Join the conversation

Definitely. We need to create environments that work in our schools. My point with the whole Sarah Fine thing had to do with how those environments are created and more importantly, by who.

I repeated in a few different places, Sarah Fine (and others like her) may have had the desire to teach but did not have the passion. It is that passion that brings us to change, to creating our own desirable futures.

It is not a judgment like, poor Sarah Fine couldn't cut it. Rather it is an observation that luckily she discovered that teaching was not her passion. Now she can go about on the business of finding hers.

We can say Oh, the working conditions are horrible and my administration doesn't appreciate me, and the parents aren't supportive, and the students are disrespectful, and the days are too long, and... and...

and then quit.

Or we can be curious about how to create environments for ourselves, our students, and our colleagues that work. We can be proactive or reactive. It is our choice. It's passion that determines the choice we make.

Who are the 'we' Barnett Barry refers to? If we wait for some unknown other 'we's to make change we will only succeed in enabling the broken system.

Passionate teachers - and by passion I mean people who feel whole when teaching, who feel it is a part of themselves - are the ones who create change.

Classroom teachers are the only real agents of school reform. Think about that.

Tracy, while I agree with you that classroom teachers are agents of school reform, they aren't the ONLY agents of school reform. The flip side of your argument is that they shouldn't expect collaboration or support from anyone, and that flies in the face of too much research on school reform.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of passion, especially in challenging schools. Teaching in those schools will never be light duty, so you need to find the right kinds of teachers to teach in them. Still, even committed and passionate professionals can burn out in a very difficult working environment--that's just management 101.

Teachers should most definitely become central agents of school reform, but so should administrators, community leaders, parents and (critically) policymakers. I suspect Barnett is referring to that entire group, when he writes "we." Asking teachers to bootstrap their way to a better experience may work in some isolated cases, but I don't think it will work as a general school reform strategy.

One could argue that Sarah Fine is acting as an "agent of school reform" by publishing her experiences and making the case for better working conditions." I don't know her, so I can't speak to her passion for the job of teaching. But she may help move the national conversation forward.

"Tracy, while I agree with you that classroom teachers are agents of school reform, they aren't the ONLY agents of school reform. The flip side of your argument is that they shouldn't expect collaboration or support from anyone, and that flies in the face of too much research on school reform."

Not at all. You make an implication that is not there - why would that automatically be the flip side?

First off teachers are, as I wrote, the only real agents of school reform because it is what teachers choose to do in their classrooms that make change in learning. When it comes down to it, no one can be forced to do anything unless they believe in it.

Yes. Everyone in the system must be involved in change, in learning, in the professional learning communities of their schools and districts but as agents of reform, teachers carry it out in the classrooms. And we will if we are involved in the reform making process to begin with. We won't if we don't believe in the reform, if too many 'reforms' have been presented to us in a short period of time, etc...

Perhaps passion is the wrong word. It carries too much baggage. I'm not referring to a romantic vision of teacher as martyr. I've written about this in a few different places, such as at Michael Doyle's blog here: http://doyle-scienceteach.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-why-sarah-fine-left-te... or on my own blog here: http://leadingfromtheheart.org/2009/08/12/the-quality-of-teaching-is-not... and here: http://leadingfromtheheart.org/2009/08/10/attitudes-towards-teaching/ . Other places too.

There are great conversations about the nature of teaching that have sprung up around this, so I agree with your last statement. Conversations are changing, new stories are being told and that is a good thing. We can choose to live in old stories or be a part of telling new ones. I choose to tell new ones.

Tracy. No other profession organizes its work on the basis of the passions and commitments of their members. Passion and commitment are critical - but insufficient in light of the lack of administrative support, little time to collaborate with their colleagues on matters of teaching content and analyzing student data, and lack of "equipment" (e.g., classroom libraries for early literacy teachers or graphing calculators for math teachers) to teach effectively. Imagine a surgeon working without nurses or lab technicians or even operating tables. Would we expect her passion to trump the poor working conditions?

I do not agree, Barnett. How can you say that? In any profession, breakthroughs and change are created by people who are passionate about doing things better. I certainly do not want to go to a doctor, get legal advice, have my hair done, or be taught by anyone who does not have passion for what they do.

I advocate for teachers to be part of the process of change. Research shows us that sustainable change is only possible when all participants are involved in the change process.

In order to trigger this process and in order to want to be involved, we need passion. There needs to be a tension, a need for change or else it won't happen. That tension, that need to continuously make things better, that is the passion I talk about.

Teachers are a part of the educational system - the part that probably spends the most time (at least during the school year) with the reason for the system - the children. Teachers, in a sense, are important gateways for knowledge within the system. We can create as much knowledge and as much reform as we want, but until it is participatory, it isn't going to take.

