Crippling Them with Kindness

This post was prompted by @C_Hendrick’s blog post about motivational posters and the notion that pop psychology is subtly infusing itself into classrooms around the world. As I digested Hendrick’s amusing yet relevant views on the issue, I started ruminating on how those bigger ideas (not just the posters, although them, too!) applied to educational philosophy in my neck of the woods. It got me thinking about teacher workload, inclusion, and the politics of education.

Then I saw this: Teacher Pic

And so I started writing. Hopefully my point reveals itself . . .

International awareness has been brought to the issue of teacher workload, which has, at least in part, prompted a resurgence in the debate concerning the role of teachers, schools, and education, in general. While teacher workload is a complex issue involving seemingly endless factors, one of them is the notion that a teacher’s role is to support his or her students. We all know this to be true, but the waters begin to get quite murky in defining HOW we are to support our students.

In Alberta, Canada, the move toward inclusive education, in its current incarnation, began some fifteen years ago. It began with the closure and re-purposing of special schools for students with various disabilities, integrating them into mainstream classrooms. It continued with a trend toward the minimization of the value of pull-out and remediation programs for struggling students. Today, most students in Alberta attend the school of their choice, often the neighbourhood school, and all are integrated in an “inclusive learning environment.” The idea was that students learn differently, and at different rates, so teachers must differentiate instruction across the board, for all their students, including those with exceptional needs. With that, “personalized learning,” “individualized programming,” and various “accommodations” are made, regularly, by teachers. This has not come without a significant burden to the role and responsibilities of teachers.

For the most part, teachers are a compassionate and kindhearted lot. We care for the children of strangers and we want to help them succeed in order to, consciously or subconsciously, help build the future of humanity. I, myself, am quite the bleeding-heart. This may not be evident in this post, because I think the role of teachers, through the move toward an increasingly “progressive” ideological model of education, has become all too mythologized; this has served neither teachers nor students well. In our efforts to support student learning through identifying special needs, accommodating these special needs, differentiating instruction and assessment, as well as initiatives like “no-zero” policies, not only have we largely enabled students in their natural inclinations to avoid the hard work that is required to learn something new, we’ve created such a convoluted system that teachers have inevitably had to take on more.

One aspect of this, in Alberta, has been a trend toward a “teacher-as-counselor” model, through assigning teachers the additional role of “advisor.” Schools all over Alberta have implemented this in various forms, but it most commonly consists of core groups of approximately 20 students within a school who will have a single person (teacher) working for their best interests over the course of their time at that school. Students know where to go when they need help with anything from personal situations to planning for their futures. Schools in Alberta are adopting this model with the encouragement of Alberta Education, through its Inspiring Education vision for redesigning our system, where the teacher advisory model is named as part of the flexibility enhancement project (see my last post) as follows: “Teacher advisory – each teacher in the school takes on a role outside any subject content responsibility. The teacher-advisor role is one of guide, counselor and facilitator to a small group of students’ entire school program.”

There are a number of problems with this model, not the least of which is that the cohort, comprised of students selected across grade levels, is artificial; the idea that these students will magically and inevitably bond with their teacher advisor is wishful thinking, at best. Further, the TA group (teacher advisor-student advisees) is built around coursework that aims to teach everything from study skills to career planning to developing a growth mindset (incidentally, time is spent identifying students’ “learning styles,” an all but debunked theory). The coursework associated with TA time is overwhelming and is often viewed as “just another thing” about which students have to worry. While parents would surely love the idea that their child is receiving individualized attention from a single teacher who will be with that child throughout his school years, the actual raison d-être for a teacher advisor model lacks a clear vision or mission, and is not at all susceptible to any kind of measurement of effectiveness.

Intuitively, the notion of a teacher advisor group seems wonderful. It’s infused with a warm and fuzzy feel-good philosophy that teachers are there to support and guide and inspire students to achieve their full potential. But nothing comes without a cost. In this case, TA time is implemented in a manner that takes away from the already-reduced teaching hours in Alberta schools. In order to make time for TA groups to meet, minutes are reduced from the core curriculum. Google the timetables of various schools in Alberta who have implemented the TA model and you’ll see that anywhere from 30 to 120 minutes per week are allotted to TA group time or individual advisor-advisee time. This time is taken from the school day, thereby reducing instructional minutes for Physics, Math, English, and all the rest. For those of you who have read my previous posts, you know that I take SERIOUS issue with this. I know where I can make the greatest difference, and it’s in the English classroom. Take those minutes away, and no good can come of it.

