Unemployment Is High Yet There Is a Shortage of Teachers: Time To Make Teaching a Preferred Profession

The importance of teaching and teachers will be one of the lessons we learn from the Time of COVID.  The need to educate children is a constant and daily issue in every community.  This has focused attention on the essence of teaching.   As educators work to improve and refine strategies for in-person and at-home teaching and learning, we can use every community’s attention on educating children to refine and enhance teaching as an essential and newly-preferred professional career.

Take Away

Lesson 1 learned is that public education is essential to the economic and family structures of every community.  Across all states, local business interests want schools to be open for in-person learning to provide daycare for employee children.  Parallel to their employers, parents need to work to support their families.  They prefer in-person learning.  State, county, and local governments want children to be educated.  An under educated generation is a lost generation.   This makes teaching a profession of essential employees.  Fundamentally, this status is true with or without a pandemic. 

Lesson 2 learned is that teachers teach and others do not.  I apply to this to the teaching of school-age children.  Certainly, parents who choose to homeschool their children make a commitment to become teachers for their own children.  However, a vast majority of parents who are forced by school campus closures to be teachers-at-home want out of that role immediately.  A good day for a parent-teacher is buried by a score of bad days.  Parents are not prepared to be their children’s teacher.  They know it and so do their children.

Professional educators are essential to the education of a community’s children.  The pandemic has proven that there is no substitute for professional educators.

What do we know?

The pandemic will change teaching; the direction of the change is not yet known.  The need for remote, virtual, distanced, synchronous and asynchronous teaching have been so great and widespread that their effects will be part of the ongoing features of school for years to come.  The profession can passively go with the flow of the pandemic and do what it can, when and where it can, and provide continuous, responsive education for children.  Or, the profession can understand the moment and use the reality of educating children in a pandemic to inform and reform educating children after the pandemic. 

As a people, we focus on a problem if it personally affects our well-being in the immediacy.  This is the reality of our national attention span.  When these two conditions – personal well-being and now – are present, we can address large-scale problems.  As soon as the problem no longer is personal or immediate, we lose our focus on the issue.  Sadly, this is us.  Even large and enduring problems fade once the emergency subsides.  If there is to be a positive change in the profession of teaching, it must be addressed now. 

This is the problem.  We are not in an era of teacher shortage, but an era when teaching is an undesirable career choice. 

Before and during the pandemic, schools have had difficulty attracting and retaining teachers.  However, the problem is not the scarcity of persons entering the profession.   It is the scarcity of people wanting to be teachers.  These may sound like contradictory statements, but they are not.  Our problem is that teaching is perceived as an undesirable career pathway by college students considering their future and young teachers in their first five years in a classroom.  Too few people are being trained as teachers and too few trained teachers are teaching.  These are the issues this moment in time requires us to change.

Why is this thus?

Employing and retaining teachers is an historic problem that has plagued public education for more than a decade.  “The share of schools that were trying to fill a vacancy but couldn’t tripled from the 2011-12 to 2015-16 school years (increasing from 3.1 to 9.4 percent), and in the same period the share of schools that found it very difficult to fill a vacancy nearly doubled (from 19.7 to 36.2 percent).  These difficulties are also shaped by the dwindling pool of applicants to fill vacancies.  From the 2008-09 to the 2015-16 school years, there was a 15.4 percent drop in the number of education degrees awarded and a 27.4 percent drop in the number of people who completed a teacher preparation program.”

We can point to many contributing agents leading to this problem.  Low starting salaries.  Slow and inadequate financial advancement.  Attacks on teacher unions and teacher organizations.  Blaming education when all other social institutions are failing.  Constant cuts in state financing.  Draconian federal accountability legislation. 

To address these issues, politicians, colleges and universities, and state departments of instruction continue to look for peripheral solutions.  Legislators massaged statutory requirements for teacher preparation and created alternative pathways to a teaching license to make it easier for college graduates and second-career adults to become teachers.  State departments allow teaching with permits not licenses.  A teaching permit is like a learner’s permit for a student in driver education.  A school board can employ a permitted teacher for several years without the teacher completing the full certification process.  School boards work within limited finances – an increase to salary is a decrease to classroom supplies.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul means that an increase in teacher pay is paid out by the teacher to purchase class room supplies.

