Author: theschooldr

One Question Can Change the Trajectory of Student Discipline

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

Anyone who is in a school nowadays will all agree on one thing: Student discipline has changed significantly in the past few years and not for the better. Somewhere between Zero Tolerance and poorly implemented Restorative Practices, there has to be a happy medium. 

While there is research that shows an effective Restorative Practice system can improve discipline, the sense of belonging and peer relationships, the fidelity of the program is essential, and with a profession that is high-turnover and dwindling at the moment, this can be a challenge. 

A major blunder in the implementation of ineffective Restorative Practice is lack of consequences. Talking through a problem or problem behavior doesn’t mean lack of accountability for such behavior. What Restorative Practices really does is just add the essential conversation to behavioral incidents to give the adults involved more context about why the student did what they did and so students can learn from their mistakes. We preach about the importance of building relationships with students, and doing so in discipline is no exception. 

I will reinforce that having a strong relationship with a student means being consistent with them in discipline. It doesn’t mean that you give them a “bye” the 5th time they are late if that’s inconsistent with the rules. It means being courageous enough to consistently enforce the rules when the time comes. 

Restorative Practices also insists that there is authority and respect established, meaning, the teacher has the ultimate authority in a classroom and if they have a student removed from class, that student needs a consequence. Several states are even passing laws stating such to enhance the authority teachers should have in their rooms. 

However, in light of changing staff, a summer of thinking about how to adjust and adapt, and slow implementation of a process that does work, I offer a VERY (and overly) simplified starting point. 

  1. Make sure there are rules – clear, concise, and agreeable. 
  2. Make sure those rules have natural and/or clear consequences to them. For example: Cleaning up the cafeteria after leaving a messy table. 
  3. Make sure those consequences impact only the student(s) involved. Same example: The whole cafeteria doesn’t stay to clean if one table left a mess.

For the love of all things good, do NOT be the person that punishes the whole group for the misbehavior of one to a few students.

There you are, working right along and a student breaks a rule. It really doesn’t matter what the rule is that’s broken – cheating on a test, taking pictures of teachers without their OK, or skipping a class. Ultimately, you have to start a conversation with that student about the rule that was broken and what the consequence is for doing so. 

In my experience, the disconnect comes from the enforcement of consequence itself – not that there is one, but that there is follow-through with it, so my suggestion is to start the conversation with this, “Based on what Ms. X wrote/said, you broke this rule/procedure. When you break a rule at home, what happens?” 

Now, the intent of this question is NOT to pit parent v. school. It should do the opposite. It should give you a clearer picture of the student’s perspective on how they are used to discipline being handled. This isn’t the time to blame parents or guardians; it is designed to be a conversion starter on their background and how it meshes with the school expectations. It is designed to give the listener insight into how to proceed with the conversation.

Same lunchroom example: 

Assistant Principal: Gentlemen, you left your lunches and garbage at your lunch table yesterday. If you left a mess on your kitchen table at home, what might happen? 

Note that the statement is fact-based. The AP didn’t say “you left a mess.” Leaving a mess isn’t the rule that was broken – not cleaning up your lunch garbage is the rule. 

Students: They may honestly give so many answers, but it really doesn’t matter what is said. 

What is being established is that there may be rules at home and rules at school that are different, and there may different consequences too. What we need to do is get on the same page for expectations at the school. 

Assistant Principal: In school, we are all expected to clean up after ourselves. Therefore, everyone at the table will stay and help clean the cafeteria after lunch today. 

Ok, I get it. Even in this scenario, there are so many ways for it to go wonky because, well, we’re dealing with kids. But what’s important about all of the scenarios is the consistency in messaging, questioning, and follow-through. 

  • State the rule. 
  • Ask for their frame of reference (how would this be handled at home?). 
  • Provide the school’s frame of reference and consequence. 

While this may feel really basic, having a script will help in every situation. If you don’t have a script and checklist for discipline, now is the time to create one and start using it. Samples of these exist online, just check with your district to ensure compliance and legal obligations. 

We Can Show Teachers Appreciation by Adding Planning Time

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

In honor of teacher appreciation week, it’s time to address the serious disconnect between the teacher evaluation process and algorithm and what a teacher does day-in and day-out. 

