N2Haynes
Georgia Public Schools Administrators Should Support Classroom Teachers!
I often wonder why a few Georgia school administrators merely want support classroom teachers. In contrast, other administrators act as if it is a sad sign to support classroom teachers.
These administrators in the latter pretend to support teachers, then go behind the teachers’ backs and destroy their careers. These same administrators smile to the teachers’ faces while getting their assistant principals to do their ‘dirty work.’ When the assistant principals are not willing to do this ‘dirty work,’ the administrators start a paper trail to get rid of the assistant. Theses fake administrators are “Masters at Conning Educators (MACE).
I believe, when teachers work their backsides off for theses administrative ‘Cons,’ such administrators should be very appreciative by showing extreme gratitude for the sacrifices and hard work of the teachers. Georgia teachers are passionate about their work in Georgia classrooms. Their time in the classrooms begins as early as 4 am each morning, and they often leave as late as 8 pm every evening in most cases.
So, why aren’t the ‘Cons’ appreciative.? I have learned down through the years when people think they are entitled to something; they always act out in bad faith. These administrators do not understand why teachers love what they do. Some ‘Cons’ have never had the amount of dedication even close to what most Georgia teachers have chosen to give.
One of my A.P.E. members once told me a story of working three jobs and going to school to become a teacher. She told me many times she wanted to give up, but she just kept going. This teacher did all of this while raising two teenage children.
You see, when you know about hard work and sacrifice, you make better decisions than the person who feels entitled. You understand that a bad action causes a bad reaction. The good principals think about what would happen if they non-renewed a teacher. The entitled principals only think about themselves and give little care about what would happen to the teachers if said educators lost their jobs or certification.
Georgia teachers must be aware of these ‘Cons’ and be protected by a thick-skinned and assertive teachers’ organization like A.P.E. Why A.P.E., you say? Because A.P.E. does not care about these administrative ‘Cons,’ we seek them out to be dealt with legally. We believe it is a waste of our time to negotiate with theses ‘Cons,’ and for this reason, we aggressively and strategically set our focus to subdue that administrator legally.
Teachers join other organizations without doing any background research on them, and because of some teachers’ organizations’ longevity, they think they are the right teachers’ organization to join. This mistaken belief is a shame and a farce. Georgia teachers need an assertive teachers’ organization. Georgia teachers need to be a part of an aggressive organization that doesn’t allow administrators to be a part of their organization. An organization that only supports classroom teachers. An organization that calls teachers back as late as 11 pm if needed.
At A.P.E., we never leave our office early. We work late into the night every night; just ask our members. These other teacher organizations leave their office early in the day with no one to be reached or talked to, but at A.P.E., we work very late, don’t believe me? Stop on by our office, where we leave the light on for you. I had two teachers who joined A.P.E. this year because they said when they went by a particular organization to sign up, no one was there. So, they joined A.P.E.. A.P.E .filed many grievances on administrator ‘Cons’ this year and last year that we lost count. Okay! No more wasting your hard-working money join A.P.E. today @ MyApeNow.com for real representation.
What Teachers Likes and Dislikes About Public Education
By
Norreese L. Haynes, BSBM, MSA
The Problem
Introduction
There appears to be a vast reservoir of discontent among classroom educators today. The recent furloughing of teachers and the harping on merit pay for classroom educators in Georgia are two of the most notable actions which seem to be pouring salt into the already-wounded teacher morale. What exactly is it that teachers dislike about teaching? It appears that if someone or some group could determine what teachers observe and perceive to be the problems associated with public education, then legislators and public policymakers could take the first step toward addressing the issues which cause such a great attrition rate among teachers. Right now, there is much talk about student drop-out rates; however, there is little talk about the inordinate number of teachers who leave the teaching profession within their first five years of teaching.
