Sunday, November 18, 2012

Saltman and Otterman


            In his article “The Gift of Corporatizing Teacher Education and Higher Education,” Saltman discusses the ignorance of both the liberal education reform movement and the neoliberal education reform movement towards the political aspects of the teaching profession including the “underlying ideals, ideologies, and values behind claims to teacher quality” as well as their “relation to material and symbolic power struggles over teacher education,” (108). Both movements push for their respective ideals, but we continue to ignore who is pushing for control of the schools, the teacher education institutions, and the class struggles (in particular socio-economic classes) that largely influence such movements. With their large influence over the political and economic sphere, venture philanthropists such as the Gates Foundation is an example of such a political movement where its push for education reform attacks teacher quality. President Obama supports such venture philanthropists that call for the implementation of charter schools and the continued privatization of the education system largely for political support given the large influence of power that these corporations have in the political and economic spheres. However, these programs, despite continually attacking the teaching profession, have shown no evidence of actually improving teacher quality. In fact, the use of performance-based assessment via test scores along with the lack of “class-based elite status” and the inability to have “control over the organization of knowledge and practices that provide access to capital production,” (101) in the teaching profession perpetuates the idea that teaching is of a lower caliber status than other professions such as doctors and lawyers and thus should be open to deregulation from the private sector so that these elite can lend their expertise. The perpetuation of such ideals and their support from the government gives even more economic and political power to the venture philanthropist organizations.
            In “Ed Schools’ Pedagogical Puzzle,” Sharon Otterman explores the new teacher-training program being implemented by Hunter College called Relay Graduate School of Education. Norman Atkins started this program after critiquing teacher education programs offered by universities. Instead of taking courses surrounding pedagogical study, the teachers are thrown into the classroom right near the beginning of their instruction and through the use of a flip camera and weekend courses, are critiqued and evaluated. The awarding of a masters degree is solely granted based on the improvement of the students’ test scores. One of the main problems that I see with this program is that it reiterates the same sort of rhetoric; that teachers are the sole problem for failing public schools. Both the teacher’s and the students’ success is based on test scores which ignore external factors that are shown to have a greater impact on a child’s education. Also, not only does the program remove thought-based content and the need for critical thinking, but it devalues teaching, making it seem like it is of a lower profession and anyone can do it as long as they follow the teaching guidelines and techniques presented by the Relay program. Relay, in conjunction with the use of testing, which it supports, removes teacher creativity and flexibility within the classroom, two factors that, I believe, make a great teacher.
In the New York Times article, Mr. Atkins is quoted saying, “if you believe children shouldn’t have homework, or you believe that testing is evil, this probably isn’t the best program for you,” (4). While I do believe that homework can be a beneficial tool at times, I also believe that too many children (especially the younger ones) are given unnecessary busy-work to do at home when instead they should be outside, playing, and enjoying being a kid. I also feel that testing is being used in a malevolent manner when it is the sole criteria used to justify the firing of a teacher or the revoking of school funding. So, in response to Mr. Atkins, he’s right, this program is not the one for me.

7 comments:

  1. The Saltman article articulates how the politics behind big corporations such as privatization and deregulation have influenced educational policy and specifically teacher education. Saltman writes, “neoliberals have sought to transform teacher education by deregulating it from university and state control and privatizing it with the principal aim of what they see as better serving business and the national economy” (100). The neoliberal plan for teacher preparation wants it to model a “market with lessen barriers to entry and lessen state control over standards” (Saltlam, 103). As we have discussed with TFA this process of eliminating standards for teacher entry is de-professionalizing teaching as a career and only prohibiting students from access to quality teaching. In comparison traditional philanthropies such as the “Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, and DeWitt Wallace Reader’s Digest Fund,” have encouraged and funded a different program for teacher preparation known as “professionalism agenda” (Saltman, 101). “Professionalism agenda “involves implementing national standards for teacher education, instituting ongoing teacher professional development, and putting in place “performance based assessment” of teaching practice foe the duration of the career” (Saltman, 102). I used to agree be a huge supporter of “professionalism” argument. It made entire sense to me that if we wanted to change the way the public viewed teachers we should model the types of preparation programs off other professions that are considered “elite” such as doctors and lawyer. Saltman challenges this by explaining that doctors and lawyers only enforce the “class based status” by controlling the “knowledge and practices that provide access to capital production” (101). I never thought of the counter argument that Darling-Hammond articulates. This programs seems great in theory but as Halley said, these “movements push for their respective ideals” negating to fix the larger problems with educational policy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The NYT article for me was very confusing because throughout it, Otterman made it seem like the Relay School was a good idea and would greatly improve teacher education, and teachers overall. It was not until towards the end that it was clear how much criticism exists against the Relay School, and how much they had to fight in order for the school to open. I thought the most important part of the article was the following: “…alternative education programs will, in the long term, reduce the quality of America’s teaching force. A great teacher…should also be trained in advanced work in his or her field, as well as be versed in child psychology, cognitive theory, and educational philosophy” (Otterman). This honestly seems to be the most rational thing stated in the article, because I do not know why any teachers wouldn’t be educated in those fields. Teaching is a very difficult profession, and the more education a teacher has the more he or she will excel and be able to teach the kids well.
    As always, a troubling part about both of the readings for today was their lack of mentioning the effects the new reform of teacher education might have on children. They both deal with the way that venture philanthropists are tackling teacher education, and how they might be ruining teacher education as a whole, but barely touch upon the repercussions this has for the children. The most important thing to keep in mind while constructing new teacher education certification requirements or curricula is how it will affect those who will receive the education: the kids. The Relay technique seems like a handy addition to traditional teacher education, because it is more hands-on than academic. Therefore, I think that teacher education needs to be reformed in such a way that makes it uniform, and ties together all of the practices found to be the most useful in teaching for the students.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The articles for today’s class emphasize the political side of teaching. It is worrisome that venture philanthropists such as the Gates Foundation so avidly support the idea of attacking teacher performance to “improve” conditions. As Halley mentions, it is frustrating to repeatedly read that newly implemented programs often do not show evidence in improving teacher quality. The professionalism idea of implementing national standards for teacher education (Saltman, 101) is a large step that has apparently not been producing the results anticipated. It’s just another example of how there is a desperate need for a solution that does deviates from the “performance based assessment” and test-based achievement models scattered throughout educational policy.
    As Courtney wrote, I too was stunned when reading the Otterman article to find that there was no mention of how the new teacher reform would impact the lives of the kids in the classroom. I personally think that the idea of having teachers hold out until their students give them answers that are 100 percent accurate would ultimately hurt children in the classroom. It certainly does not seem to promote the discussion of ideas between a teacher, the student, and the class. It is clear that due to the significantly reduced cost of the program (if the cost is actually reduced) will likely draw in more people. With the cost of the two-year program going from $35,000 to under $5,000, the option is going to start looking a lot more appealing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These two articles reaffirmed the idea that teacher training has taken a huge hit and that kids are the the focal point of these new policies. Professionalism in the field of education is non-existent. That is not to say, however, that there aren't great professional teachers already working in the system and that there are many people qualified to take on these positions. This made me think about our study group to South Korea and how teachers are regarded in their society; teachers are respected and earn good pay. Here, teachers are looked at as babysitters who do not need to be trained to understand how students learn better. Whats worse is that tests seem to be the focal point of study in schools. Not only is this dangerous to the profession, but it harms kids who already have difficulty learning the type of information that corporations deem useful.
    I think these articles also solidified the idea that TFA is bad idea; anyone can teach, as long as you come from an elite college. Teaching is hard work. It requires hours of planning and it takes a lot to execute a lesson in a way that all the students can benefit. Yet the neoliberal design wants to over simplify this and they want people to believe that teachers are the problem with America's education today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The articles for today reinforce the notion that “teachers are the sole problem for failing public schools,” as Halley states. Our government continues to highlight the need for successful, qualified teachers in order to fix our education system. Teachers are the ones now being held accountable for the success of their students. We are continuing to see an increase in the use of high-stakes testing to not only measure students, but also teachers. Due to the high pressure that is being placed on teachers, the neoliberal deregulation agenda for teachers only exacerbates this problem. I found it quite surprising to read about movements, such as the Relay Graduate School of Education, that are taking teachers out of traditional schools of education and placing them right into the classrooms. A program like this not only leads to greater challenges for teachers, but also puts children’s education at more of a risk. After reading about Teach for America, I have heard plenty of unsuccessful stories of corps members who suffered in the classroom because they were unprepared to teach. It was also clear that the ones who suffered the most from poor teaching were the students. In Saltman’s article, Darling-Hammond calls for “a consistent approach to teacher education nationwide based on high standards for the initial preparation, licensing, and certification of teachers” (101). I think that if anything, our government should work toward providing teachers with more intensive, informative certification programs. If our government is going to rely on teachers to solve the education system, taking teachers out of certification programs certainly wont help any problems.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the Relay program, as presented by Otterman for the NYT, takes an interesting, if problematic approach to education. It approaches the concern which I've heard, from new teachers and other sources, that once teachers graduate, they are thrown into a classroom without the intense support of a their grad school (etc)and feel lost, perhaps contributing to the high turn-over rate of teachers. It seems that, with the Relay program, if a teacher makes it through the training, he or she probably has a better idea of what the coming years in the classroom have in store for them. That said, there are CLEARLY other ways to address this concern, many of which are in practice today, and the drawbacks of such a program would overshadow the benefits. Like Otterman pointed out in the article, this program means that schools, especially schools of low socioeconomic status, are getting experimented on as teachers go through the breaking-in progress. The problem of teacher stability, then, is not fixed. Furthermore, the problem of being able to adapt to the classroom is more or less sidestepped by the program- in presenting the teaching of teaching as a one-size-fits-all sort of thing, teachers are deskilled (as Otterman pointed out) but also, students' needs may not be met, as teachers taught with this program seem to be lacking in flexibility- teaching, instead, to their own schedules rather than basing their teaching plans more flexibly on students's needs. While the Relay program seems to be attempting to resolve some legitimate concerns, its benefits are clearly diminished by its negative impact... if the benefits are even present at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Otterman’s dissection of the Relay program highlights how the newfound obsession with performance culture is closely tied to educational pedagogy. The two core tenants of Relay: universal instructional techniques and accountability performance are highly reminiscent of both the charter school movements and programs such as NCLB and RTTT. Underlying all of these types of new education solutions is a general shift away from education theory, and a big push towards standardizing teaching practices. Atkin’s claim that “The techniques and strategies that you are learning here are applicable to all settings and to all types of kids”, is not only counterintuitive, but also impractical. It is concerned with making teachers adaptable to only specific subsets of situations, and only preparing them to be able to function in certain classroom. As Hannah mentioned this notion that teachers can be made into a specific mold that will cater to the needs of all results in de-professionalizing and de-skilling of the role of the teacher. Saltman, addresses this deregulation of the teacher profession through the lens of a neoliberal perspective and notes how privatization programs are consistently blaming teachers, but are making sincere efforts to qualify them in the proper way. Instead, major venture philanthropy groups continue to favor the push for national standards of education and performance based assessment which are more reflective of the socio-economic deficits that of individual performance.

    ReplyDelete