In Pennsylvania, the evaluation model tries to accommodate the nuances of the teaching profession by using a calculation tool that adds a bunch of pieces of teaching together to come up with a scale by which a teacher is determined at the end to be either satisfactory (distinguished, proficient, some needs improvement) or unsatisfactory (some needs improvement and failing). This model is not unique to Pennsylvania, as updated federal regulations from 2020 applies to all states accepting federal funding through the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

Most, if not all, of the teacher evaluation relies on the teacher observation. The most-used tool in this practice is the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Through the Danielson Group’s framework, Pennsylvania adapted the model for use in evaluations. Then Pennsylvania broke down the observation tool into four parts that are weighted differently for purposes of the evaluation and getting a summative score at the end that puts teachers into one of four performance categories: Distinguished, Proficient, Needs Improvement, Failing. 

As it stands, these are the calculations that are used for PA teachers and admininstrators: 

For simplicity’s sake, let’s assume that the teacher we are talking about will have 100% of their observation as their total evaluation. This also gives us the greatest percentages representing wha the teacher day should look like. 

Just looking above, the state is saying, “Yes, the actual teaching of students is really important, so we want that to count for 60% of the teaching practice.” In the same breath, the state also says, “yeah, that other stuff – planning, professional responsibilities including growing as a teacher, communicating with families, leadership within the school and in the content area, using data to make decision about instruction, differentiating instruction based on the students in the room, honoring cultural and background differences of each learner within each lesson – yeah, that’s really important too.”

However, there is not one teacher schedule in PA (and even in the United States) that reflects the importance of teacher planning, reflecting on practice and additional responsibilities as an educator. 

The average teacher gets 266 minutes of non-student time (planning time) per week. If a teacher works a 7-hour day, that’s about 13% of their time to do what is already seen as an essential part of their jobs. A 7.5 hour day drops that percentage to about 12% of their time spent planning, calling homes, learning, growing and reflecting. Even in Chicago, where teacher have the most non-contact time at 100 minutes per day of planning, that still is only about 22% of the day. 

Even in surveys of what teachers need more of, it’s planning time. This survey parsed out a few tasks that would be included in planning time, so the overwhelming ask is that teachers be given the proper amount of time to ultimately create quality lesson, opportunities and learning environments for their students. 

So how can we show teachers some appreciation? Listen.

Pennsylvania also recently changed its laws on instructional time and number of days per school year. The law previously required schools to provide 180 days of instruction AND 900 hours of instruction at the elementary level and 990 at the secondary level. Act 56 of the PA State School Code now says 180 days of instruction or 900/990 hours of instruction. Although schools need to report on both. 

This opportunity is where some really brave and creative educators can come together and create an environment that honors the time needed to put into the “on-stage” parts of the job. 

The following is based on a 180 work year for teachers (which doesn’t typically happen – it’s usually closer to 190).

HoursStudentDaysDay length (hrs)Contact Time/Day (hrs)Non-Contact Time/day (min)% of day
9901807.55.512026.6%
9901657.561.5 + 15 days26.6%
10151457.570.5 + 35 days24.8%

I’d even argue that the extra 10 days of a teacher contract should remain as non-contact to increase the percentages even more. Essentially, what this means is that there are options available to us as educators and school boards. We just have to choose to exercise them to ultimately improve student academics and teacher retention and outcomes. 

Let’s get creative with the use of our time, honor the planning and preparation needed to create engaging learning environments, and shift the dynamics of the teaching day to help amplify the profession.

Why Wording Matters: How We Talk About Students Perpetuates Biases

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

By not distinguishing how to talk and write about people from how we communicate about things or ideas, we contribute to and reinforce our own and others’ biases (positive and negative) by how we use our words to describe people. 

The way we communicate is really essential to how we are perceived and how we perceive others. Effective communication is designed to build pictures in our minds, so we can create the same story in someone else’s head that we see in ours. So what does this have to do with bias and stereotyping? Everything.

Some Boring Background

In the English language we have a specific order in which adjective descriptors of nouns: opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, color, origin, material, type, purpose. Not only does English have descriptors before the noun, but the order in which the descriptors are used puts opinions first. For an example, let’s take this phrase: big, red, rubber, bouncy ball. If someone says this (or writes it), you have to start picturing the “big,” then the “red,” and so on, before you ever get to what the object is.

There are languages that use postpositive adjectives, like the romance languages. With those, you picture the object (or person), and then you get all of the descriptors afterward. 

So with the same example, we would see in Spanish: gran pelota saltarina de goma roja – or – big ball bouncy, rubber, red. At least in this case, we get to picture the object at the beginning of the phrase and then we can start picturing a little more after we “see” the object. 

This idea is what I call the “big, red ball” theory. There is nothing wrong with defining an inanimate object as such – in that magical order of adjectives before the noun, although it definitely can be confusing in speaking and in teaching younger students to read. But how much of a difference does it make when we are talking about people?