Why risk reducing instructional time in core subject areas in order to make room for TA time? The idea is that TA time is valuable because in that time, students learn “skills” that can be applied to a range of academic and non-academic situations. That’s another debate entirely, but much has been written about the lack of evidence to support the teaching and transferability of “skills.” For some erudite explanations, see here, here, and here, because Daniel Willingham, David Didau, and Harry Webb, respectively, can explain it better than I can. Further, proponents of this model argue that the relationship between the teacher advisor and his or her advisees creates a supportive and nurturing learning environment where each student has a single person with whom he or she can connect. Teacher advisors have a variety of responsibilities, including to track, monitor, and address progress in their advisees’ classes, to track, monitor, and address their advisees’ attendance, to deliver and assess TA related “coursework,” to follow up on the completion of any online courses their advisees may be taking, to track their advisees’ graduation progress, and to build relationships with advisees despite often only seeing them through this artificial and superficial construct known as teacher advisor groups. Sometimes a teacher will have his or advisee as a student, or may coach the student on a school team, making a more authentic relationship more likely, but this isn’t always the case. From this list of teacher advisor responsibilities, it’s clear that the issue here is the lack of time to ensure that these procedures and philosophies are effectively implemented. They are not. In speaking with numerous teachers in Alberta who have experienced this model, and having experienced it myself, it becomes just another duty on the list that we try to “get through.” The overarching ideology that drives this philosophically-based model is never fully realized, if that’s even possible, because of the inordinate levels of increased workload on the part of teachers (and students, for that matter).

But if adequate time is not being allotted, doesn’t that say something about the actual value of the philosophy of the TA model? Here’s my little conspiracy theory about this: the TA group model creates the illusion that students are getting “personalized” attention and that their “individual” needs are being met. These are big buzzwords in Alberta’s Inspiring Education movement. The truth is, teachers are doing their best, under significant constraints, but this model provides no more personal attention or individualized responsiveness than a traditional model where each teacher takes responsibility for his or her own students. Further, teachers are not trained in this model; the duties and responsibilities are simply added to the pile, often without adequate support. Why? So the duties associated with career counselors, guidance counselors, and academic and behaviour support from administration can be divided among teaching staff and the aforementioned roles can be either eliminated or reduced in efforts to reduce costs. Be reasonable: how can one person, even for a small group of 20, be expected to track, monitor, and support all these things? This is simply another example of paying lip-service to an idealistic philosophy that cannot be manifested in reality.

So, if adequate time were allotted for the actual workload associated with being a Teacher Advisor, are the advantages of this worth the cost? As I mentioned, there is little research to either support or disprove the overall “effectiveness” of the teacher advisor model. If one were to Google it, one would find all kinds of airy-fairy testaments to schools who use this model to attend to the needs of the whole child, and other such ideologically-driven anecdotal support of a system whose effectiveness cannot really be measured, because its goals, if stated at all, are so fuzzy in the first place. However, there is a reasonable study from Arizona State University that took place quite recently in California, which sought to identify whether there was a link between advisory programs, personalized education, and student achievement. The study involved more than 10 000 high school students and tracked them over three years. The researchers found that personalization, which they largely defined as small-school environments, did seem to have a relational, though not causal, benefit on student achievement, but that teacher advisory systems did not. In fact, they “discovered an inverse relationship existed between students’ perceptions of advisory programs and student academic outcomes. The more students, in general, reported satisfaction with advisory, the worse they performed academically.” This evidence is obviously limited, and the reasons for these conclusions are not clear-cut. However, I would suggest that it goes back to my aforementioned musings on the fact that we’ve created so many systems in order to provide support for students, that they’ve begun to see their academic success as an external function. “The teacher didn’t instruct in my learning style” or “I didn’t have enough opportunities for collaboration” or “There wasn’t enough formative assessment” or “I perform better using tech-based assessment.” These are all phrases I’ve heard; students have internalized the “progressive” mantra of this system and it’s manifesting itself in a tendency to look outside of themselves for solutions to the bumps in the road that inevitably appear when we undertake the difficult proposition of learning something new. It’s one thing to provide encouragement and support as a teacher; good teachers have always done that with their students. But creating a system wherein teachers must now take on these additional roles benefits no one.