Teacher shortage, however, is the symptom and not the problem.  People who invested money and time to graduate from college with teacher certificates choose not to teach. 

“The last time we checked we have about 120,000 people who hold a valid teacher license, and about 60,000 are teaching in public schools,” said David DeGuire, director of teachers, education, professional development and licensing at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.”

https://www.wbay.com/2020/08/29/as-school-districts-reopen-during-pandemic-many-also-struggling-to-find-teachers-substitutes/

Further evidence that teaching is not a preferred career comes to us anecdotally.  High school counselors, a traditional recruiter for would-be teachers, report that in their conferences with high school seniors and their parents many parents say to their son or daughter “… you don’t want to be a teacher…” and redirect college planning toward a different and more preferred career.

Further evidence derives from the choices made by the talent pool of students in college.  Prior to 2000, teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities attracted many students from the top quarter of their graduating class based upon grades and testing.  Many of these were young women who perceived teaching as an accepted profession for their gender.  Since 2000, teacher prep programs have drawn fewer, if any, college students from the upper half of their class.  The more talented collegians are choosing other professions, not teaching.

Unless we change these perceptions of teaching and the trend lines of people choosing teaching as a career, the outcomes of teacher shortage, understaffed schools, crowded classrooms, and discontinued school programs will continue unabated.  We cannot look to our politicians or state departments to change the attitudes about teaching.  We need to change the realities of schoolhouse teaching so that a new professionalism can attract and retain new professional educators.

To do

The list is long and varied. 

  • Focus a teacher’s work on professional teaching.  To do this, we remove all non-instructional duties for the usual teacher job descriptions.  A characteristic of a profession is its well-defined and accepted area of expertise.  Think about professionals in law, medicine, engineering, and architecture.  Each of these professions has an explicit educational and training requirement, as do teachers.  However, other professionals are not generalists and do not abide a constant addition of “…duties to be assigned”.  Teachers have this line in every contract.  A teaching contract is a potpourri of assignments, classroom teaching being just one.  In a school board’s employment, we can disaggregate the professional duties of teachers, counselors, administrators, school health specialists, and non-certified personnel.  Each of these has a specific purpose in the school and a matching training and span of duties.  Teaching is an expertise in pedagogy, subject area content, dispositions necessary for teaching and learning, and assessment of learning.  Professional teachers teach professionally.
  • Employ non-certified staff to do all supervisory work.  Segregating teachers from other schoolhouse duties will require “someone” to supervise playgrounds, bus zones, cafeterias, and hallways.  The trade-off of improved teaching is the cost of non-certified staff to execute these duties.  Children need adult supervision when they are “at” school.  Assigning teachers to these duties is at the expense of time, effort and focus on instruction and exacerbates the professional standing of teaching.
  • Hold teachers accountable for student learning of district-approved curricula.  Teachers are not independent contractors in a school.  There is a legal and linear relationship from the School Board’s responsibility to provide a free and appropriate education to every child, to ensure compliance with state statutes, and to align instruction and student learning outcomes with standards-based and performance-based curricula through school administration to classroom teachers.  A Board employs teachers to teach the district-approved curricula.  This is the “what” and “when” and “how much” of teaching.  The teacher supplies the “how” based upon assessment of child readiness, need and capacity.  Adherence to this simplified linearity greatly increases and improves the professional standing of teachers as pedagogical experts accountable under administrative supervision for causing all children to successfully learn their annual curricula.

Concomitant with accountability is the understanding that high quality teaching and achieving district expectations for student learning are a requirement of continued employment.  Professionals deliver profession work to achieve professional outcomes.  A teacher who cannot deliver will be counseled out of the profession.

  • Teaching is perceived by too many in the public as part-time work with nine months of school and three months of vacation.  Our school year organization has roots in an agrarian calendar when children were not available to attend classes year-round.  Farming communities required children as farm labor in the summer months.  In our state, children who are 13-years and older populate many of the summer jobs required for our tourist industry.  For this reason alone, schools cannot begin classes until after September 1 and local business owners decry a school calendar that extends past the first week in June.  Summers off creates the assumption that teaching is part-time annual work.

A more informed reality is that a school district’s professional development programs already are creating a fuller work year.  Many districts employ teachers in June, July and/or August to review student achievement from the prior school year, review and improve curriculum, learn new curriculum and delivery strategies, and learn and practice new technologies.  The list of summer work activities grows every year.  However, this work is understood as supplemental to a teacher’s contract.  And, it is not uniform for all teachers. 