The People Effect

Using this same logic, we do typically describe people the same way. We are forced to hear (or read) bias-inducing adjectives before we ever get to the who. Let’s say we’re talking about a tall, blonde, German … table. We’ve just been shifted in our seats at what we expect versus what we were presented with. Instead of thinking of a bartop in a Deutch-themed bar, we probably pictured a woman first. And with picturing a woman with those descriptions, we held our biases in our minds as we read each adjective, one-by-one. 

I’m not suggesting we flip-flop the English language altogether. I’m not prepared for that kind of fight. What I do propose is that we, especially as educators, speak of people first, and description second. There are already instances where we do this, so at some point we have acknowledged this English idiosyncrasy that prioritizes descriptors over people. 

Student-athlete – There is a reason we put student before athlete. It is (or should be) the priority.

Person of color – We acknowledge here the person first – their racial identity second. 

Man of Steel – Yes, I’m even grouping a superhero in here, because I can argue that there is a stressed importance of MAN being the first word you read. 

Put simply, we know the power of words, what words can do to the listener or reader, and that the order of those words is incredibly important. 

Students First 

In education, this is more critical than ever, especially when speaking about students, families and communities. These statements read drastically differently: 

The easy version: IEP student

Student with an IEP

Student who qualifies for an IEP

Student receiving special education services

The first one denotes that the student is first their IEP and second a student; whereas, the last three phrases identify the student as the most important part of that child. What we also know is that we hold inherent biases regarding students with IEPs. This simple flip of language reminds us all that the student comes first. 

The easy version: Low SES students

Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds

Students from low socioeconomic households

Now, I know that every single one of my journalism professors and teachers would roll over in their respective newsprint seeing an argument that creates longer phrases rather than shorter ones. However, when we are speaking about students, it’s worth those few extra words to describe the person ahead of what category we then lump them into. We have created so many “definitions” of students, but none of them (by nature of the English language) respect what should come first in all of our discourse: the student. 

This argument can be broadened to include phrases such as “students who have divorced parents,” rather than “two-household students.”  If we want to value our students first, then we owe it to them to have our actions speak as loud as our words by shifting the way we speak about children and people in general. If we continue to perpetuate stereotypes by defining students as their identities, we will only perpetuate those beliefs and biases to everyone around us. 

Using Public Relations is Non-Negotiable for Strategic Management of Schools

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

Schools have been faced with a new set of magnifying glasses peering into our schools and classrooms like we have not encountered in the past. We’ve been forced into the spotlight throughout the pandemic, and every facet of what we do, how we teach, how our teachers spend their time, is now up for public scrutiny. In an effort to open our doors and educate children and allow anyone a peek into the other end of our online classes, we have opened ourselves up to a new set of criticisms and critiques, and very few tools at our disposal to manage this perpetual window into our schools. 

When we think of public relations in general, we hear, “that must be a PR nightmare,” or “they put a nice spin on that.” The reality is, this isn’t public relations at all. When it comes to schools in particular, public relations is so much more than these colloquial phrases, because the backpedaling needed for damage control or “adding a spin” becomes nearly obsolete when public relations theories, codes of ethics, and communications aligned to vision and mission are effectively used as a critical component of your own school management strategies. Simplified, these strategies allow for the flow of information to happen equitably between all defined stakeholders and audiences, and when used purposefully and effectively, these strategies can be implemented at the school level to improve school, community and parental relations, and manage some of the additional public scrutiny that is now a new norm. 

Internal PR Strategies

The first question we need to ask ourselves is, “what is our internal PR approach?” School administrators can take an immediate first step by assessing your own public relations practice within your schools or district. While there are toolkits available to use to evaluate practices, essentially what we want to know is if we have an effective two-way synchronous communication pathway (Grunig, 2006) within our schools or district. In other words – when we look in our own buildings, is there an even flow of information to and from all groups of people within our buildings? This means everyone – teachers, teaching assistants, nurses, custodial and maintenance staff, substitutes, volunteers, administrative assistants and even students. Do they all have an avenue to talk to each other, talk to you, talk to the community, and spread the school’s message? 

A research study by Macnamara (2016) found that the internal public relations strategies were just as important as external strategies. The top-down approach in management is reflected as a top-down approach in external public relations, and a one-and-done approach to communications, such as an annual survey, is not an effective way to manage public relations within our schools. 

On the other side of that, Smith (2015) found that capitalizing an internal system that values each employee’s or department expertise and creates a cohesive team-approach to internal and external communications strategies will promote open communication within the organization to allow for problems to be solved openly and before they become more amplified externally. If you create a school culture that implores open lines of communications between all parties within, the external approach to a public relations strategy will be able to fall into place.

