Tom Friedman Has Some of It Right – But He Needs to Do a Little More Homework

Tom Friedman’s op-ed piece in last Saturday’s New York Times suggests that it's time for policymakers to get serious about teaching in America. Friedman calls for emulating the teacher development systems of Finland and Denmark that have transformed teaching from a factory-line job to a knowledge profession by investing “massively” in how teachers are recruited, prepared, and rewarded. So far, so good.

Friedman then goes on to praise Race to the Top investments by the Obama Administration, while bemoaning the perceived failure of our schools to teach "the ability to do critical thinking and problem-solving; the ability to communicate effectively; and the ability to collaborate." Yet many accomplished teachers who are eager to teach in ways that build just these skills are complaining that Obama's R2T investments continue support for a narrow, test-driven curriculum that discourages time-consuming strategies like project-based instruction — the very kind of teaching that requires students to work together and apply what they are learning to solve authentic problems.

Friedman apparently does not yet know that high performing nations invest in teachers in much different ways than those prescribed by America’s current federal policies. Top-scoring nations like Finland invest in:
 
1. Teacher education, so that all recruits have extensive preparation, fully paid by the federal government, in a wide array of relevant pedagogical strategies, before they begin to teach;

2. Good professional working conditions, so that all teachers have up to 50% of their time devoted to working with each other on assessing student progress, refining their lessons, and developing new pedagogical skills; and

3. Purposeful student assessment systems, so that teachers always know whether students are learning what we've agreed they need to learn, and what to do next if they are not.

It's true that the USDOE has recently invested about $160 million in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, in an attempt to build better student assessments that will recognize and promote quality teaching. However, very little of the R2T's $4 billion in "change dollars" actually pushes states to invest in serious teacher education, including provocative new approaches proposed by those who teach. Instead the focus is on alternative certification that truncates training.The R2T framework, which continues to promote 20th century reform strategies,  also does very little to help educators and other leaders focus on the future of learning and the need to transform teaching practice to meet the needs of students "growing up digital." 

I think that Mr. Friedman, an erudite observer of the global economy, senses the need to finally professionalize teaching in America. I hope he'll take the time to become more fully informed about what other competitive nations are doing to build a 21st century teaching profession — and the steps we need to take to do the same.

Comments

[Preston Webster]

Regarding investment two, teachers could produce more classroom value if they had more time to refine lessons and develop new skills; but the system is slow to provide more time because it does not see the value. Part of breaking this cycle will require us to meet the system where it is.

We have to ask ourselves how we can demonstrate a more direct link between teach learning time and new teaching. We have to be more than PLC’s. We need to refine processes and strategies that work within the time available to make individual teachers ready to walk in their classrooms, try new strategies, and analyze the results.

It is hard, but it is possible. We have to get specific and lean. Try refining a process similar to this: 1) Focus on a stardards-based problem, 2) brainstorm research-based instructional solutions, and 3) prepare classroom-ready materials. At the same time new strategies are defined at the classroom level, both process and materials help teachers reach a readiness threshold for trying something new.

During instruction, materials help facilitate research-based, reading, and writing strategies, often simultaneously; materials also provide data for clear and immediate student feedback. Written materials provide students opportunity to clarify ideas and articulate learning. After instruction, students have an historical record of their learning to study, build, and revise. Teachers have powerful evidence of teaching and learning to share with all stakeholders, and they have evidence for analysis.

We know a proven improvement cycle, but we’ve gone astray. Our system has to do more to honor the P (planning) of the PDCA cycle. Meanwhile, we have to do our best with the time we have. We have to provide our system a reason to invest more in planning.

[supra shoes]

I had always wanted to learn about this topic ... I think it's great the way you expose .. great work and continuing on with this great blog