At the same time, there is a body of teachers who prefer nine-month employment.  One of the things that attracted them to teaching was summers off.  Additionally, other teachers enjoy a different employment during summer months, often outdoor and work with adults not children.  Finally, summer has traditionally been a time when teachers engaged in post-graduate studies and continuing education.  Although much of this work is now on-line and year-round, we still abstractly connect a teacher’s summer with their going back to school.

A professional work year should be 221 days of paid employment, including 180 days of student instruction and 41 days of PD, district and school work.  A teacher would have a standardized four weeks of summer vacation plus Christmas/New Year’s and spring vacations and usual holidays that match their community’s annual calendar. 

  • Professionals have dedicated time for planning and assessment.  Teacher contracts include language regarding planning time or prep time.  In elementary grades this often is the time when children move from academic instruction with a grade level teacher to special instruction – art, music, physical education, foreign language, library, and technology instruction.  In secondary grades, a class periods) is designated as a teacher’s prep period.  In addition, teachers are expected to use time between their arrival at school and a first class and time after a last class and their departure from school for preparation. 

However, as soon as children arrive at school, all teachers share in the responsibility of student supervision.  Children are not let loose throughout the campus.  Also, teachers are to be available to assist children with their assignments before and after school.  And, administrators schedule school meetings, meetings with parents, and professional development activities before and after school.  Planning and review time are forfeit to each of these.

The result is that preparation, planning and a review of daily work seldom takes place at school.  Teachers do their reviews, planning and preparation at home.  Other professionals may also take their work home, but in other professions the norm is not preparing for every next day’s work at home.  Office time is carved out of the workday and officially reserved for review, planning and preparation.  This is not the case for teachers and it must change.

  • Teaching is a commitment to each child everyday.  This is a commitment of quality instructional and personal interactions between a teacher and each child the teacher teaches every school day.  It contrasts with assumptions that instruction presented to a whole class or group of students reaches to each individual child.  The commitment eliminates class periods or days of instruction in which a teacher and child have no direct, person-to-person interactions.  No children should be allowed to hide in class or to be invisible – never called on to speak or participate.   Instead, a teacher commits to personal interactions with each child and these interactions emphasize an “I care about you and your learning – personally”.

For decades, critics of public education have written about the school as a factory.  Children are the widgets of our industry, they say.  When schools are interested in outcomes only and are not people-first, this is a valid complaint. 

The list goes on with lesser detail.

  • “Japanese lesson studies” for all teachers.  This type of study parallels the ways in which other professions conduct a formalized, internal review of their ongoing work.  Lesson studies are a peer review not an employer evaluation.
  • Effective Educator assessments based upon student outcomes and attributes only.  Evaluate the effects of teaching not the characteristics of teaching.
  • Teacher discretion over how they use all school time but class time.  Professionals have control of personal professional time.
  • Use of science-based strategies.  As an example, the Science of Reading presents data- and performance-based pedagogy that is proven to cause all children to become readers.  Other subjects also have data- and performance-based pedagogies.  Using these, rather than anecdotally supported pedagogy, strengthen a teacher’s claim to professional preparation.
  • Employ more school counselors for social-emotional student care.  As caring as classroom teachers are for every child, a teacher is not a counselor and not prepared for SE counseling.  SE is another unprofessional piling on of the classroom teacher list of expectations.
  • Pa a bonus to teachers who are fluent in non-English languages.  Language-diverse school communities require linguistic- and culture-diverse faculty.  We need more teachers with the capacity to communicate effectively with non-English speaking children and families.
  • Annually enter student work in every state competition as a showcase of teaching and learning.  Successful work begets more successful work.  Professionals publicize their successes.
  • Annually nominate teachers for Teacher of the Year competitions as a recognition local teaching talent.  A local nomination is a local recognition and has meaning in the community.

The big duh!

COVID is the most significant change agent of this young century.  Its effects will last for decades to come.  As with all prior pandemics, mankind will survive but be changed by its experience.  We will be changed in ways not yet understood.  The extent and the after-effects of those changes lie within us not with the disease.  I prefer not to mourn the ways in which the pandemic changed schools and teaching but to celebrate what we learned and can use from the experience to enhance the future of teaching.  COVID reinforces the values of high quality teachers as essential at all times.