The research by Jin, et al, (2019) contends that even before a crisis occurs, organizations must also plan for the resources and training for its teams in order to prepare for these scenarios that are bound to hit all of us. It feels too late for that now, but we know that we are constantly bombarded by what may be the next school crisis. By properly preparing your teams through professional development and promoting consistent messaging, you have the power to create systems within your organizations that allow your teams to think critically whenever an issue arises, make the appropriate decision for your organization in the approach to managing it – or know who to turn to, have the financial resources set aside for implementation, and the social capital necessary to communicate your messages effectively, to the correct audiences, and at the right time. Our teams, our teachers, our students, our colleagues, are our greatest assets when it comes to any type of communication, and even more so during a crisis. 

It’s more than sending phone and email blasts.

We think of developing any kind of communications plan and can probably point to the number of phone call blasts we have put out, emails, and website updates. Public relations by the notion of its title deals with two important factors in your strategic management planning – the publics you manage and the relationships with those publics. According to Macnamara (2016), a top-down approach to communication becomes “talking at” versus “talking with” in organizations. In doing an internal assessment of our communications, we can purposefully give voice to what our employees have to say about how we listen to them, and to each other. We must use this same strategy in our approach to all things public relations. In order to effectively build these tactics into your organization, listening to all of your publics in an organized and purposeful manner will contribute to your positive image, more effectively communicate your school’s mission and vision, and strengthen your overall communications plans. 

Your stakeholders need to know that not only have they been listened to, but that they have concrete evidence of being heard. Macnamara (2016) also states that the idea of being heard can take many forms, but that there must be processes, systems, and specific articulation that all publics understand are methods used to affect change when appropriate. When we have a parent event – are we talking at or talking with our parents? When we have faculty meetings, are we disseminating information, or opening critical problem-solving dialogue? How do we ensure follow-up on concerns that were raised? Shifting our mindset to a public relations focused one becomes more important under crisis situations, or in a year-long pandemic.

Planning for a crisis and resource management

While many public relations strategies may have been used inadvertently during this pandemic, and we have found ourselves in more amplified roles of spokesperson and expert, the careful planning of your public relations program can help thwart preventable issues that arise during a crisis. By establishing a strong method that allows for a continual feedback loop to happen inside and outside of the organization, you better position yourselves to respond in times of crisis. 

In a 2017 study by Veil and Anthony of the Hurricane Katrina crisis with FEMA, the researchers found the pariah effect, which is when an organization has not developed enough social capital to be able to collaborate with other organizations and solve a critical issue at hand. FEMA had been alienated, because it deflected responses related to critical issues, appeared to be lying or covering up life-threatening breakdowns in supply, and fundamentally not understanding the downward spiral of how its poor communications strategies were pivotal to its demise in this national crisis. FEMA had alienated itself so much that other government agencies stepped back and would not assist – even though this ran contrary to their own missions of supporting people in crisis.

What this means for school leaders is that we have to cultivate these honest, open relationships with the community resources that can support us in times of need. We must lean on each other as administrative colleagues to offer support, ideas, and even resources. Organizations and their leaders must be able to call on others within and outside of their organizations to help in times of crisis and the only way we do that is by building these relationships along the way.

To Social Media or Not to Social Media? That is the Question. 

The approach to social media must be taken with a planned and structured approach, just like every other type of communication. It is important to note that Allagui and Breslow argue that social media is an essential aspect of communications, but that the purpose is to enhance or contribute to the communications of an organzations. Social media use cannot be the only approach to communications, and it is not a two-way communication strategy.  Digital engagement works when used in tandem with other strategies, as the major social media networks are really just another way of sending out a phone or email blast. 

Be Trustworthy. Be Ethical. Be Credible. Be Honest. 

The most important factors in any communications plan are trust, credibility, honesty, and ethics. Any organization must understand that the goal of any communications program should be that internal and external stakeholders find you and your organization trustworthy, ethical and credible. They have to trust what they are hearing at all times, so that when a crisis occurs, they aren’t questioning the message. 

Grunig (2013) and Porter (2009) – who are are odds on many facets of public relations – both agree that as long as an ethical approach, trust-building techniques and honest policies are driving even persuasive communications, your communications can be strengthened by understanding how to use persuasion within your contexts. Ultimately, the goal of strategically implementing public relations into our school management is that we do want our families, students, communities, and teachers to understand what we are doing, how we are doing it, where we are going, and what they need to do to help us get there – together. 

References

Grunig, J. (2006). Furnishing the Edifice: Ongoing Research on Public Relations As a Strategic Management Function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151-176.