The proposed study would address teachers in the Atlanta Public Schools (APS). The proposed question in this study is the following: What do teachers like and dislike about teaching? It seems that when journalists or policymakers want to know what the problems are in public education that they ask everyone but the teachers who are on the front lines each day. Teachers are in the trenches each day. Teachers are the only real educators in public education each day because they are the only ones in public education who are educating the students and interacting with the students each day. Each year, the state of Georgia loses thousands of teachers who quit teaching for reasons other than retirement. In 1980, out of 60,000 teachers, Georgia lost 7,000 from its classrooms (Edge, 1981). Until the recent furlough of teachers,
Georgia had 120,000 teachers, and each year, Georgia loses thousands due to attrition, not retirement. It seems only appropriate that someone asks the teachers what they like and dislike about teaching. Therefore, the proposed instrument of this study is Teaching Likes and Dislikes Survey (TLDS) which was developed by John Rhodes Alston Trotter, EdD, JD. (See Appendix I.) Dr. Trotter developed this instrument which was used in a content analysis study, What Teachers Like and Dislike about Teaching (1984). Dr. Trotter, under the supervision of Dr. Carvin L. Brown, long-time Department Chairman of the Department of Educational Administration and Field Studies at the University of Georgia and now Executive Directive of the Georgia Accrediting Commission, gathered the data for his mammoth study (269 pages) from a stratified random sampling of elementary school teachers, junior high school teachers, and high school teachers in a large, culturally diverse school system in Georgia. Dr. Trotter is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Metro Association of Classroom Educators (MACE) and is considered in most quarters to be the most aggressive advocate for classroom educators in Georgia as well as the expert on teacher morale.
Dr. Trotter developed a lickert-type survey from the empirically-derived data which was garnered during research of 1983 and 1984. As his teachers responded anonymously to this open-ended survey (TLDS), responses coalesced into definitive categories. From these categories, he developed the Teacher Observation and Perception Survey (TOPS). (See Appendix II.) I interviewed Dr. Trotter for the problem of my study. He gave me permission to used the TOPS (which is closed-form by nature), but he hastened to encourage me to use the TLDS as a replica of his content analysis study. (See Appendix III.) He stated that so many new variables have entered into the arena of public education that the lickert-scaled TOPS may
now be dated to a degree and that a new content analysis study might be more revealing. The results of a new study using TLDS could yield significant differences or it could significantly demonstrate that teachers essentially still like and dislike the same things about teaching. Dr. Trotter stated to me that his organization (MACE) would love to see the results of a new study. Dr. Trotter also gave me permission to change the original "junior high school" designation to "middle school" designation.
Hopefully, this study will bear some light on what the classroom educators in Georgia observe and perceive to be the major problems associated with public education in Georgia. Also, it will be illuminating to see if the teachers observe and perceive the problems associated with public education to be significantly different or significantly the same as did the teachers who participated in Dr. Trotter's study in the Spring of 1983 Georgia. Are some observed and perceived problems of greater frequency and intensity now than in 1983 or have these problems been eliminated by 2010? This proposed study can be quite revealing for our politicians and/or public policymakers.
This year Georgia is undergoing another gubernatorial election. Public education is again a prime issue in the campaign, and how teachers feel about what is going in public education is getting heightened attention. Democratic candidate and former governor Roy Barnes touts the fact that his daughter is a public school teacher, and Republican candidate Nathan Deal hastens to let all know that his wife is a retired Georgia teacher. Georgia, like other states in the Union, is still experiencing a collective angst about the performance of its students on standardized tests. Just recently the media headlined the fact that Georgia students went down in SAT scores this
year. Since the publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983, Georgia and other states have undertaken great efforts at "reforming" public education. In the mid-1980s, Georgia launched Quality Basic Education (OBE), with the enabling legislation mandating that the Georgia Department of Education develop a stringent evaluation system of teachers' job performance (Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program). The performance of students at each school began to be publicized in the media, with the underlying theory being that if you embarrass the schools and school systems then they will perform better. At the beginning of the George W. Bush Administration, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act was passed with bi-partisan support in both houses of the United States Congress. Again, the theory underlying this law, like Georgia's OBE act, was that if schools and school systems were embarrassed enough, then they would improve in performance. The assumption was that if students were not performing on standardized tests, then it is because teachers and administrators were not doing their jobs. Therefore, after a school failed to pass Adequate Yearly Progress, then dire consequences would entail, e. g., parents would have a choice to remove their children from these "failing" schools and the schools' faculties would be re-constituted.
