Michelle Rhee Resigns as Washington Schools Commissioner

Michelle Rhee's demise in Washington last month was, I think, deserved. To my mind, she was always an illustration of Aesop's fable of the frogs who asked Zeus to send them a king. Because she acted decisively and harshly, she was popular. Teacher-bashing plays well with the public, and teachers have no one but themselves to blame that this is so. But that does not make any approach that is hostile to teachers right.

Rhee had a grand time grandstanding to the media. Nobody wanted to notice, for a while, that she was acting capriciously. It really all just amounted to Rhee firing people she personally disliked. Everything was up to the “judgement of the chancellor”--that is, Rhee. Challenged, she made unsubstantiated, defamatory McCarthy-like blanket accusations against teachers she fired. She hinted that those fired were child molesters, no less.

Her methods did improve performance on most measures. Most dictatorships do—for a few years. But I doubt her achievement would have been sustainable. For a while, raw fear can make everyone work harder in hopes of waiting out the firestorm. But fear is a brittle motivator. The moment there is the slightest opportunity instead to subvert the system, or to escape it, the dictatorial approach becomes disastrous; and such a moment always comes. Strong and efficient institutions are built instead on a shared sense of purpose, shared ideals, and a sense of fairness.

This is also an important lesson to understand for discipline within a classroom. Harsh and arbitrary measures may look good for a day or a month, but are self-defeating.

Rhee was and is the worst possible enemy of any true educationsal reform. Why? Because education reform is desperately needed, and McCarthyites like Rhee are giving it a bad name. Just as McCarthy almost single-handedly discredited the claim that there were Communists in the US State Department.

Even though there were.

What Teachers Make

Sorry to say this, but it actually sounds to me as though this guy is boasting about how good he is at bullying children. It's all about telling kids what to do, and nothing about telling kids something new. That is to say, nothing about actually teaching. And then, of course, if the student is bored--that's the student's fault.

The most chilling thing is that he gets a lot of applause at the end.

The Washington Teacher Purges

Teachers are unpopular enough these days that many, especially on the right, are cheering the recent firing of 241 teachers by Michelle Rhee in Washington, DC, for being "ineffective."

I am not. It is a scam. The whole push to "reform" the Washington system is in lieu of introducing school vouchers. It is not a bold initiative to improve the education system, but a rearguard effort to preserve the status quo.

Out of the 241 given pink slips, 76 were fired for "lack of teaching credentials."

In other words, for not being part of the union. What does it mean to be a "qualified teacher"? Are we justified in paying extra for schools to ensure that our children are taught by one?

As previously noted in this space, students who take "education" degrees score lower than any other college major, with the possible exception of "public administration," on the SAT or GRE. So if there is selection or weeding out going on here, it is weeding out of the best and the brightest.

But that is only half the story. Once they get to Ed School, is it rigorous? Is there any weeding out at that level?

Apparently not, according to a study by George K. Cunningham for the Pope Centre ("University of North Carolina Education Schools: Helping or Hindering Potential Teachers?" January, 2008).

Page 16 features a chart of average GPAs nationally, in the US, for different academic disciplines. The lower the score, obviously, the tougher it is to get good marks in that field. Average GPA for engineering: 2.67. Average GPA for math: 2.68. Social science: 2.96. Humanities: 3.06 (I suspect it would have been lower before the humanities went ideological). Education: 3.41. You gotta do something seriously wrong to get a B. Pile this on top of the fact that ed students are the weakest students to begin with, and it is hard to conceive of anyone managing to flunk out of an education program, on academic grounds.

And that seems to be the case. Page 19 shows a table of pass rates for all the Ed Schools in the state of Vermont. Range, average, mean, it's all the same: 100% Every single student in the state graduates.

All this means not just that our "qualified teachers" are not qualified; it means that anyone at all bright going into the field has to be consciously cynical, has to deliberately sell out. What do they learn in Ed Schools? Mostly, I suspect, to hew to an ideological line, key to which is the political solidarity of the teaching profession. It's all kind of like joining Hell's Angels, or the Mafia.

Are these the people we want in charge of our children? Perhaps not...

Those worst served by this form of teacher qualification, I suspect, are the brightest students. Teaching has a natural appeal to those with fantasies of power and control; and it is fallen human nature to resent those who are smarter than we are. Accordingly, the sort of folks who go into the field are liable often to be downright hostile to the gifted; others have remarked on a distinct tendency within the education establishment of anti-intellectualism, indeed of hostility toward any form of merit or meritocracy.

Accordingly, this mass firing has probably weeded out the better, not the worse, teachers.

Never mind; that's only 76 out of 241. That leaves 165 teachers who were fired for actual poor performance in the classroom, right?