Commonweal in the Time of COVID

The Time of COVID causes us to ask a variety of essential questions regarding who decides who should do what.  Mask up.  Socially distance.  Wash hands frequently.  These are three personal behaviors that have been at the heart of mitigative behavior during this pandemic.  The decision to do any of these ultimately is left to the individual.  Do I do these because I should or because I am told to?  What does the commonweal require of me?

Opened or closed businesses?  To gather or not to gather?  State and local governments provide guidance and issue mandates without unanimity of purpose or design regarding these two questions.  In general, the business of WI is business and businesses are open for business.  School?  854,959 children were enrolled in WI schools in March, 2020, when COVID threatened our state and nation.  Immediately, the Department of Health Services enacted our Governor’s order to close all schools for the remainder of the school term.  Teaching and learning became virtual for all. Immediately, the issue became partisan debate of who decides who should do what.  Since then, political rancor has left the question of in-person or remote education up to local school district debate.  In almost every issue of personal and organizational behavior during the Time of COVID, the essential question is “what does the commonweal require?”.

Commonweal is a 14th century term for the happiness, health and safety of all of the people of a community.  The archaic term is used to describe goals and programs intended for the common good of people.  The constitutions of Kentucky, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania describe their states as commonwealths.  The word, commonweal, is appropriate in considering personal and organizational behaviors in the Time of COVID, especially regarding schools.

I find three citations in the WI Statutes that relate to the question of pandemic, schools and commonweal.  And, who decides who should do what.

WI Statutes 119.18 (6) School Board Powers – School Calendar tells us “The board may determine the school calendar and vacation periods for each school year for the regular day schools, summer schools, social centers, and playgrounds.  The board may close any school or dismiss any class in the event of an emergency, fire or other casualty, quarantine, or epidemic”.

WI Statutes 252.02 (03) Communicable Diseases tells us “The department (DHS) may close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other places to control outbreaks and epidemics”.  Further, WI Statutes 252.03(2) says “…a local health officer may forbid public gatherings deemed necessary to control outbreak or epidemic”. 

It is clear that in the Time of COVID, education is a continuing and uninterrupted program for the commonweal.  The WI DPI issued guidelines for the continuing education of all children during the pandemic and waivers that relieve boards of education from specific, mandated requirements, such as annual statewide assessments.  Absolutely, no allowances have been made for stopping education during the pandemic.  Teaching and learning for all children must proceed.

The issue is who and where.  Can school boards gather teachers and children at the schoolhouse for daily instruction?  Who decides?

119.18(6) considers a school closure within the context of adjusting the school calendar of instruction.  Days of instruction may be set aside for holidays and other observances.  Days may be set aside for seasonal vacations.  Days of instruction may be set aside in response to an emergency, such as fire or other casualty, as in water or electrical outage or weather damage.  The calendar is adjusted to accommodate these closings.  Days may be set aside for quarantines, as in an outbreak of measles or other childhood illness.  The calendar is adjusted to accommodate closings for these reasons.  In this statute, the Board is authorized to adjust the school calendar not close schools.

Epidemic?  I wonder what the writers considered in inserting this word.  There has been ample time since the Spanish flu pandemic and the polio epidemics to clarify the term.  Ebola, swine and avian flu epidemics touched the world but not Wisconsin.  Is epidemic rhetoric or specific?  Does the statute require the board to adjust the calendar of instruction to accommodate an epidemic?  All other closures are short-term or matters of displacement to another place where in-person instruction can continue.  Did the writers anticipate six months to a full school year, perhaps multiple years, to be a calendar disruption?  Or, is another statute appropriate; one that addresses the endangerment of epidemic disease upon community health not epidemic upon the school year calendar?

252.02(03) and 252.03(2) consider a school closure in the context of communicable disease.  The concept is that the gathering of community, children, teachers, and all staff, in a schoolhouse during a health emergency, such as an epidemic, is unsafe for the public health.  School could be a spreader event.   