Grunig, J. (2013). Dr. James Grunig talks PR’s influence on management. Lecture presented at Boston University, Boston. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBGjUCmk8ok.

Jin, Y., Austin, L., Vijaykumar, S., Jun, H., & Nowak, G., (2019). Communicating about infectious disease threats: Insights from public health information officers, Public Relations Review, Vol. 45, Issue 1,Pages 167-177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.12.003.

Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research Vol. 28 (2016), 146-169.

Porter, L. (2009). Communicating for the good of the state: A post-symmetrical polemic on persuasion in ethical public relations. Public Relations Review 36 (2010), 127–133.

Smith, B. G. (2015). Situated Ideals in Strategic Social Media: Applying Grounded Practical Theory in a Case of Successful Social Media Management. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9, 272-292.

Veil, S.R. & Anthony, K.E., (2017) Exploring public relations challenges in compounding crises: The pariah effect of toxic trailers, Journal of Public Relations Research, 29:4, 141-157, DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2017.1355805.

Quit Blaming Kids for Bad Attendance

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

Recent articles have highlighted what educators across the nation are noticing – absenteeism among school-aged children is at a record high. Even disaggregated across cultural and socioeconomic differences, the increases in absenteeism are astounding. The New York Times put together a comprehensive report about the rise in absenteeism since the pandemic noting such causes as heightened anxiety and mental health concerns, transportation concerns when students miss the bus and parents are working or unable to get their children to school, and without editorial, citing the increase in illness-related absences (even common colds) that students used to go to school with. 

The reality of all of these issues is that this outcome is a result of a still-faulty system setting up students for a reality that is not there. School systems, for the most part, are still functioning within antiquated systems that are not “preparation” for any type of job or future education. Now, remember that we are talking systems, not the content of education itself (reading, writing & arithmetic). 

180 days is not a year. Not only do school calendars operate on a truncated calendar (based on kids needing to be home to help ‘tend to the farm’ in the summer) that does not mimic reality, but it capitalizes on this 180 days to pay teachers less, because then contracts can be considered only 10 months instead of a more realistic 12-month approach.

6-7.5 hours is not a day’s work. We have moved past the agrarian calendar and into the mill mentality where we need to put in 8 hours a day in order to be considered productive. It is a rare human who can acquire forced knowledge (read: only the tested stuff) for a solid 8 hours, let alone a 5 year old or even an angsty teen. No research demonstrates that there is a “magic number” of hours needed for learning. There are a few studies out there that look at extended day – see this one from the NEA, but what’s noted is that these extended days allowed for stuff that used to fit in the regular school day – like recess, social time, arts and music. Let’s add to that, that there is research around attention spans of kids and the more traditional rule of thumb that was: age of student = minutes of attention span has been crushed over the past 10 years. 

Online learning just isn’t ideal for the masses. There really is no supporting research showing that technology makes learning “better.” Even in this NIH study, the impact of tech in the classroom is so minimal that it can’t really be concluded as an effective measure for increasing learning, so why do we think that doing it all online will work? We currently only hold schools accountable for their work on reading, writing, math and science. That has led to a decrease in focus on those other life skills that are absolutely essential to functioning as a human on this earth – communicating, speaking, listening, reading body language, cooperating with others, teamwork, and skills of the like. And, lo and behold, behavior incidents are up too.

Learning loss only applies to those standardized and measured metrics. I’m so tired of this argument about learning loss. Kids learn something every day. Day-in and day-out. So do you and I. It might not be what you want them to learn, but they certainly learn – all. day. long.

The United States had a nice opportunity to reset education after the pandemic and evaluate what’s working and what isn’t. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t done. If there is something to be done about these attendance and behavior concerns, we need to move in a direction that is both research- and future-based. 

Year-round school … with year-round funding. Let’s start looking at 225-day school years that more align to work schedules (260 work days – 20 vacation – 15 sick). That also means there needs to be a huge bump in teacher pay (as there should have been a while ago). 

4-hour school days. I know, I know. A full-time work day is like 8ish hours. But what we know about learning is that we all need time to digest and apply what we’ve learned on our own. And the reality is, with the technology we have, we should be more efficient during the day. All of our jobs should be more efficient and allow us to work less during the day. Other resolutions within this – we will have two meals served at school (and paid for! We’ve already proven we can do it, and then took it away!); we can still provide after/before school care if needed. Other, way happier and healthier countries do this. We can make it work. 

Start measuring other stuff if you want to know how the kids are doing. We aren’t even close to asking the right questions about our students, schools, teachers and education system. What have the students been learning? What are they really good at now? Are the funds matching the goals? It doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t be looking at the basics, but let’s start looking at a whole lot more than that. 