Tracy, I'm not sure we disagree with you about the importance of passion, or about the importance of teachers being critical catalysts for change and central participants in school reform. Yes, any profession requires some degree of tension or desire to improve things to promote progress.

But acknowledging the critical importance of passion and teacher engagement in creating change does not disqualify teachers from advocating for better conditions--as Sarah Fine did. Nor should we assume that every teacher who leaves a very challenging school as the result of burnout lacked the requisite passion or commitment to change.

I don't see why this has to be an either/or proposition. Yes, let's get passionate and committed teachers into the profession, and let's support them for success. That becomes an important policy decision after all--I don't see how we can simply trust that all teachers' inner strength and commitment alone will enable them to overcome any obstacle, however daunting. A few will succeed against all odds, but I don't see how we can make that our motivating principle when we're trying to promote systemic change that improves the lot of all children, even those who live in deepest poverty.

Yes, teachers should play a central role in the school reform story, but many people besides teachers should join with them in improving the working conditions.

As co-founder (with Barnett) of the Teacher Leaders Network, I can say with absolute certainty that he is 100 percent in agreement about the need for teachers to be full partners in school change. The failure of the system at large to MAKE them full partners -- to attempt to work around rather than with teachers -- continues to limit reform. But to argue that we don't need to be concerned about teacher working conditions if teachers have enough passion or commitment is, well, just wrong. As Claus says, it's superhero thinking. And while I'm fine with superheroes, I don't think we're going to come up with 3.5 million of them to staff all our public schools.

Its taken for granted that people become surgeons, or accountants, or politicians, or scientists for a lot of passionate reasons - including money, fame, competitiveness, and contradictory desires about changing the world. Teaching may be the only profession where the motivation of its practioners must be pure. And everyone feels free to judge.

I'd agree with Barnett, and push his point further, perhaps to a place where he would disagree. We have followed the teacher hero to the point where it often takes a great teacher to be an effective teacher. In urban schools, you have to learn how to e a cop and a missionary as you learn to become a teacher. We need a system where being a good, professional educator is enough to be an effective teacher.

Think of all those Baby Boomers who are nearing a second career. Many or most might want to be the heroes of the civil rights movement of the 21st century. But we shouldn't limit ourselves to teaching candidates with the charisma, toughness, and profound sensitivity that it takes to become virtual parents of students. Don't many of those experienced teacher candidates have talents that we need even if they only want to sign up for a 40 hour a week position that does not entail saving the world?

That being said, we also need teachers of all ages who are on a mission.

We need to realize how many do not view the dedication of teachers as an important factor. After all, we can find those who hawk their 'teacher-proof" curricula; we have those who want to insist on rigid pacing guides which would remove from teachers the ability to adapt to the skills, backgrounds and need of the students before them; we have those who think all that matters is raising test scores (as apparently is the case with Michelle Rhee if one judges by the John Merrow piece this evening), even if the rising scores may merely reflect adjusting the conversion from raw score to scaled reported scores.

Those who think they can affect meaningful and constructive educational reform without the commitment of teachers either do not understand how people learn or really don't care.

But teachers are not the only agents of meaningful change. Others can provide insights of new ways of approaching instruction; they may be able to provide resources that enable more individualized instruction to take place; there is meaningful research that is beyond the scope and usually the ability of the role of classroom teacher.

Still, as one who functions primarily as a classroom teacher, even as I also function as a commentator upon and a reviewer of material on educational reform, the failure to fully include the voices of teachers in our discussions of educational reform has been horrible to watch. Were we the automatons that some - such as those peddling "teacher-proof" materials - would have us be, then it might be justified. But many of us are reflective about our pedagogy, our students, and what we are attempting to achieve - which is something far more important than merely raising test scores.

Peace.

If I'm hearing John, John and Ken correctly, we need passionate teachers, and their passion for children should give them an absolutely central role in the design and implementation of school reform strategies. That said, making extraordinary passion and self-sacrifice part of the regular job description does not help us address systemic teacher recruitment and retention problems in this country. Even teachers need a little help from their friends.

Sound right?

Sounds just right. Relying entirely on the passion and extraordinary efforts of millions of teachers is letting too many other folks off the hook. Without quality at every critical juncture (teacher, principal, central office, community) we leave many students under-served.

When all the pieces are in place, schools excel. One of the pieces is definitely the passion of teachers. I sure don't think teaching is just a business.

Thanks for such an interesting discussion!

We expect our teachers to be passionate about teaching despite the conditions and yet frown when they use passion-based methodology. Many teachers find themselves questioning... if kids are learning things they are passionate about- how will they ever get into college?