Of interest, our Governor immediately closed all WI schools last March for the remainder of the 2019-20 school term.  He declared the spread of COVID to be a state health emergency.  Subsequently, the governor’s declaration was challenged by partisanship and his power to declare a statewide emergency was curtailed by the WI Supreme Court.  And, that was the last action taken by public health in the Time of COVID.  All communication from the WI Department of Health Services since is worded as community and personal guidance and recommendation and purposefully exempts schools.  WI statutes regarding schools and public health in the TIME of COVID have been neutered.

That leaves local school boards alone to decide the commonweal not from the perspective of public health but from their authority to amend the school calendar in the event of an epidemic.  School boards will tell who to do what.

Not to demean a school board, but we are lay persons elected and empowered to govern local schools on behalf of our constituent community.  Although a person with a medical or public health background may be elected to the school board, 99.9% are generalist residents with a commitment to local public education.  A school board’s commonweal is schooling not public health.  The powers and duties of a school board are described in WI Stat 118.01 and public health is not mentioned.  Yet, here we are.  Lay boards in 421 Wisconsin school districts are making 421 independent decisions of the commonweal for their respective school community’s public health.

Some children are receiving in-person instruction in-school.  Some children are receiving instruction at-home from in-school teachers.  Some children are in-school one, two or three days each week and home the rest.  Some children who receive in-school instruction are quarantined when a classmate, teacher or bus driver experiences a positive COVID test.  Fourteen days at-home and then back to school, perhaps until the next positive test. 

Lay school boards are doing yeomen’s work in sustaining a continuing education for all children during a statewide public health crisis.  School boards say who will do what according to WI Stat 119.18(6) School Calendar.  This is the condition of our commonweal in the Time of COVID.

Quality Indicators of Remote Education: Curricular Integrity and Accountability

Curricular integrity matters, especially in the Time of COVID.  Before and after this pandemic, PK-12 instruction in our schools was and will be based upon district-approved courses of study.  Adherence to the adopted curricula assures that instruction is standards-based, developmental, and contains necessary modifications making it accessible by all children.  Instruction during the pandemic is not a bridge over the disruption of schooling, but must be a clear roadway through the disruption that connects all children with the requirements of their pre- and post-pandemic educational needs.  All children need to be receiving their district’s approved curricula now regardless of instructional delivery.

Let there be no doubt that March and April, 2020, put almost all school districts into an emergency mode.  With statewide, local or school board orders to close campuses to daily school attendance and shift to virtual and remote education, the issue of what to deliver was secondary to the issues of how to deliver.  The first concern was how to connect school-based instruction with at-home children.  To abuse the term, virtually all teachers were virtual instructors and all children were virtual students.  We learned the mechanics of synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning.  Curriculum was then attached to these new delivery systems.  And, in the early school months of the pandemic, connecting children to education, any education, satisfied our immediate needs.

I hear from parents in our local school district that they believe the remote lessons their children were provided last spring were better than the lessons children are receiving this fall.  Further questioning clarifies that those early lessons were perceived as more fun and entertaining, easier to engage in, and took less time and effort to complete.  Children were on-screen for less time and happier with their on-screen time last spring as compared to this fall.  When asked if the lessons that were more pleasing were clearly connected to their child’s ongoing lessons from September through February, it was clear that most were not although some were close in nature. 

I also hear that lessons this school year are clearly connected to the school’s curriculum.  They are similar to the lessons children in elementary grades and secondary courses received when they were in classrooms at school.  These lessons use the school’s curricular resources and are connected to the school’s assessments of learning.  This is curricular integrity.

Why is curricular integrity important?  A child really has one school year per grade level and one semester or year per secondary course.  A spiraling curriculum and academic development does resurface content, skills and dispositions that were taught earlier, but every re-emergence is an elaboration of complexity and sophistication.  The spiral assumes that grade level learning has been accomplished. 

Additionally, time and expectations do not stand still for the pandemic.  This year’s fifth grade students will pass to middle school, eighth grade students to high school, and this year’s seniors will graduate.  This will happen without an asterisk indicating that their academic progress was less than otherwise due to the pandemic. 

Our schools owe it to our children to maintain curricular integrity so that their learning is of a quality that meets the needs and demands of their respective futures. 

Quality Indicators of Remote Education: Mastery of Time

Online teaching is not difficult; it is different.  Once we understand and learn to work with the differences, remote education becomes another scenario among many for teaching all children.  Educators are educable, don’t you know.