Not necessarily. The rest were fired because they were marked poorly on classroom observations, or because their students failed to improve on standardized tests; but the DC administration cannot give figures for each category. This fact is in itself highly suspicious.

This matters. Unfortunately, classroom observations, although widely popular with the educational establishment, are unable to reliably identity good or bad teachers. Repeated studies show they only determine whether the observed teacher conforms to the teaching practices of the person observing; two different observers will commonly give two completely different evaluations. This is necessarily so, because we really do not know what traits produce the best classroom results.

Why, then, are they so popular? Because they too enforce the cartel of the Ed Schools. Given that the person observing will inevitably be himself or herself a product of an Ed School, their mark will simply reflect whether the person teaching has also attended Ed School, and teaches in the currently prescribed manner. The test is valid only if the methods of the Ed Schools can be shown to be valid; and they cannot. Studies consistently show that an Ed School grad gets no better results with a given class than an educated layman.

The only valid criterion mentioned in the story is how the students do on standardized tests. But we have no idea how many teachers, if any, were actually fired for this reason. And, of course, standardized tests too can be jimmied to some extent. Even if they are not, student test scores are a fairly rough measure of teacher competence--even over three years teaching the same course, the error rate is arguably as high as 25%.

A more perfect criterion, and a far simpler one, is simply this: let the market decide. Let families (and students) choose the school and teacher for their child, using whatever criteria they see fit. It is this criterion that all the recent sound and fury in Washington has actually been designed to avoid.

On Classroom Management

A friend sends along an article from the LA Times about the difficulties teachers face. The subhead reads: “Among the top reasons why teachers are deemed unsuccessful or leave the profession is their inability to effectively manage student behavior, experts say.”

Nicely put, that: "deemed unsuccessful."

Of course, everyone today is worried about maintaining order in the schools; this is the stuff the newspapers love. Kids today have no discipline, and schools have become free-fire zones.

And, indeed, "classroom management," or running a disciplined class, seems always to be the number one thing that school administrators value in teachers. Probably many parents agree. It also seems to be the one thing teachers currently most value in themselves. It is, as the article implies, just about the essence of the teaching profession these days. But should it be? Does it have any relation to actual learning?

There is no question that an orderly, compliant class is much more comfortable for the teacher. It is also easy to observe and evaluate. Indeed, it is about the only thing it is possible to evaluate reliably in a one-hour "classroom observation." This may be one secret of its current prominence, since good teaching is, by comparison, difficult to define, difficult to evaluate, and impossible to evaluate in any one-hour classroom observation. Given that it can be evaluated, this would at least require a lot more work on the part of administrators.

But what about the kids? Is it good for their education? At best, it seems tangential—a question of babysitting, not teaching. Even if it is really important, the simple and less expensive thing, surely, would be to hire a security guard to handle it, a bouncer, and leave teachers to teach.

The studies just have not been done showing that a more orderly classroom results in better student achievement. And consider: for comparison, are the adult societies that can put up the best show of public order the most productive societies? Outstanding in this regard would be countries like North Korea, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union... By comparison, public events in a country like the US, Britain, France, or Hong Kong, tend to look relatively chaotic. But which type of society has proven, over the long term, more productive, in either practical or intellectual terms?

Why wouldn't it be the same with classrooms?

Of course, there is a necessary minimum, with students not strangling one another and vandalizing the property. Countries that descend into true chaos, like Somalia or Afghanistan, tend to be least successful of all. But they equate, precisely, to a classroom of children without an adult present—that is not a likely scenario in our schools.

Short of that, it is hard to believe that the presence of an adult in a room of twenty or thirty children—not to mention an adult with the power to evaluate you, send you to the Vice Principal, or give you a detention--is not in itself sufficient to accomplish that much.

Beyond that, in the middle range, some may argue that relatively more orderly societies like Germany and Japan are preferable to relatively less orderly societies like Italy and Korea. But at best, that is a point on which reasonable people can differ, more a matter of personal preference than anything objective. Historically, both have been about equally successful economically and intellectually.

So, on the whole, the current emphasis on “class management” seems to be beside the point. Except that excessive order is almost certainly harmful; yet this is what the present system favours. How natural, or healthy, is it really for a young child to sit still and quiet at a desk for hours at time? How educational is it? In fact, we have definite evidence that we learn better while we are physically engaged, and moving. Aristotle insisted on it, which is why we have the word “pedant.” It means “walker.”

The model of the orderly class at its desks was surely designed for the convenience of the teacher, and the system, not for the best education. Some have argued that it is based on the model of the factory, and sees children as products rolling off an assembly line.