And what does this all have to do with attendance? If we can get ourselves out of this vicious cycle of false measurements and stress-induced learning environments not based on research, maybe, just maybe, we can convince and demonstrate to parents, guardians, politicians, and most importantly, our students, that school is worthwhile and honors their knowledge and backgrounds as much as where we want them to be able to go afterward.

This list is in no way exhaustive. It’s a start. It’s something. This conversation has to start somewhere, because just calling out bad attendance solves absolutely zero of the real, underlying and systemic issues that are causing these changes in schools.

How We Have Allowed Corporations and the Government to Crush the Teacher Pipeline, Part 1

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

Having education funded by the government (falling under states’ rights) was initially a good plan to ensure that all kids received equitable access to education. However, from the history of education and the United States in general, we know that education was originally designed for white boys, branched out to white girls and then included black students, but at an incredibly different level of resource.

So, in theory, after multiple lawsuits that brought us to today’s education, the government should have designed a system that created a more equitable environment for our future generations. 

But, just like big oil and the NRA, the education industry is now fraught with private industry and partisan influence. Now driven by testing companies that make money at each entry or exit point in education, the teacher pipeline has completely crumbled. 

Things that most state governments have done to crush the teacher pipeline (each $ symbol indicates a corporation making money from this legislative decision): 

  1. Allowed the increase of college costs to outpace the salaries of educators. ($)
  2. Increased teacher testing and “gatekeeping” pathways to teaching: 
    1. Cost of teacher certifications ($)
    2. Cost of teacher testing ($)
    3. Cost to transfer licenses across state lines ($)
  3. Based teacher evaluations on “effectiveness models” ($) that require state-led algorithms ($) and software development ($) to execute a teacher’s end-of-year evaluation that usually doesn’t get finalized until well into the next school year. 
  4. Allowed standardized testing to become the sole driver of both the classroom and the evaluations. ($)
  5. And … students will take, on average, 112 tests standardized assessments before they graduate. ($)

We have now lost the ability to creatively support students to become actual lifelong learners and productive citizens by over testing and churning out kids who can take a test. Likewise, we gatekeep our teachers by making sure only the “good test-takers” become teachers. 

However, these strategies were all purposefully implemented and legislated to perpetuate the racist systems that we see in the United States. The history of standardized testing clearly shows that racist intent behind separating those who “can” and those who “can’t.” So, not only are we filtering money intended for students into the pockets of corporations, we have shrunken our teacher pipeline even further by disenfranchising BILPOC (black, indigenous, latinx and people of color) through instituting strategically based barriers along the way. 

Imagine the scenario: 

A black girl gets inspired by her 5th grade teacher to become a teacher herself. She works her way through her 112 standardized assessments ($) to get into a teaching college. She has successfully worked on her academics and overcome the racial bias in her classrooms and testing to then go to college. She then faces the same type of bias in her college classes, but pushes through and finishes her degree in four years. She then has to pay for her own teaching certification exams and is now also saddled with the highest proportional college debt ($) in history. She passes her 3-4 exams ($), and then has to apply to the state for her license ($). She then begins applying to jobs some of which test applicants before applying ($) and finally gets a job in a district. In 3-5 years she will need to apply for her permanent or level 2 certification ($). And for each and every one of these tests, she has the burden of overcoming the racial bias in addition to the standardized content. None of these assessments actually tell us how good of a teacher she is or will be. 

In just this scenario, that is more than 120 standardized assessments ($) just to become a teacher. In essence, good test-takers have the “easiest” pathway to becoming a teacher rather than the easiest pathway going to those who can inspire, motivate and educate others. 

We have allowed these scenarios to permeate the education system by having corporations drive the decision-making and legislating a system that perpetuates discrimination. 

We are Long Overdue for Educator-Pay Right-Sizing

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

Back when I was hired in the state of Florida, my annual pay was around $28,000 in 2004. I brought home $700 per pay, twice per month. Granted, I didn’t have a teaching certificate, so I was paying for alternative certification at the time too, plus insurance, but my annual cash flow was about $17,000 per year. 

By my second year, my pay was bumped to $36,000, because a new superintendent was hired to do just that – attract new teachers and bump the pay. But then it fell off again. By the time I left the classroom, my annual salary was around $39,000, and that included all of the supplements for extra duties. My take-home was less than when I made $36,000, because insurance costs had risen so much, and again, this was in 2008.

Current starting teacher pay in the county where I taught is now $47,500. Using the “buying power” inflation value of $1 in 2008 to $1.38 in 2022, the starting salary should be at least $49,680. 