To make it even more interesting, does it matter where the passion of the passionate teacher lies? I mean are we talking change agent = passionate about what we think is important or just having a decent level of unbridled passion is acceptable? For example this passionate standards-based teacher responded to a video about using passion-based learning in the classroom-

"The requirement of the teacher to guide at a high level within a highly structured framework remains necessary - what they don't show is the initial learning of the students, particularly in terms of literacy. I love the construct in and of itself. The schools seem specifically focused - what do they do to prepare their students for university?"

Another post that came across RSS this morning alludes to the fact that not using passion in the classroom makes school boring.

"A participant at my table said, “This is all nice, but kids need to learn that school isn’t always interesting. Sometimes school is just boring.” “Not true!” I responded. “School shouldn’t and doesn’t have to be boring.” Which teachers should teach students that they have to learn that school is boring? This certainly would not be me.

While I’ve witnessed teachers who accept that students are disengaged, sometimes even falling asleep in their class, I do not believe a teacher passionate about his/her career would embrace the idea that it is okay for their students to be bored. In fact, I contend that if every teacher prioritized just one thing, we could eradicate boredom in our classrooms, deeply engage students, and dramatically decrease the dropout rate. That one thing is…
Supporting Students in Finding Their Passion"

Frankly, I want my postman, bartender, and cabinet maker all passionate about what they do. But what is passion to me, might not be passion to someone in another country and in today's world using drive and motivation as a criteria for being a change agent could get messy.

So passionate teachers need to help kids find their own passions in a culture that rewards high test scores, college entrance, and structured scholarship?

Hmmm- maybe that is the problem. While I agree, creative people who are passionate about teaching should get teaching degrees and advocate fiercely on behalf of those who can't advocate for themselves, if the culture doesn't support their efforts, then true transformation of the profession will never occur. Rather, we have to reculture (change working conditions and dispositions about the profession) before thinking that passion will ever be enough. We also need to rethink how we recruit, induct, and nurture those in the teaching profession and not punish creativity and passion in the ranks. And we have to reculture and change delivery of curriculum if we want to produce future teachers who will have the kind of passion to change the world, the kind of passion you describe above.

I mean, if passion is the uniform of change agents then schools should be nurturing passion in their students- or at the least be in the business of helping them find their passions, right?

Schlechty in his recent book talks about the difference between transformation and reform.

REFORM usually means changing procedures, processes, and technologies with the intent of improving the performance for existing operating systems. The aim is to make existing systems more effective at doing what they have been always been intended to do.

TRANSFORMATION is intended to make it possible to do things that have never been done by the organization undergoing the transformation. It involves metamorphosis: changing from one form to another form entirely. In organizational terms, transformation almost always involves repositioning and reorienting action by putting the organization into a new business or adopting a radically different means of doing the work it has traditionally done. Transformation by necessity includes altering the beliefs, values, and meanings- the culture- in which programs are embedded, as well as changing the current system of rules, roles, and relationships- social structure- so that the innovations needed will be supported.

REFORM in contrast, means only installing innovations that will work within the context of the existing structure and culture of schools.

It takes passionate teachers to help transform education- true. But as long as we are operating in silos of change rather than leveraging the power of a connected community and network, we will only see pockets of reform by those who somehow garnered the drive and passion to stand against all circumstance that conspires against the weary soul of a dedicated teacher.

Sarah Fine isn't the problem. School culture is the problem and until we quit trying to reform rather than transform we will simply be putting a bandaid on a gushing wound.

I think everyone here has been fair in interpreting my position. I think Sheryl makes a great point, however, that shows a weakness with my position. Classroom instruction without passion is what?

But she also points to the solution. Create a learning culture that attacts and retains talent. Rarely will we succeed, however, if we retain the teacher/hero model that means that only the rare teacher can succeed.

John - I think there is a confusion with what I term as passion in teaching and teacher-hero. I absolutely do not believe in the teacher hero, unless it is as a community hero who just does the right thing (there are different understandings of hero - some have capes, like the movie star heroes, but most heros are private and don't even realize they are.)

I disagree that retaining a model of passionate teaching will result in failed culture change. Retaining that model as hope for the future can only succeed in creating more instances of it - we see what we ask questions about.

If it was understood that I thought teachers could/should act completely independently of anyone else I did not explain myself very well and for that I apologize.

I am a big believer in whole system change initiatives. In particular through theoretical and methodological lenses like appreciative inquiry, open systems theory, and participatory action research. These theories state that all parts of any system have an effect on each other part, even when we don't realize it. Each part is important, there is a symbiotic relationship through the parts of any system. Therefore all (or as many as we can get in the room) parts of a system need to be involved in any kind of change process for it to become transformational, as Sheryl so wonderfully put it.

