Georgia is not unlike most other states in the fact that it is having significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining teachers. The trend line is getting worse despite modest efforts to increase educator salaries. The problems are complex, interconnected and nuanced.
Recently, I overheard a conversation between two community members. The young man complained the school was not teaching his 12-year-old boy cursive writing. The middle-aged woman asked why. He said, “Some people are saying it’s because they don’t want the kids to be able to read the Constitution.”
Such conspiracies are not helpful; they only serve to drive divisiveness. Schools today are spending more time than ever teaching reading. I think the fact of the quantity of reading content coverage, however, is the concern. That statement begs clarification.
When you and I went to school, the curriculum was deep and rigorous. Teachers took us deep into the lessons and demanded mastery. The curriculum was an inch wide and a mile deep. In other words, we took fewer concepts, but we covered them in depth.
I have to report to you that educational philosophy is under assault. Today’s curriculum, mandated by state bureaucrats, is a mile wide and an inch deep. Teachers and their students are stressed to cover every conceivable standard and objective with breakneck speed. Mastery learning is not even considered.
The demand on teachers — and on their students — is to cover this huge breadth of topics in order to finish on time for the state examinations. Administrators are subsequently forced to enforce this pacing. It can be done, but at what cost?
There is a caveat, a hope, that through a spiraling curriculum process, teachers will revisit these concepts from time to time with their young charges. But as I listen to the teachers, it isn’t satisfactorily working. It focuses less on higher-order thinking skills and emphasizes lower-level skills.
So we have people far from the classroom demanding coverage of massive amounts of material. These demands force pedagogical or instructional practices to change. Teachers rush for superficial coverage and have no real time to dive deep with the necessary teaching strategies they know will work. Just cover all the material for the test.
The teaching strategy forces the teachers’ hands to one of depositing knowledge. It may have the tendency to focus on teacher-centered approaches and away from more learner or learning-centered practices. In education, we would say we may be moving from cognitive and constructivist approaches to behavioral approaches.
I am aware some administrators will take umbrage with these comments. They will say I’m being unfair, and that if I look at the curriculum the lessons are very interactive. That is actually true, but the time of interaction and the time needed for the depth of interaction is far, far, far too limited. It is so rushed the interaction is superficial. I see it, and the teachers will tell you that — if we choose to listen.
Behavioral approaches focus quite often on the lecture approach where the teacher deposits knowledge into the learner. That model surely is antiquated. Brain research shows us people may only recall about 15% of what they hear beyond 24 hours.
Interactive lessons — lessons where students wrestle with a topic and are challenged to think, not absorb — go in depth. Naturally, this takes time as the students construct meaning and understanding in such a constructivist approach. Today, teachers don’t have the luxury of time as they must cover myriad topics in order to be ready for the tests.
The stress is driving teachers away from the classroom, and it is causing angst for our children. Their mental health is suffering.
School district leaders find themselves in urgent need of hiring teachers. Their hands are forced, and they make emergency hires with people who have provisional licenses. These neophyte teachers haven’t had the full dose of teacher preparation at universities.
To mitigate these concerns, districts are purchasing scripted (or canned) curriculum from outside vendors and agencies. These curricula are highly structured, and I’ve actually been impressed with them. The teachers literally read from the script.
But this is teacher-proofing the curriculum. It’s highly scientific and it leaves out the art of teaching. There is little to no professional autonomy or discretion. Even wise veteran teachers are treated the same, and our kids are missing out on the best of their teaching. The model guarantees us a solid floor, but it never opens the ceiling for the best learning.
There you have it. This is as blunt as I can be. This past fall I was in 50 classrooms observing. This spring I will be in 50 more. Some leaders will not appreciate what I have said here. I’m actually trying to help them help our teachers — to give them the requisite freedom to recapture teaching excellence. Maybe we can, as a result, recruit and retain more professionals.
My earnest hope is that school leaders, whether they are curriculum coordinators, school principals and superintendents, or school board members truly listen to those who are in the trenches with the curriculum and with the students. I’m referring, of course, to our teachers.
Our teachers, if we listen to them, are begging for a different focus in how we are teaching our kids. We need to listen — seriously listen. They know what they are talking about.
Perry Rettig is a Piedmont University professor of education. Rettig is in his 41st year as an educator, which has included stints as a public school teacher and principal.
About the Author
