is King. The problem comes in when innovation goes out. The creativity that was used by that teacher to get the course up and running is replaced over the years by habit and complacency. Innovation is hard and things have been going along fine without it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. No, not every teacher falls prey to this attitude, but many do, too many.
Of all the problems in our system, this is not the biggest one. I believe however, that it is more prevalent than schools care to admit. Maybe it is time for a Shake Up. Maybe we should consider rotating teachers around after a few years in one area. There are some licensing areas that are subject-specific, especially in science. Other areas are less specific. A teacher certified in secondary English is expected to be able to teach any English course on the secondary level. Maybe three years is enough time for a teacher to teach a specific subject before getting a new assignment. There will be disappointments, but maybe that can be turned around by the creative juices of innovation. If nothing else it will promote collaboration between colleagues. It might also have teachers seek out best practices by others.
This need not be limited to teachers. There are many administrators in large districts who might benefit by a rotation to another school in the district. It would expose them to the culture and leadership of another school. It would broaden their leadership experiences. This would certainly hold true for department chairs as well as assistant principals.
Of course this Shake Up idea will probably go nowhere for one reason, the comfort zone. That is the ultimate place that we all strive to find. Once we find it, we want to always live there because life in the comfort zone is easy. The sky is always blue and everything is right with the world in the comfort zone. If we are to change the system, we need to change the culture. We need to change the comfort zones of educators. They need to be comfortable with, innovation and change. In order to make that happen, they need support. Support from Administrators, parents, colleagues, and kids. If we really want to support change, we need to all support teachers. Since we expect a great deal from teachers, our full and unwavering support is the least they should expect from us. The Shake-Up applies to all.
My Island View 
When I first began teaching elementary students in 1990, my principal let me know that I was a teacher, not a first grade teacher, a teacher. She felt like you should teach in a grade for 3-5 years, then change grade levels. That doing so I would better understand children, curriculum alignment, how skills build on each other, child development etc. I can honestly say she was 100% correct. I am fully on board with a Shake-Up! I think it helps you realize you teacher children, not subjects.
Well, I’ve worked with schools and other organizations that have done “shake-ups” and they didn’t work out as intended. I’d recommend asking for volunteers, but you probably wouldn’t reach the ones you most hope to shakeup! There are lots of other ways to overcome complacency–Japanese Lesson Study, functioning teams that challenge each other and encourage new practices, professional development that increases enthusiasm rather than making teachers feel like one more thing has been added to their plates. Further, one learning style often loves repetition even in what they teach since they strive to improve each time. Others want to start over from scratch on everything. We’ve got to make room for all. Getting teachers to reflect, though, on where they could benefit from a shake-up is a grand idea.
One of the reasons so many teachers leave the profession within the first few years is simply stated in this article. They are assigned to teach the “leftover” classes rather than the “cream of the crop” motivated students. This certainly applied to me. I was given impossible assignments. For example, I was the reading teacher for the emotionally handicapped students during the period when their excellent EMH teacher had his planning period. I also taught 8 deaf students who were mainstreamed into my reading class with hearing students. Our curriculum was based on an auditory drill response—totally inappropriate. I taught phonics to two classes of students who spoke no English yet. Actually, that class turned out to be my best teaching experience in 4 years. I honestly did my best to teach the students I was assigned to teach; but it just didn’t work. I am a 59 year old unemployed teacher trying to survive…It is scary.
Hmm… how to reply.
I am not a traditional teacher, though I do teach. I am not a fan of our current educational system, though I believe learning is enhanced when organized and guided.
My background is computers and unlike many industries it is still innovating quickly. But it too can be victim to stagnation and complacency. A quote I attribute to Microsoft’s Bill Gate sums it up, “We need to make our software obsolete.” In other words if Microsoft doesn’t continue to re-invent itself someone else will.
Stagnation, and complacency are easy. Innovation and creativity are difficult. Especially in an industry that does not have obsolescence built in. There are very few people that are that self motivated, to continue to create and make themselves and their jobs new every day.
So I agree that it is imperative that we “Shake Up” the system, the schools, the administrators, and the students. Technology is changing the way learning happens and if educators don’t participate in that change then the “Shake Up” they experience will be being left behind.
Shake-up sounds a lot like term limits in politics. The idea behind both is enticing, but I don’t think either is valid. The proposition that teachers develop lessons and techniques that work, then never improve on them, is both true and false. Sure, a lesson that works it probably worth repeating. However, a good teacher will continue to tweak the lesson and what is taught three years down the road may have but a faint resemblance to the original. When I taught, I took notes (computers are great) on what worked and what changes I wanted to make in various units and lessons. When summer came along, that was the time for revision and reassessment. Every few years I would totally redo a course. For example, the world history course I taught in 2005 was very different from the one I taught in 2010. Sure, the scope and sequence were the same, but how I addressed topics and the resources I used could be 70% different.
I found over the course of my teaching career, during which I taught nearly every course our department offered, that the easy access to information and learning tools provided by the internet, made me impatient when lessons were only partially successful. I found myself trying new techniques and making adjustments on-the-fly. I wanted lessons that interested students and myself. I felt students appreciated my efforts.
I worry, sometimes, about rotating teachers. We discussed this in department meetings (high school social studies). Our feeling was some people did not feel competent teaching some courses (economics for instance) even though they were licensed to do so. Why subject students to a potentially less competent teacher when a very capable teacher is also in the department? I believe it comes down to creating a climate where teachers want, and are encouraged, to improve. Studied experimentation should be encouraged without fear of reprisal. It’s really about creating a climate of excellence.
Hmmm…interesting. I wonder about the other P.O.V. — what if having some familiarity/comfort with a course allows for innovation? I taught 5th grade literacy for 6 years and felt like I was able to grow more and teach better (and differently) because the “basics” were well in hand – for example, I came to have a sense of what the general range of the class’s ability would likely be, so I could anticipate needs better. I came to know common misconceptions well in advance of the lesson (which often led me to shake up those lessons!). And just in terms of time management, I think I felt more comfortable taking the time necessary to create something new or innovative when I knew that I wasn’t going to have to create brand new stuff for ALL my lessons. When you’re building from scratch, it is definitely exciting but also exhausting and can lead you easily into doing what seems easiest.
However, I can also see the other side, as I’ve just switched and begun teaching 6th and 7th graders. It is definitely enlivening and opens up a sense of possibility (since I don’t feel that I know what will always work).
So I guess, like many things, it’s a little bit of both, and hard and fast rules won’t necessarily work, though being open will.