Some will probably point out, and with justice, that students do not sit still at their desks nearly so much as they used to any more—nowadays, they are moved around into different configurations for “pair work,” “group work,” and so on. This is true; but it is still pretty sedentary, and it maintains and even accentuates the teacher's total control over the students. Now it is not enough that they sit silently where they've been planted; they must also get up and march about efficiently at the teacher's command.

Besides not being conducive to learning, all this teaches one particular lesson above all others: conformity. This is, I submit, not a good lesson for a future citizen of a democracy, or of a pluralistic, tolerant society, to learn. Nor is it good for creativity, human progress, or for any serious later intellectual inquiry.

This need for discipline also prompts teachers, I think, to deliberately select boring material. They cannot afford to get the children too excited: excited children tend to make noises or run about. Unfortunately, we also know that maintaining interest is the one great essential for learning. Plato insisted on it as the teacher's chief duty.

It also does two more things that we probably do not want to happen. First, it weeds out of the teaching profession anyone who does not themselves highly value conformity—which would also mean, probably, that it weeds out the brighest teachers, the best scholars, the most creative teachers, those least inclined toward prejudice, those most sympathetic to children and their special needs, and those most likely to make a special effort for a student who needs it. Second, it not only gives free rein to, but positively encourages, teachers who are inclined to be bullies. The profession, by its nature, is probably already a magnet for any born bully: it's the fastest route there is to significant power over a large number of others. We badly need to set up barriers to prevent this. Instead, currently, we are virtually requiring it.

I think it is a very bad sign if, when you stroll into the teacher's lounge, the students are spoken of as adversaries.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/classroom_discipline/8217

Yet that seems to be the common case in teachers' lounges everywhere.

It seems to me that anyone who does not feel a positive affection for all their students should not be teaching. This is what Don Bosco, the great Catholic educator, considered the key to all good teaching: you must love all your students, and be a friend and advocate for them at all times. Nor did he have the luxury of instructing only the well-behaved and well-bred. Just the reverse: his schools were strictly for the urban poor, abandoned street kids, the boys in the 'hood. Boys' Town, in the US, based on his principles, repeated the experiment with the same striking success. Any discipline was handled by the children themselves. St. Philip Neri, another great Catholic educator, said of his rowdy students, "I don't care if they chop wood on my back, so long as they don't sin."


Something is very wrong with teaching, if “class discipline” or “classroom management” has become or remains the linchpin of the profession. And I'm not at all sure it is the students' fault.

Qualifications for ESL

A colleague recently challenged me to say what I considered the proper background for an ESL instructor. So I've given it some thought.

Back in the early days of “ESL,” there were only two or three real qualifications considered: being a native speaker, holding a university degree, and being on-site in a non-English-speaking country.

All of these actually make sense: a non-native speaker, inevitably, will model English incorrectly a certain amount of the time. Someone with a university degree is likely to have demonstrated some additional facility, and is more likely to speak “educated English”--i.e., more standard English. Being on-site in a non-English speaking country also demonstrates some experience with, understanding of, and sensitivity to, non-English-speaking cultures, as well as a certain talent for communication. These are necessary in an ESL classroom.

Nowadays, specific training is becoming much more de rigeur; as the field “professionalizes.” But what specific training is proper, for this subject? Content knowledge might be the obviously important element in other fields, but after all, everyone knows their native language pretty well... right?

Accordingly, the training emphasis has tended to fall on teaching techniques, along the lines of a degree in education. This is, for example, the CELTA way. And more and more, everyone is requiring CELTA.

This is a sad mistake. We have no idea what teaching techniques do or do not work; or rather, we have strong evidence that the products of education schools do worse than random chance. All a formal training in “education” seems to produce is a boring conformity in classes, which is itself detrimental to learning. And the boredom factor, with the b.s. factor, also probably drives out brighter and more dedicated practitioners.

Granted that we want to raise the bar beyond just using anyone with a backpack and a university degree: what qualifications really would be more appropriate?

I submit that the primary qualification here as anywhere else should be subject knowledge. True, everyone knows their own language fairly well, but language is the most complex thing human beings have ever created. It is always possible to be better at it than the next guy, up to the level of sublime genius. Up to the level of a Shakespeare.

And this really does matter to the students, at any level; it reduces the number of errors they will, inevitably, be taught. Better language is also easier to learn from—it is strikingly easy, for example, to memorize a speech from Shakespeare. Moreover, facility with English is almost ipso facto facility in teaching: that is, in communicating ideas and information.

So, how does one determine English ability?

Not that hard, surely, since every university in the USA has been doing it for decades. Consider the verbal sections of the SAT and GRE tests. All one need do, as a recruiter at an ESL school or college, is to ask for official GRE or SAT results, and hire in descending order of verbal score.

