home | contact | faq

action items

Readington Public Schools are part of a wealthy community filled with caring and well educated parents. The teachers and administrators in the district are committed and professional. The members of the school board are well meaning and devoted. Students in our district have all the foundation possible in modern American society for a great education. Yet, if we are to be intellectually honest, we must admit that on the whole our schools are mediocre. Our children go off in the morning to schools that are not awful but that are not exceptional either. Why?

Parents tell us that when Readington children enter the regional high school system, they are certainly not over-qualified in comparison to children from other sending districts and that many children feel under-prepared. Why is this so? With all of our quality foundation and good intentions, why are Readington schools not a powerhouse of educational effectiveness?

The answer is not simple and it is not effortless, but it is achievable. There are four broad areas that must be addressed; four steps that must be taken for our schools to go from mediocre to exceptional. We will review each of them here.

Step one: Empower our teachers

Linda M. McNeil is a writer on school reform who has studied Texas schools with remarkable depth and clarity in order to seek common themes applicable to all public schools. In some of her writings she has identified a process by which teachers are “de-skilled” as a by-product of certain reforms and processes. What she means by this term is that some educational reforms have forced teachers to ignore their training and experience in order to follow specifically generic teaching guidelines in their classrooms.

The unspoken premise is that schools are like any business or manufacturing plant where success depends on the literal implementation of established procedures conducive to efficient production. Managers on the factory floor are not hired to be engineers or product designers; they are not hired to hold hands with production line employees. Similarly, teachers under the “production” model of education are not hired to invent lessons, to create engaging classrooms or to wipe the snot off of Johnnie’s nose. They are hired to make sure Johnnie is on page 67 by March 15th, just like all the other children in the district. They are hired to facilitate a pre-ordained curriculum that is “teacher-proof” and proven by objective test evaluation to be the most efficient. Stepford teachers.

Yet, Ms. McNeil points out a contradiction in this model: “running a factory is tightly organized, highly routinized, and geared for the production of uniform products; educating children is complex, inefficient, idiosyncratic, uncertain and open-ended”. She has also commented:

“When the school’s organization becomes centered on managing and controlling, teachers and students take school less seriously…They fall into a ritual of teaching and learning that tends toward minimal standards and minimal effort. This sets off a vicious cycle. As students disengage from enthusiastic involvement in the learning process, administrators often see the disengagement as a control problem. They then increase their attention to managing students and teachers rather than supporting their instructional purpose.”

The current attitude of our Readington teachers has been explored elsewhere on this website. On the whole, our teachers are feeling sidelined, disengaged and absent from the learning process. They are chafing under new requirements to implement explicit curriculum methodology, to support extra standardized testing, to change grade levels involuntarily, and even to schedule their day according to pre-printed time sheets designed without their input. Teachers and administrators in one elementary school are hostile to those in the other. Teachers in older grade levels blame those in younger grade levels for dropping the ball. Teachers in younger grade levels blame those in older grade levels for ignoring developmental realities.

In all, our teachers are gradually being turned into robotic shells of their former professional being, valued only to the degree that they conform to the “program” and united only in their bitterness for the circumstances. This is not done by design, but it is the logical by-product of an administration bent on creating so-called “objective” measurement systems and a standard, explicitly arranged curriculum. Such a program is not conducive to engaged teachers who seek unusual lessons, who practice inventive teaching, who strive for depth in learning, or who cater to the complex, atypical natural interests of individual students in their class.

Guess what? If we want remarkable teachers who are capable of opening the door of the world to our Readington children and inviting them to the celebration of the active mind, we have to let them have individual control of their own classrooms. We must decide if we want production line managers or real teachers, and, by extension, if we want unthinking production line workers or engaged students.

Step two: Engage the students

That brings us to the next step. With teachers freed to fulfill their professional aims, they can gradually engage our children in a genuine and meaningful manner. We can dispense with “drill and kill” worksheet dittos. We can avoid the “jug and mug” teaching styles where the teacher “jug” pours their knowledge into the student “mugs”. Instead of the far too many disengaged students we have now, who accomplish their learning quota for the day and then turn out the lights, we could have students who turn on the lights and reach for new knowledge based on an innate desire to learn. Is that far fetched? As noted education author Alfie Kohn noted about the love of learning:

“…is it realistic to expect all kids to have a natural interest in everything they are doing? To answer that question, we have to distinguish between short-term interest in a particular activity and more lasting interest in a larger topic…While few students are likely to be excited about every single idea on every page of every book, that may not be as important as the attitude they take toward the broader projects of which these specific activities are a part. When teachers work with students to help them see the connection between a given task and the wider interests and questions they brought into the classroom, the whole enterprise is more likely to be experienced as engaging (and therefore is more likely to be successful)”.

Children in their natural state are inquisitive, creative, and highly motivated to learn. Infants learn to walk and to speak on their own, motivated only by an innate desire to discover and to communicate. Toddlers left to their own devices for even a few seconds will frantically reach out to touch and explore the world around them. Young children observed alone from a careful distance will invariably be seen making up stories, poking at bugs, or looking up at the great sky above for new clues about the universe. This innate desire, this natural curiosity does not end upon enrollment in Kindergarten. If anything, with advancing skills and increasing knowledge children find even bigger aspirations. Why, then, would a child in a classroom lack motivation over the long term?

When systems are put in place to tightly control the pace and structure of learning, when teachers are asked to follow specific tasks instead of broad guidelines, when a classroom becomes a production environment, the predictable result is the ritual of learning mentioned by Linda McNeil. Unfortunately, her prediction of a vicious cycle of disengagement which is then perceived as a control or “classroom management” problem is already evident in Readington schools. For example, token economies are rampant in our schools. Never heard of this term? It is a reference to the reward systems put in place by teachers trying to get students to engage in the “program”.

