July 12, 2011--"Dr." Ziefert
Back at my Brooklyn public school, PS 244, "Dr." Ziefert was in charge.
The "Dr." is in quotes because he was not a doctor of any kind. Just an educational force of nature, and the students as well as his teachers, and they were surely his, conferred this title on him, a version of an honorary degree, because it reflected his authority and his accomplishments.
To be fair, his accomplishments were the result of the work his teachers did and what the kids were able to achieve. But they derived from him--what he expected, what he inspired and if necessary compelled, and how he worked tirelessly to maintain the quality of all of our efforts.
He was never known to use his office. He was always roaming the halls to make sure his version of proper discipline was being enforced and popping in on classes.
When he would show up, always unannounced, we were expected to carry on as if he wasn't there. Actually, since we knew our teacher would get a full report from him about what he observed, including unvarnished criticism if he noticed anything that wasn't working and that if there was a continuing pattern of less than excellent pedagogy her job would be in jeopardy, we raised the level of our performance--our posture improved, our spelling lessons moved along more crisply, we ripped through our multiplication tables, and we didn't answer out of turn. Or at least we attempted to.
And by the evidence of achievement-test scores; the kinds of high schools we moved on to; and longer-range how we fared in life, PS 244 worked.
There are today very few "Dr." Zieferts in charge of public schools. The general breakdown of authority and respect, the power of unions to regulate working conditions as well as how teachers are evaluated and tenured, and the formal limitations on principals' powers have contributed to the decline in the quality of our schools.
In regard to principals, nothing symbolizes their lack of authority and inability to function as a school's lead educator as the restrictions on their ability to visit classrooms and, based on what they observe, work with teachers to improve their craft and, more tellingly, use these visits as one way to evaluate teacher performance. And, if all else fails, move to have the teacher dismissed.
Being able to in this way hold teachers accountable for their work with children is so rare that when a school district moves to change the rules to permit principals to actually observe classes, it is big news and can even find its way onto the front page of the New York Times, as it did last week.
An article about an experimental program in Washington, DC that allows five classroom evaluation visits a year is linked below.
Project Impact uses "master educators," supervising teachers, as well as principals for these visits and by the numbers appears to be working. Washington has 3,000 public school teachers and before Impact, before the union contract permitted classroom visits, by the tepid methods that were in place, more than 95 percent of teachers were "highly rated," and virtually none were ever dismissed because of poor classroom performance.
Last year in DC, 165 were let go and this year it is expected that another 200 to 400 will get pink slips. This is still only about 10-20 percent of the teacher corps but begins to reflect what even common sense would consider reality. Washington has been one of the most dysfunctional school districts in the nation, and it is hard to believe that the schools' problems were all the result of poor parenting, poverty, and a lack of community interest in how children fare (the classic excuses to explain away schools' failures). Some of the responsibility, much of the responsibility must be assigned to ineffective teaching and poor leadership.
It is a shame that it has taken decades to get back to this point where all the educators in a school are held individually responsible for student learning. "Dr." Ziefert, if he is still around, I am sure he would be wondering what took us so long.
The "Dr." is in quotes because he was not a doctor of any kind. Just an educational force of nature, and the students as well as his teachers, and they were surely his, conferred this title on him, a version of an honorary degree, because it reflected his authority and his accomplishments.
To be fair, his accomplishments were the result of the work his teachers did and what the kids were able to achieve. But they derived from him--what he expected, what he inspired and if necessary compelled, and how he worked tirelessly to maintain the quality of all of our efforts.
He was never known to use his office. He was always roaming the halls to make sure his version of proper discipline was being enforced and popping in on classes.
When he would show up, always unannounced, we were expected to carry on as if he wasn't there. Actually, since we knew our teacher would get a full report from him about what he observed, including unvarnished criticism if he noticed anything that wasn't working and that if there was a continuing pattern of less than excellent pedagogy her job would be in jeopardy, we raised the level of our performance--our posture improved, our spelling lessons moved along more crisply, we ripped through our multiplication tables, and we didn't answer out of turn. Or at least we attempted to.
And by the evidence of achievement-test scores; the kinds of high schools we moved on to; and longer-range how we fared in life, PS 244 worked.
There are today very few "Dr." Zieferts in charge of public schools. The general breakdown of authority and respect, the power of unions to regulate working conditions as well as how teachers are evaluated and tenured, and the formal limitations on principals' powers have contributed to the decline in the quality of our schools.
In regard to principals, nothing symbolizes their lack of authority and inability to function as a school's lead educator as the restrictions on their ability to visit classrooms and, based on what they observe, work with teachers to improve their craft and, more tellingly, use these visits as one way to evaluate teacher performance. And, if all else fails, move to have the teacher dismissed.
Being able to in this way hold teachers accountable for their work with children is so rare that when a school district moves to change the rules to permit principals to actually observe classes, it is big news and can even find its way onto the front page of the New York Times, as it did last week.
An article about an experimental program in Washington, DC that allows five classroom evaluation visits a year is linked below.
Project Impact uses "master educators," supervising teachers, as well as principals for these visits and by the numbers appears to be working. Washington has 3,000 public school teachers and before Impact, before the union contract permitted classroom visits, by the tepid methods that were in place, more than 95 percent of teachers were "highly rated," and virtually none were ever dismissed because of poor classroom performance.
Last year in DC, 165 were let go and this year it is expected that another 200 to 400 will get pink slips. This is still only about 10-20 percent of the teacher corps but begins to reflect what even common sense would consider reality. Washington has been one of the most dysfunctional school districts in the nation, and it is hard to believe that the schools' problems were all the result of poor parenting, poverty, and a lack of community interest in how children fare (the classic excuses to explain away schools' failures). Some of the responsibility, much of the responsibility must be assigned to ineffective teaching and poor leadership.
It is a shame that it has taken decades to get back to this point where all the educators in a school are held individually responsible for student learning. "Dr." Ziefert, if he is still around, I am sure he would be wondering what took us so long.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
4:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home