Of course, the GRE, SAT, etc., measure only written English; there may be additional considerations. But a personal interview can quickly establish the key requirements for spoken English. Does the interviewee speak in RP or American Standard English? If not, he is of significantly less value to the students. He will be harder for them to understand, and they will be harder for others to understand if they learn their spoken English from him. Does he speak clearly, distinctly, and with animation?

As a practical matter, this may be all you need, in order to hire a good ESL teacher. But little of this is a matter of training. Surely innate abilities can also be cultivated?

Yes they can; as noted before, getting a university education is commonly understood to improve one's expression; or at least to certify it as good; as in the common term “educated English.” It makes sense, then, not just to ask for a university degree, but also for an advanced degree. Emphasis should obviously be given to those degrees that most teach and most require knowledge of and skill with the English language.

This means the germane academic qualification is a higher degree in the humanities. Not education—education is taught as a social science. Rhetoric would be an obvious choice; as would drama. Philosophy, with its need to reason clearly, is perhaps as good; hence also theology. Literature is about at a par with rhetoric, merely emphasizing the written rather than the spoken form. Classics would be very good, for its deep knowledge of the language's cultural underpinnings. Degrees in other languages, taken by an English native speaker, would also be relevant, in terms of demonstrating an intimate knowledge of both language and the language learning process. Linguistics—sometimes currently accepted as a formal ESL qualification--is questionable: in theory, it is the study of language per se, but in practice a degree in linguistics requires very little actual facility with the language, and the field as a whole has produced no verifiable results. At least it shows an interest.

It has not been established that knowledge of formal grammar is important to language learning. It goes in and out of fashion; there are good arguments on either side. Accordingly, I cannot see making this a professional requirement.

Actual length of overseas residence also counts, I think, in determining who would be the best ESL teacher. There is no end to learning about cultural differences. A foreign wife is a very good sign, although it is probably not permissible to take such things into consideration.

I would add a knowledge of educational technology. Here, at least, there are real things to be learned, and demonstrable progress. I think it is fair and indeed obvious to say that any class of students whose instructor does not know currently know how to incorporate a YouTube video into a lesson, or an interactive online exercise, is disadvantaged in their learning.

So there you are: if I were hiring for my own school, or seeking someone to teach me English or any other language, that's what I would look for.

How Not to Evaluate Instruction

Writing in the latest edition of TESOL Arabia's Perspectives, Kelley Fast makes the familiar point that the practice of classroom observation as a means of judging the quality of teaching has no validity. “Research shows that there is a problem defining what 'good' teaching is as there is no proof of any one method being 'best.'” She also cites the—putting it politely, I think--”questionable validity” of the checklists commonly used for such observations. These cannot work, because “criteria for effective teaching differ for every instructional situation” (here she quotes O'Leary). As she notes, the practice of classroom observation probably harms the quality of teaching, producing worse, not better, technique: it discourages sensitivity to situation and student needs, discourages student-centredness, and discourages all teaching innovation. It also, I would add, necessarily promotes a dreary sameness to all instruction, which works directly against the need to sustain student interest.

The practice thrives nonetheless, and seems actually to be growing. It is perhaps possible to understand why in the case of elementary and high school teaching: young children are presumably not yet capable of deciding what is best for them, and so of judging the abilities of their own teachers. It may be pointless, but at least it puts a false patina of professionalism on the teaching trade. But is is doubly disturbing to see the practice growing in the field of adult EFL. For it seems here the only justification can be unspoken racism: an assumption that foreigners too, non-English speakers, are not fully capable of knowing what is best for themselves. They are, in this regard, like children.

This, of course, is the essential assumption behind all colonialism. We ought to know better by now.

The proper way to judge the effectiveness of an intructor at the tertiary level, as instructor, is to ask the students.


Kelley Fast, (2009) "Classroom observations: Taking a developmental approach," TESOL Arabia Perspectives, 16 (2) pp. 6-10.

In support of her case against summative classroom observations, Fast cites:

Cosh, J. (1999) Peer observation: A reflective model, ELT Journal, 53 (1), 22-27.
Gebhard, J.G. (2005) Teacher development through exploration: Principles, ways and examples. TESL-EJ, 9 (2), 1-16.
O'Leary. M. (2004) Inspecting the observation process: Classroom observations under the spotlight. IATEFL Teacher Development Newsletter SIG, 1 (4), 14-16.
Leshem, S. & Bar-Hamam, R. (2008). Evaluating teacher practice. ELT Journal, 62 (3), 257-265.
Williams, M. (1989) A developmental view of classroom observation. ELT Journal, 43 (2), 85-91.