When we approach in-school teaching of at-home children, our first focus is on the technology involved.  Cameras and screens.  Many small faces on a device’s screen.  No children physically present in the classroom.  Each of these is true.  But, technology is a false front of difference.  Our laptops, chrome books, IPads, display boards, cameras and screens also are present in classrooms filled with children. 

Time, not the remoteness of children or the new arrays of technology, is the critical difference between in-person and remote teaching and learning.  It is consideration of and use of time that we must master in order to become effective remote educators.  Once this is done, remote education is only an alternative teaching strategy.

As remote educators, we are relearning these characteristics of instructional time.

Time is a package.  A lesson in most public school classrooms occurs within an envelope of minutes.  In a secondary classroom, a math lesson occurs within the minutes of a class period.  In an elementary classroom, ELA, reading, math, science and social studies each have an identified amount of minutes in the school day.  When ELA time is up, the lesson moves to the next subject.  A unit of instruction requires a number of lessons and, as each lesson requires time, so units span weeks of time. 

Time is finite.  The minute hand on the clock moves marks the beginning and ending of instructional time.  When the clock says the class is to begin it begins and when the clock says the class is over, the class is over.  Schooling is ordered by the clock and the number of finite minutes allocated for instruction .

Time is visible.  On a regular school day, school bells or tones sound to begin time for teaching and learning and their ELA materials and take out their math materials.  Children understand this – they watch the clock and know how the flow of a lesson and time work.  Any classroom observer sees children each day who know there are only so many minutes in a lesson in which a teacher may call on them to speak or answer a question or perform.  Outside of those minutes they are anonymous in the classroom.  They know that the first minutes of class are settling in time and the last minutes of class are packing it in time.  Children see time differently than teachers see time.

Instructional time must be optimized within known attention spans.  Studies tell us we can generalize a child’s attention span to be 3 to 5 minutes per the child’s age.  A Kindergarten child can pay attention for approximately 15 to 25 minutes before they begin to drift.  Children with learning disadvantages may have lower attention spans.  A 3rd grade child can pay attention for 24 to 40 minutes.  Effective lessons must be crafted within these attention spans – connection with prior learning, initial instruction, modeling, guided practice, checking for understanding. 

https://blog.brainbalancecenters.com/normal-attention-span-expectations-by-age

Attentive focus also is dependent upon whether or not a child finds the topic of her attention to be meaningful and personalized.  As soon as she determines that what she is hearing, seeing or doing is not, she drifts away from paying attention. 

At-home learners are vulnerable to losing attention due to factors outside the teacher’s domain or control.  We are not aware of what else is happening in the child’s home, what is off-screen, or the child’s state of readiness to learn prior to connecting online.  This heightens the need for compact, compelling, meaningful and personally-connecting instruction.

Time must be front-end loaded.  Teaching at-home learners is a “get what you can when you can” proposition.  For this reason, instruction needs to be front-end loaded.  Within the finite envelope and while you have a child’s attention, provide necessary initial instruction.  The longer into the lesson a teacher waits to deliver necessary instruction, the less likely it is that a child will engage.

Time for student work is off-screen time.  The most egregious complaint of children and parents regarding remote education arises when a teacher requires a child to be on-screen for hours at a time.  Don’t do this.  When the lesson moves to independent practice time, disconnect from screen time.  Let children do their reading, writing, and math assignments off-line.  Let children connect with other children as part of their time not part of their on-line time with a teacher.  The more a teacher allows children to work off-screen, the more children will engage with a teacher during instructional time.

Time lost is not equally regained.  When a child perceives that on-line schooling is a waste of time and begins to disengage, the time it takes to get the child to re-engage is never regained.  A child who sits passively watching an in-school teacher lecture for a full class period quickly hits the off-screen button. On-screen lecturing is a major cause of secondary student disengagement.  And, it takes far more time to re-engage a child than it would have taken to sustain engagement from the beginning.  In remote education, lost time really is lost time.

Time is accountability and accountability creates persistence.  Teachers who understand the relationship of time, high quality lessons, and personalized relationships demonstrate everyday that children who are engaged in these well-crafted, on-line lessons stay engaged.  Children respond to teachers who hold them accountable as learners BECAUSE the teachers are accountable for a quality use of time.  These child persist and are succeeding as at-home learners. 