I feel confident in my abilities as a teacher of English literature. My students are largely interested in our endeavors, they respect me, and, for the most part, I help each of them achieve what they’re willing or able to achieve in their time with me. But I didn’t enter this profession because I have some need to nurture and guide young people in their journey into adulthood. I’m an expert in my field and I’m able to pass my knowledge along effectively. I care whether or not my students succeed and I do what I can in an effort to ensure that they do. I feel terrible when I see graphics like the one at the beginning of this post. I can’t help but dwell on the fact that some of my students are hurting in a number of different ways and I wish that were not the case. But I’m not the person to address those issues. I am neither trained nor equipped to be a therapist, psychologist, or counselor.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Crippling Them with Kindness

  1. What an interesting post with so much thoughtfulness expressed. There was an article in the UK Guardian Newspaper earlier this month which promoted a similar discussion; “I didn’t enter teaching to improve students’ lives.”

    I saw allot as a student that had me concerned with national schooling. I kept close watch in the hope that everything would be explained once I hit the professional world… it wasn’t. From my perspective these kinds measures severely underestimate over and over the capacity of students to learn a system. It is no surprise to me that students under this initiative point to external factors to justify any perceived ‘lack of achievement’ as measured by tests. I know it was well meaning, but this system is perfectly set up to teach students to wait for help and blame others if anything goes wrong.

    An alternative? I believe that each teacher, given a bit of time and space, can say exactly why he/she personally choose to teach and how their time and energy is best directed. If teachers have freedom to do this, and declare it to students, then each student knows where he/she stands with each teacher. Systemize this human ‘messiness’ and so much is lost. “We are all here for all of you” is a good way to exhaust teachers and help no students. Yes to systemizing mechanical/IT processes, good idea. But please, governments and school management teams, don’t try to box and label peoples minds. Looks good on paper. Sounds good for votes. Won’t work. I promise there are other ways! @LearntSchool

    Like

  2. Have you read The Smartest Kids in the World by Amanda Ripley? It has so many good points about what works and what doesn’t in education throughout the world. One notion that stuck with me is that in North America the teachers care too much. If they knew less about the children’s home lives and were less compassionate about their personal struggles the children would achieve more…if teachers focused strictly on teaching their material. Just reiterating what you have said…thanks again for another great post!

    Like

    1. Thanks, Sharples. As teachers, it’s difficult not to want to attend to our students in order to help them however we can. But there must be limits. Although, given our Western parenting trends, it’s no real surprise that schools are shifting as well.

      Like

  3. I am a teacher in Alberta and I feel like crying in relief upon finding your posts. My solution to the craziness I have experienced after 5 years of teaching is to leave, leave, leave. I know what makes someone a better writer and I feel completely impotent when it comes to enacting what I feel is my best instructional practices. I have not drank the kool-aid, nor will I.

    Like

    1. I’m so glad to hear when teachers see what’s going on, but it’s unfortunate that it’s causing you to consider leaving. If that’s the only reason you’d quit teaching, might I ask you to consider adding to the growing voice of discontent with IE?

      Like

      1. There are a few reasons I’m leaving. Much has to do with IE’s “personalization” of learning, workload and general micro-managing. How would I be able to add my voice?

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Perhaps if those of us who see the reality of these fads and how they simply pay lip service to utopian ideas speak out, something will change. I, obviously, understand the risk in that, which is why I remain anonymous. But maybe if we all got together a la researchED and other groups that have earned legitimacy, teaching might be a more fulfilling profession here in Alberta. Best of luck, though. You can only do what’s best for you. Were I younger, I might consider your path; it’s all getting pretty bad.

    Like

  5. Hello! Interesting turn in the conversation. The last 6 months I’ve been following educators who blog, like this blog, and there is something exciting happening as more become connected and communicate with each-other online. It’s not necessarily about action, it’s more a heightened awareness and collaboration between teachers. My own work has evolved to what it is now: connecting & celebrating educators who blog, via my own blog. Too many systems seem to exhaust people, spit them out and replace them with new people after a re-brand… this is strange and I don’t believe it’s sustainable. If you blog about your experiences you’ll get support. Feel free to reach out to me if you’d like help with this.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s