Such systems can be as simple as stickers on a calendar, or as complex as a point structure under which high scoring children can cash in their chips for prizes. One system involves a publicly displayed chart of a baseball diamond where each child has their name on a baseball and poor behavior can lead to a strike out. Other systems offer pizza, money, or “no homework” passes for the accomplishment of certain goals. Some systems foster competition between students through the use of publicly displayed charts or reward ceremonies. Teachers utilizing these techniques often state that a reward system helps them with students who need extra motivation and they figure there is no harm done, anyway. Token economies certainly do modify behavior, but not to the positive outcome that proponents would assume. No matter how benign the explicit message in a token economy may be, the implicit message to students is something much different: "this classroom work is so boring, so tedious and so scripted that we will have to offer you a reward in order to convince you to participate".

That is not the mark of an exceptional school system. Instead, teachers who are free to actually teach and who are encouraged to connect with students in meaningful and individualized ways will find the best means to convey the value of authentic learning. Yes, some teachers are better than others at such a task. However, even for those teachers who need or prefer direction in their daily schedule, there is a vast wealth of specific lessons available from professional organizations, books, internet web sites, and other teachers that allow for creative instruction without the need to reinvent the wheel. In an exceptional school district, the administration sets the broad goals, and perhaps even provides a basic structure for subjects like math or reading. The teachers, though, meet the broad goals with their own style and their own judgment. Isn’t that why they were hired? The result is students who are engaged in the learning process because the learning process is tailored by the teacher to their unique development.

Step three: Evaluate meaningful learning

With teachers free to teach and students free to develop and learn in a naturally enthusiastic way, how will we measure the results? Much has been published on this website about the supposed horrors of standardized testing. Yet, is it really that bad to have a “second opinion” on how our kids are faring?

Before we answer this, let us step back for a moment. Is there a parent in Readington who is paying attention and who does not have a visceral understanding, an intuitive appreciation of exactly how their child is faring socially, academically, mentally, physically and otherwise? Yes, every parent worries about how their child stacks up against the neighbor’s child and every parent would like to hear from a third party how their offspring is particularly smart or clever or entertaining in some way. When that parent sits down with a cup of coffee and a trusted friend, though, he or she can rip off the status of every aspect of little Johnnie’s development and be spot-on most of the time. Inside, we know how our kids are doing.

Does a standardized test provide the reassurance we might seek, though? The numbers seem objective enough, and it does make it easier to compare Johnnie with Jane. Yet, what have we measured? We have not measured the astounding progress Johnnie made from December to March in class. We have not measured his increasing confidence in writing fiction, nor his difficulty with handwriting. We have not measured the connection he made between long division learned in class and his father’s lesson given at home on the economics of allowances. We have not measured the quality of his confident singing voice, the speed of his fastball, or the sloppiness of his drawing. We have not measured the respectful way Johnnie approaches his classmates when he knows he can offer them a better way of doing a task.

Johnnie’s teachers can tell you all of these things. In fact, many of these things are noted in Johnnie’s portfolio, written in the tiny comment section of his report card, or offered up by a teacher in a conference.

Standardized tests create a dilemma in the classroom when administrators and parents put an emphasis on scores. You see, when teachers know that scores are being used to evaluate children and to evaluate their teaching, they are forced at least to some degree to decide between the kind of exceptional teaching discussed above and the kind of Stepford teaching that characterizes mediocre and inferior schools. They are forced at least to some degree to choose between meaningful learning and production learning. That is because meaningful learning is not captured by standardized tests. Of course, children in wealthy communities like Readington statistically do better on standardized tests anyway, but teachers can’t rely on that fact for our children because there are other wealthy communities out there too. Plus, parents in those wealthy communities are more likely to read the newspaper where those troublesome scores are published each year and compare scores.

The state-mandated tests are responsible for some of this silliness, and there is little we can do about that fact, short of political change. However, we can at least minimize the effect of standardized testing by swearing off the addition of non state-mandated testing and focusing instead on beefing up the meaningful measurements of student progress such as portfolios, teacher judgment, criteria-based testing, and the like.

The bottom line: exceptional schools don’t give a hoot about standardized, norm-referenced tests because they know that such testing is essentially meaningless and that it is poisonous to authentic learning and teaching.

The fourth step: Communication

If stakeholders in a district do not understand the district goals, they will have no point of reference for events in the schools. If the district leaders do not fully understand the desires and opinions of district stakeholders, they are bound to make flawed decisions and create unintentional discord. If members of the public are not aware of the meaningful learning going on inside classrooms, or if they are not versed in the unique ground rules of an exceptional school system, they will form their opinions based on whatever snippets of information they come across elsewhere.

Extraordinary communication across many levels is the keystone to an exceptional school district. A consistent, unified, unfailing and wide-ranging system is necessary if all the district stakeholders are to be on the same page. While Readington has failed miserably in this regard, there is an interest now on the part of board members to improve. As of this writing, the board is inviting outside experts to provide guidance in this area. [Note: the editor of this website will give a presentation to the school board on February 22nd on this subject.]

Even more than simple communications, exceptional schools employ true marketing in order to generate support, encourage cohesiveness, and simply to wave the flag. Such an effort creates a team atmosphere where all stakeholders cheer the district, though they might not agree with every decision.

Can Readington Public Schools become an exceptional district? Certainly the foundation is there. There are four steps between mediocre and exceptional. What stops us from taking these four steps?