I think that we’re at a crossroads in our history as a profession in this country. And like all crossroad “moments” there’s some soul-searching that needs to take place as we move forward.
For me one of core questions that needs to be answered in terms of how we continue our journey through the 21st century has to do with the way that we think about the work we are doing:
As teachers, do we see ourselves playing house league, or are we members of a rep team?
I think that this question can and should be examined from a number of vantage points, but I suspect that most perspectives will lead us to a strong sense that, while there are many initiatives being introduced that would like to push us towards rep performance, our own unions and associations are, in fact, holding us to a sense of mere OK-ness. And there are several reasons for this, not the least of which is our current approach to the underlying principles of the collective agreement.
Face it, the union mentality that has become part of the profession over the last 25 years has contributed to a general numbing of the drive towards collective excellence. The way I see it, unions are there to protect the rights of the 10-20% who are likely going to mess up in some way, either through incompetence, negligence or poor judgement. Unions also protect members against the 10-20% of administrators that are likely to try to take advantage of the good nature and good will of teachers.
But, that leaves 80% of teachers that are trying to work to the best of their ability, and 80% of administrators who are fair, supportive and who want to bring out the best in their staff.
(Ok, the numbers may need some working, but you get my point)
What happens, however, is that this protectionist mentality tends to favour the establishment of a minimalist, “lowest common denominator” approach to professional quality. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be many, many teachers striving to do their best. It only means that that “best” is not demanded, and not expected. And often the drive towards excellence means running the risk of violating the agreements that constitute and ground our professional connections to one another.
The result is that we are left with a professional narrative that is more akin to house league than it is to rep-level performance. Everyone is welcome to play so long as they follow the basic rules, show up for games, and occasionally bring a snack for the other players. House league is more about protecting the rights of the merely adequate, than it is about pushing hard towards competitive excellence.
House league is about accepting everyone’s level of performance and by not holding winning up as the ultimate goal, encourages everyone to go out, work within their own skill level and have fun in the process.
As I see it, we have come to a crossroads and we need to decide—individually and collectively—how we wish to proceed. Will we continue to support collective adequacy or will we demand that our agreements and contracts begin to ask more of us, provide us with the tools to move forward creatively and boldly, and foster a sense of professional performance and integrity that extends beyond meeting a set of minimal standards?
As always, I’m just beginning to explore some of thisout loud.As always, I appreciate your wisdom and insights.
I find myself at first sympathetic to your union-mentality-begets-pockets-of-mediocrity position. I’m all for having a teaching profession full of individuals who are committed to pushing themselves and to finding great ways of reaching kids. But when I think about your metaphor, and when I think about what I want the feel of education to be, I begin to have doubts. Do I want schools to be about competition, or about community? Are we racing to gold stars and requirements, or trying to be and raise good people? Should excellence be demanded, or fostered?
I understand that the lives of kids are in play here, and that allowing some teachers to remain incompetent is no good. But I think that before the union contracts are rewritten and the axe starts dropping, it would be important both to revise the way teachers are evaluated and to provide better opportunities for professional development and renewal. Because I don’t think that anyone would propose kicking to the curb the bottom twenty percent of students, just to raise the quality of the student population. And teachers are just students, but grown up.
“House league is about accepting everyone’s level of performance and by not holding winning up as the ultimate goal, encourages everyone to go out, work within their own skill level and have fun in the process.”
That sounds like a great school to me. In education, winning can’t be the goal. That’s because education is life, and there is no winning at life—only living well.
FWIW. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for jumping in on this one Justin. I’m not sure I like the metaphor myself, mainly because there are lots of great things about house league! I don’t want to tarnish the important role that house leagues play in the lives of our children.
I guess I’m just looking for a way to express some of my frustration with the parameters that are placed on teachers, administrators and the connections between them when we bump up against collective agreements. I know I’m not alone in this; in fact, I have this conversation quite frequently with my colleagues.
Your points are well-taken, especially the reminder that teachers-as-learners is a metaphor that has gained a great deal of traction in this era.
Thanks again for your perspective. Some good thoughts to carry with me into the day.
Another thought as I move out into the day has to do with the different demands made on the “team” in house league as opposed to rep. Practices, training and the expectation to work as a unit are of much higher value, I believe, in the latter. A dimension to consider.
Stephen – Have you thought of it this way
It does not matter looking at it as a house league or a rep team, when the very structure of the education model has the individual schools and their staff, working for someone else’s goals and missions, other than the students of the school, within a regulation regime to ensure compliance.
As you have stated: “What happens, however, is that this protectionist mentality tends to favour the establishment of a minimalist, “lowest common denominator” approach to professional quality. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be many, many teachers striving to do their best. It only means that that “best” is not demanded, and not expected. And often the drive towards excellence means running the risk of violating the agreements that constitute and ground our professional connections to one another.” Is it the fault of the union and its structure? Or is it the fault of the many connections to the various sub networks and centralized networks within the education model, that carries the regulation regime attachments, much like a computer virus infiltrating computer networks?
One can hardly blame the union structure and its model for the establishment of the lowest quality and benchmarks concerning teachers, in isolation of the other networks. how the networks are connected and what flows through the connections.
The present education model is focusing on the inputs, paying no mind to the outcomes of the individual sub-networks. It is more about compliance that ultimately leads to minimal standards, and anything beyond becomes the political fodder for the stakeholders to claim their stakes, sorting out the winners and losers. More importantly, it leads to the acceptance of percentages of various standards based on the inputs, that ultimately decides the standards of outputs.
The regulation regime plays a starring role, to focus on the inputs, and accept minimal standards for one and all. I would state, house league or rep team, it does not matter because the regulation regime will ensure different qualities of excellence based on the inputs from the top, filtered down to the bottom levels of the education system.
Just saying, because I had a front row view for the last 11 years, on advocating for my youngest child on the simple and basic education services in reading and writing. Apparently she never met the criteria to access the basic education services, based on she received all the required inputs that is available to all students, and more importantly, the outcomes were acceptable and within the normal expected standards. Acceptable outcome for my child, she learned to read with poor decoding skills but is considered acceptable standards by the people from the top, but never at the bottom levels.
Instead of reshuffling the deck, what about teachers focusing on the outcomes of students and the school, and in turn the inputs or the lack of inputs that promotes minimal standards and various levels of excellence at the school level?
Some nice food for thought here Nancy. Thanks for your input…will respond more fully to a couple of your points later!