These are not necessarily new or earth-shaking revelations about how to effectively use school time.  They are, however, incontrovertible truths – violate them at your peril.

Quality Indicators of Remote Ed – Personal and Daily Connections With Every Child

Remote, distanced, virtual, hybrid – none of these are our public school tradition. Yet, for many teachers and children today, these are their pathways to a continuing education in the Time of COVID. Let’s consider how these strange yet necessary pathways can work to cause all children to learn.

We need to begin a discussion of best remote education practices with this proclamation. Some teachers will excel as remote and online teachers and some teachers will fail. This does not defame those who are uncomfortable, ineffective or inefficient as distanced educators. Our faculties are selected and hired to work in direct contact with children. Personal relationships are essential to causing learning. Remote education’s screen time is a game changer. The lack of daily, person-to-person presence disrupts if not completely baffles many teachers. This does not mean that ineffective remote teaching cannot be improved. Where there is willingness there is a way. Where there is a “must” there is a “can do”.

Personal and daily exchanges between a teacher and each of the teacher’s students are essential if we are to overcome the distancing required of remote education. The key words are “daily” and “personal”. Best practice is a personal exchange between teacher and child every day. It takes time. It takes planning. It takes commitment. Personal contacts are irreplaceable. A day with a personal talk between a teacher and child is the best prevention of student disengagement, because disengagement is the educational disease of COVID.

Personal exchanges are “you matter” moments. The greatest loss in distanced education is the personal connection between teacher and child. We need work-arounds that re-establish personal conversations.

• A daily one-to-one screen chat or a personal telephone call is a classroom lifeline to a child at home. And, this is not just for a young, elementary child only – it also is true for seniors in high school. After initial instruction for a lesson has been given to all children, shut off the broadcast and let children work independently. Children do not need the distraction of what other children are doing and not doing. Use this time to make one-to-one screen chats or telephone calls to one child at a time.

• Personal means personal. This talk time is only about the child and the child’s school work. You my inquire about health and safety and how the family is doing. And, then you need to get to the school work.

“Tell me how you will start this assignment.”
“Let’s talk about this sentence in your writing.”
“Tell me about…”
“How did you feel when…?”
“Tell me more …”

The conversation only needs to last several minutes. Enough for the teacher to assures to the student that her teacher is committed to her learning every day.

• Personal contact is student-centered. The conversation is not about the teacher or teaching. This call is not about any other student. It is all about the called child and that child’s learning. Do not introduce other school or class issues. If you have five minutes, make all five about “this child”.

• Link consecutive calls. “Yesterday we talked about … let’s go on from there.” Linked calls provide continuity for a child. They expand the lesson from the moment into learning over time. “Yesterday you said … What are you thinking about that today?” “Tell me about what you did in reworking that math problem.”

• Do this every day. Make it your #1 priority. Make a daily contact with each child your COVID Resolution. This is more than possible because it is so utterly necessary. Like so many preventative measures, the total amount of time required for daily contacts will be far less than the time and effort to re-engage a disengaged child.

• Personal is the sound of your voice. Get off screen and use a telephone. Not a text. Not an e-mail. Your voice talking to the child’s voice. Teachers frequently forget that the sound of voices, their voice in particular, is distinct and unique. A teacher’s voice has special meaning for a child. Many adults still recall the sound of a particular teacher’s voice, her speaking mannerisms, and with that sound the words she spoke. Make your voice heard by your students by speaking to each one individually.

• Make a record of your daily contacts. One purpose of the record is to ensure that all children are being contacted with regularity. A second purpose is to provide you with the reinforcement that comes from committing to and doing a necessary task. A long and continuous list of made connections easier to sustain than restarting an on again and off again pattern.

• Principals will pay attention. One element of your principal’s assessment of your work as a teacher of distanced children is how well you maintain contact with each child. Your commitment to personal and daily contacts and your record of these assists your principal to validate the effectiveness of your remote teaching.

There will be a day when all children will join their teachers in their school classrooms. Teaching and learning will return with highly personalized, daily conversations between teacher and child. The distancing caused by the pandemic need only be an inconvenience not an obstacle to the continuity of personal and daily connections.

A commitment to personal and daily contacts now during remote education will make a day when everyone is back in school a gathering of people who know each other well – not a meeting of people who saw each other only as distant and impersonal faces on screens.