Regardless, this approach by the district was wrong for so many reasons that I can’t entertain all of them, but there are some basic themes that still apply almost 15 years later. 

“Right-sizing” salaries doesn’t mean just recruiting new teachers and bumping hiring pay. All employees in education need a raise (with consideration for administrative salaries that have disproportionately risen in comparison to teaching salaries). What does it communicate to a new hire that you’ll bring them in, but aren’t willing to value their experience as they stay in education? 

School boards need to know that running for a board seat means advocating at the state level for increased and more equitable funding. In recent elections, school board members have run on individual platforms and “fixes” they want to bring to the district. The reality is, “success as a board member is inextricably tied to the success of [the] board. You will be judged by what it accomplishes, not by what you as an individual tried to accomplish.” School boards need to work both up and down – at the state level as advocates and at the district level to help the students, not for individual needs or with conflicting agendas. 

School employees are scared to lose their jobs when they speak out about wanting more and are then told to be grateful for whatever they get. A frequent response to a request for a pay increase is, “No one gets into education for the pay.” However, “compassion” doesn’t pay for the mortgage, car, daycare, healthcare, food, and every other expense that we need to have functioning adults contribute meaningfully to the economy and as citizens. 

Perhaps a controlled pension isn’t the way to go and is not a “sell” for teachers anymore. Ninety percent of public school teachers are enrolled in defined-benefit pension plans. Teachers have no freedom to invest the money as they choose, since pensions are typically state-run. However, teacher pensions base plans on assuming returns based on projections, and the projections have been getting farther and farther from reality. Pensions are also not free from corruption as demonstrated by the current FBI investigation into Pennsylvania’s $64 billion fund. 

Hiring and retention practices need to be updated from the 1970s model that has been used over the years without losing the forced equity that the unions fought for in pay and work conditions. 

So what’s the magic number? That still probably depends on the geographical area and cost of living, but the value and pay of educators has to be tied to more than how much they care for children.

Supporting Teachers’ Mental Health Needs

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

My first year as a school leader, I was required to take courses to further support being a leader. These courses were designed to cover topics that were maybe more timely and relevant than when we were assumed to take courses to earn our certifications. However, as with most classes, the people and our conversations there stuck out more than the actual topics covered. 

We sat around in a circle, and finished our activity. Then we got to talking. I remember saying, “You know what they don’t prepare you for? Being a therapist.” I saw nods all around. 

Someone in my group chimed in and said that he had four teachers managing their parents’ moving to a long-term care facility or hospice. One other added that she had two teachers with severe postpartum depression. This was in 2015, long before any pandemic-related mental health effects would be felt in the teaching workforce. 

The reality is: no, there is no expectation that school leaders need to be actual therapists. Actual therapists are very well trained professionals (I love mine) – and that’s not the role of the principal anyway. However, what’s missing is the notion that teachers’ mental health should be a priority to school leaders.

Among the list of “things we don’t speak of” as administrators, is the mental anguish that teachers experience outside of work (we cannot control), but also inside our system (we might have some control): 

  • Teacher evaluations are still based on childrens’ test scores on one test. We base how well a teacher does on the output that these tiny humans produce on one day (maybe 2-3) on an academic achievement test. We don’t even allow people to buy nicotine until 21, but we trust these limited outputs enough to determine the professional effectiveness of a teacher. Imagine the daily stress this brings. 
  • We still say “no one gets into teaching for the paycheck.” So, we gaslight teachers and educators into believing they aren’t worth more than what we are paying, because you are getting paid in “care.” What now? Last time I checked, educators have the same bills as everyone else, and they pay out of pocket for supplies. Imagine nurses getting the best deal on Amazon for their IV packs. Teachers’ paychecks should be doubled, at least. Does this mean they are making more than administration? Not necessarily. Give everyone a bump. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, average teacher pay from 1999-2000 to 2016-2017 has decreased 1.6% from $59,924 to $58,950. Inflation over that time increased average prices almost 50%. If salaries matched inflation, the average salary should have risen to $88,088. We underpay educators and then blame them for not caring enough about their students.
  • Teachers don’t get the support they need from administration. I’ll admit to this too. As a new administrator, I can’t say that I did my best job supporting teachers. I got better. But I also know that who the parent is matters – and it shouldn’t. We forget that the real “customer” in our business is the student. Everyone else is ancillary. That’s why educators are the professionals; they should be supported in their professional opinions (I understand there are exceptions). 
  • We still use shame to motivate. “We need this for the kids.” “Please volunteer your time to help our students meet their goal.” “Donate $5 to wear jeans on Friday.” What this translates to: I’m not willing to pay you for your time or flexibility. This does go back to the money piece, but education has gotten really good at tugging at teacher heartstrings to pull more and more out of them and give them less and less. 
  • This is not even close to an exhaustive list. 