We do, however, have to recognize that the parts play different roles. In the educational system all of the roles are important and depend on each other - admin, teacher, support, children, families, boards (governing and school or district), government, health, social services... the list can go on. Even if all of the parts seem to be running in fabulous order - policy is good, the school is clean, parents are supportive, etc - if the teacher does not translate that policy into practice in her/his classroom, it doesn't happen for the children.

That is why I say that teachers are the only REAL agents of school reform - agent as acting agent. We are not the only participants in reform, we are not the only ones who can trigger reform, but we put policy into practice on the front lines. We act on it. In difficult situations we need passion to be able to spin bad policy into good practice. That's a given. Otherwise, the practice will merely reflect the policy upon which it was based.

We see what we ask questions about. If we continue to ask questions about how to fix a broken system we will see broken systems all around us. If we ask questions about how to generate balanced, participatory learning cultures, we will start to see places where they exist. And where they work.

I just re-discovered this study from about 5 or 6 years ago. Seems to fit well into the conversation here:

Profile of the Teacher as Keystone in Secondary Reform Implementation (pdf file)

Source: Quebec's Ministry of Education, via LEARN Quebec Professional Development Tools.

If this had been recognized PRIOR to and during the creation of our Quebec Educational Reform this reform could have truly been transformational. It still has a chance. There is a lot of support being given to teachers and teachers are encouraged and expected to create a lot of the instructional materials within professional learning communities. Though a messy start, it's becoming good stuff.

Hi All...

hope this finds you well and thanks for a great discussion on school "transformation" and teachers.

My work has always been centered around troubled kids or kids at risk. Over the years i have come to see that there is much overlap between at risk kids and at risk teachers and schools.

Here are the Seeds of Discouragement in the lives of kids at Risk... they are in effect..."environmental hazzards".

1. DESTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS

2. CLIMATES OF FUTILITY

3. LEARNED IRRESPONSIBILITY

4. LOSS OF PURPOSE

These same seeds are in in many ways..the same in many of the schools for the adults who work in them....

and the results of living with-in these places are similar for the adults to the results of these hazzards in the lives of kids at risk.

The "new" teacher turn-over rate is related to the seeds of discouragement in many of our schools!

I do agree with Tracey.... teachers need to be proactive in their area's of influence to create places of hope with-in their locus of control.

“Education is always a vocation... rooted in hopefulness.” ( B. Hooks )

As we attempt to create "reclaiming environments" for kids it may serve us very well to create them for ourselves!

We need, in my opinion, to conciously create healthy communities with-in our classrooms ( totally under my control as a teacher ) and with-in our schools!

As we look at the seeds of discouragement .... here is what we may wish to build instead!

Components of healthy community

BELONGING

MASTERY

INDEPENDENCE

GENEROSITY

We must become what we wish to teach!

be well..mike

Thanks to everybody for such thoughtful responses to the question of teacher passion and teacher working conditions.

Debra, your story suggests that Sarah Fine may simply be moving into the realm where she feels she can be most effective. Resignation from the classroom does not necessarily amount to loss of passion for the cause of education.

Sheryl, thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed comment. I really liked this paragraph: "It takes passionate teachers to help transform education- true. But as long as we are operating in silos of change rather than leveraging the power of a connected community and network, we will only see pockets of reform by those who somehow garnered the drive and passion to stand against all circumstance that conspires against the weary soul of a dedicated teacher." Strikes me as hard to deny. Of course, as you write about transformation, the next question is, "whose vision of transformation?"

Tracy, thank you so much for your provocative and engaging comments. I suspect we're largely arguing about semantics. I don't think Sheryl was arguing that "retaining a model of passionate teaching will result in failed culture change." Far from it. She seemed to suggest that passionate teachers ALONE weren't enough to promote the kind of broad chance we require. I get the sense that you agree, given the tenor of your recent comments. I do take issue with this quotation: "In difficult situations we need passion to be able to spin bad policy into good practice." On the whole, you're right, but this is a matter of degree, isn't it? Should teachers be able to spin ANY policy--no matter how bad--into good practice? Should teacher practice overcome ANY conditions, no matter how oppressive or challenging? Surely we want to create an environment where teachers' passion can have the greatest impact--and the greatest staying power. Again, I think we're arguing about semantics.

Mike, thanks for your thoughtful comments on the kinds of environments teachers have to create to promote their students' success. Certainly, teachers who lack passion or who become burned out can contribute to the negative environment that harms both students and other teachers.