Thelma and Louise taught us, “You get what you settle for.” They were discussing life’s ups and downs with men and money. Getting is one thing. Settling is yet another. If you get what you settle for, it is necessary to know your options before you settle. It is possible to settle up and receive more; settling does not have to mean that you always get less. It’s just good consumerism and, at heart, Louise Sawyer was a consumer advocate.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103074/quotes?ref_=tt_ql_3
Not so strangely, you also get what you settle for in schooling choices. But, unlike Thelma, you don’t have to drive your Thunderbird off a cliff to resolve what you may have settled for.
Our granddaughters will attend a neighboring elementary school next fall, one in second grade and one in a 4K class. The principal completed the task of student placements in May and notified parents of their child’s teacher assignment next year through a June mailing. As retired educators, my wife and I are very interested in our granddaughters’ education and we listen to how our daughter and son-in-law discuss important schooling issues. We think teacher assignments are very important issues.
Consumerism in general is elevated these days and can be applied to most things of value. It may be related to the state of the economy with increased costs and stagnant personal income. Or, it may be that folks are just more discerning in the value of their expenditures and investments. So, I look at how consumerism plays out in teacher assignments. Thirteen years of K-12 education is one of the most significant investments a parent will make in a child’s life. More than ever before, parents must be active consumer advocates for their child’s education.
When I was the local superintendent/elementary principal, I could anticipate a parent inquiry about teacher assignments from twenty percent of our parents. Most of those inquiries sounded like this. “We were hoping that our daughter could have Mrs. —-, because her older siblings had Mrs. —- and she is so nice.” Or, “We are requesting that you move our daughter into Mrs. —-‘s class because all of our daughter’s friends are in that class.” Consumerism for these parents was social; they liked a teacher for that teacher’s student-friendly characteristics or they wanted to be included in the social networks of others. There is a lot of social consumerism at school and, when schools can meet these low level educational demands, children and parents can be made happy. However, social interests really are at the low end of the advocacy totem pole.
Less frequently, parents inquired about the placement of their child because they knew that children in “Mrs. —-‘s“ class received a better education. These less frequent inquiries easily separated into two flavors; those that were a polite inquiry and those that were a demand for reassignment to the teacher of choice. A principal’s daily school life spins continuously and engaging in a discussion of teacher quality is like the spinning of a toy top – you never know how far out of bounds it will take you. I see teacher quality clinically and a demanding parent views teacher quality as a win-loss advantage; a winning advantage that they want.
When a principal takes the time to carefully assign children to their next teachers, parent requests for a change of assignment can be both problematic and irksome. An initial assignment that is carefully made is far from random. The decision considers a child’s learning achievements, learning needs and learning styles. The decision matches the child’s learning conditions with the teacher’s personal and instructional strengths. Many times this analysis creates what appears to be the perfect match, but most of the time an assignment is a pretty good match. Additionally, an assignment decision considers the social dynamics of the new class. The quality of the child assignment can also be dependent upon the characteristics of other children in the class as well as the teacher. Finally, the decision considers a sense of balance between sections of the same grade level or course. If the number of students in each section is too far out of balance, it is the teachers who make demands for reassignment.
Reassignment is problematic in that the pre-analysis and considerations led to a balanced, total assignment. Any change would create its own problems with the considerations that were balanced. And, once the teacher assignments for the school have been published, any change of assignment is public and the rippling problems from that reassignment erupt. Reassignment is irksome after the hours and days the principal invested in the process of making initial assignments. My first mumbled response sounded like this. “Who do they think they are? What gives them the right? Do they really think they know the best assignment for their child’s learning needs?” Irksome can be much more than irked.
Making a reassignment for a demanding parent typically was not easy or quick. It meant meeting with them and listening to their demands and rationale. It meant reconsidering the values within the initial assignment and how making a reassignment would affect the balancing of those values for all children. It meant listening to a teacher’s questioning the wisdom of “giving in to demanding parents” and the response of multiple teachers if the “balance” is upset.
In retrospect, I wish that more parents had taken the time and effort to form an opinion regarding the quality of their child’s teacher assignment. I wish that more parents had irked me. There is ample data available both in the state and local school public data bases and in the parent network of each school to provide any parent with a modicum of information relative to their child’s next teacher. Although there also is a lot of “hooey” involved in what some parents believe is their informed opinion, most of the time they are on the right track. I could take some comfort in the process. After listening to a parent’s argument, they also would listen to my reasoning. And, in most cases, many found their concerns answered by the detail and child-by-child nature of my placement processes. Every year, though, I made placement changes based upon a parent’s request. In each case, I liked their reasoning, their genuine interest in their child’s learning, and that they chose not to settle for less than what they believed was best for their child. As problematic and irksome as they are, responding to demanding parents assures the principal that consumerism is working effectively in our schools. This is why.
Educational consumerism should affect the quality of learning. Most of the demanding parents were driven by their perception of “best” instruction and “better” learning outcomes. The daily instructional of a school is not secret. Parents can learn to understand the differences between teachers who are more effective at causing all children to learn and those who teach to the middle of the class with little regard for more talented or more needy children. Parents can observe the teachers who academically challenge their children. Parents can know which teachers take a strong interest in how children progress in their learning and those teachers who are more casual or cavalier about how well children learn.
Data about school achievement also is not secret. Parents can observe and compare the achievement statistics of children depending upon teacher assignment. Too often there is a difference. Every year a small and perceptive group parents of the next Kindergarten class would request placement with one of our three K teachers because they knew that children in that teacher’s section annually had the highest reading and language test scores in second and third grade. The foundation that this teacher laid paid dividends for children over time. Demanding parents want their children to have the advantage of learning from a teacher whose instruction creates better achievement results.
Parents can observe and learn which teachers connect with their students and use that connection to create better learning. Better learning achievement may be caused by a more effective teacher and it also may be caused by a more caring teacher. Interestingly, these are the two qualities that children talk about at the fiftieth reunion of their high school graduation. The most effective and the most caring teachers make a difference over a life time.
Effective consumerism really should affect teacher employment. When a principal assigns children in multiple sections of a grade level or course based upon each child’s learning needs and teacher talents, there almost always is a resulting imbalance. The more effective instructors and more caring teachers will have more children assigned to their sections. Historically, it was more troublesome for everyone involved to try to dismiss or demote the teacher who annually was the less effective and less caring teacher. So, sections were balanced and all teachers retained.
Today, no one, schools, parents and children, can put up with a less effective or a less caring teacher. If these characteristics affect a child’s learning achievement, everyone suffers. Changing state laws regarding teacher contracts are relieving the legal frameworks that made dismissal or demotion of an ineffective teacher in the past. I applaud new teacher evaluation frameworks that use student achievement, especially value-added evidence, to form an annual rating for every teacher. And, for every principal and superintendent. I recall observing a teacher dismissal case in Minnesota several decades ago. The presented facts clearly established that the teacher was sub-standard. The problem was that neither the district nor the state had a history of establishing a definition of teacher competence. That problem no longer exits.
The irony of educational consumerism is that children, the ultimate consumer, are seldom involved in the discussion of the quality of their education. For that reason alone, everyone, parents and school personnel alike, should take a stand: We will not settle for less than assigning each child to a teacher(s) who will assure that this child will successfully complete their annual curriculum this school year. Educational consumerism, as Thelma and Louise roughly described it, is “getting what you settle for.” No one should settle for less than a very good teacher.