While it may not be our job to provide therapy to our staff, it is our job to understand the systems in our control that contribute to the social and emotional health of our staff and make changes to improve their well being. 

The Impact of the “Don’t Say Gay” Bills

/ theschooldr / Leave a comment

In what may be a precedent-setting trend in state legislatures dominated by GOP state representatives, Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill, or the “Don’t Say Gay” bill to opponents, has set off a domino effect of similar bills across the United States, including in Pennsylvania. Senate Bill 1278 was introduced to the PA state senate in June using an almost identical version of Florida’s House Bill 1557. 

Pennsylvania’s bill, introduced by Sen. Scott Martin, is titled the “Empowering Families in Education Act,” which would be an addendum to the school code. In the truncated version of the Florida bill, the real difference comes with the restriction of conversations relating to gender identity and sexual orientation from pre-K to 5th grade, whereas Florida’s new law restricts all discussions pre-K to third. However, the rest of the language in Pennsylvania’s law is almost identical to that of Florida’s and creates the same terms and restrictions on discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in all grades pre-K through 12. 

What’s the argument? According to Section 1404-C: Government endorsement prohibited and speech protected, the bill discusses the need for “neutrality” in the classroom in regards to discussions concerning LGBTQ+ issues, but uses the false parallel of religious speech being endorsed within the confines of the classroom.

“School personnel must remain neutral and use existing, familiar and well-defined constitutional framework applicable to religious beliefs in public schools for matters relating to sexual orientation and gender identity to prevent government endorsement of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools.”


Essentially, the bill argues that the separation of gender identity and state is the same as church and state, and the Supreme Court did a nice job of muddying those waters in the recent 6-3 decision regarding prayer by school employees (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 2022) which sided with a football coach praying at the 50-yard line with the players. 

In addition to the restricted speech, both the PA and FL bills clearly stamp out procedures for students and families to use in the case that they feel someone has violated this legislation. This type of legislation has been introduced in more than 20 states so far. While Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Wolfe has declared a veto should the bill ever cross his desk, this may not be as likely in states without a Democratic governor. 

The language of these bills has been around for a while and popped up during the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. The discussion of homosexuality was explicitly forbidden. 

How does this affect the kids? 

1. This is a direct violation of the Free and Appropriate Public Education requirements under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974. 

According to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “because of stigma and discrimination, LGBTQ youth are more likely than non-LGBTQ youth to struggle with their mental health.” In 2019 survey data, 22% of bisexual students have attempted suicide. Mental health IS health, and LGBTQ youth deserve a safe and supportive school, just like every other student who walks through the door. 

“Since the YRBS began including data on sexual orientation in 2015 and gender identity in 2017, we’ve seen consistently that LGBTQ youth face greater health disparities than their cisgender straight peers.” And this evidence exists without the addition of legislative bills prohibiting supportive classroom discussions. 

2. The legislation in and of itself is contradictory. 

From PA SB 1278: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity: (1) is not age-appropriate for students in a prekindergarten program or in kindergarten through fifth grade and therefore may not occur.”

However, the PA state standards for third grade health and physical education state: 

A. Recognize safe/unsafe practices in the home, school and community. 

• general (e.g., fire, electrical, animals) 

• modes of transportation (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular) 

• outdoor (e.g., play, weather, water) 

• safe around people (e.g., safe/ unsafe touch, abuse, stranger, bully) 

How does a teacher instruct this without using the family as an example? And if that family happens to include two dads? How does this not become a teachable moment about differences in family structures, just as it would if a child lived with grandparents, aunts and uncles or even older siblings? How does a child cope with being excluded from any and all discussions about family if their family doesn’t fit the mold and how are they supposed to learn if they cannot engage with the content? 

2. Students identifying as LGBTQ are more likely to be bullied than their straight, cisgender peers. 

According to StopBullying.Gov: 

  • About 20% of students ages 12-18 experienced bullying nationwide.
  • Students ages 12–18 who reported being bullied said they thought those who bullied them:
    • Had the ability to influence other students’ perception of them (56%).
    • Had more social influence (50%).
    • Were physically stronger or larger (40%).
    • Had more money (31%).

What do these statistics look like when the adults purposely create environments that change the power dynamics and increase bullying. 

[The CDC defines bullying as “any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths, who are not siblings or current dating partners, that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance, and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated.”]