It appears that everyone with the slightest interest in public education has been consulted about their perception with what's wrong with public education except for those who are in the trenches each day, viz., the teachers themselves. For example, it was reported in 2007 that "[t]he Teachers Network survey of 5600 teachers found just 1% believe NCLB is 'an effective way to assess the quality of schools'" (Fair Test: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing). Public Opinion reported in September of 2010 (and published in The Washington Post), in a nationwide survey of nearly 900 teachers, that 90% of the teachers polled indicated that "too much testing
was either a "major drawback" or a "minor drawback" in public schools. But, our legislators and our policymakers persist in having the public school educators genuflect before the false god of standardized testing. Recently, Diane Ravitch, who formerly was Assistant Secretary of Education under President George H. W. Bush and was later appointed by President Clinton to the National Assessment Governing Board (which oversees federal testing), came out strong in her opposition of the standardized testing mania fulminated by NCLB. In The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (2010), Ravitch concludes:
"NCLB was a punitive law based on erroneous assumptions about how to improve schools. It assumed that reporting test scores to the public would be an effective lever for school reform. It assumed that changes in governance would lead to school improvement. It assumed that shaming schools that were unable to lift test scores every year -- and the people who work in them -- would lead to higher scores. It assumed that low test scores are caused by lazy teachers and lazy principals, who need to be threatened with the loss of their jobs. Perhaps most naively, it assumed that higher test scores on standardized tests of basic skills are synonymous with good education. Its assumptions were wrong. Testing is not a substitute for curriculum and instruction. Good education cannot be achieved by a strategy of testing children, shaming educators and closing schools" (pp. 110, 111).
In the aforementioned Public Agenda (2010) survey, the teachers also indicated by a large 88% that "[t]oo many kids with discipline and behavior issues" constituted either a "major drawback" or a "minor drawback." Furthermore, the Public Agenda survey of teachers
asked the following question, eliciting teachers' responses: "Ensuring that students who are severe discipline problems are removed from the classroom and placed in alternative programs more suited to them -- in term of improving teacher effectiveness?" Sixty-eight percent of the teachers polled said that this would be "very effective," and 27% of the teachers polled responded that this would be "somewhat effective" (totaling 95%). Do we hear legislators and public policymakers speaking for and effecting measures which will ensure better discipline in the classroom? No. Do we hear the same people saying "Enough is enough" when it comes to the testing mania that now exists? No. The views and input of teachers are essentially ignored.
In "Advancing the Teacher Profession: A Young Teacher Looks to the Future" (2010) as published by The Center for Teaching Quality, Jess Lyons was asked to share her experiences as a young teacher and why she chose to leave the teaching profession. Ms. Lyons stated, among other things, the following: "I hate the professional development that is useless. I dislike the scripted curriculum that I have to teach with 'fidelity' when I know that it might not be best for my students. I don't like that everyone wants to tell me how to do it better, and that so much is based on numbers and data, when it's people (my very individual students) that walk into my room." Dr. John Trotter, in The Teacher's Advocate! magazine (1995) observed:
"Besides the parents, classroom educators have more direct contact with our children than any other adults in society. In an age when our young people are constantly tempted by illicit drugs, sex, violence, negative peer pressure, and malignant media images, the professional teacher has the gargantuan task of establishing a positive influence in the classroom, serving not only as instructor but also counselor, doctor, nurse, psychiatrist, detective, security guard, probation
officer, referee, social worker, and surrogate parent. What is perceived by many in society to be a rather genteel career, is, in actuality, a rather daunting undertaking. The classroom educator faces other nemeses which often make his or her job frustrating: Bureaucratic red-tape and voluminous paperwork (which often seem irrelevant to the job of teaching children); unruly students; lack of parental support; student apathy; overcrowded classes; incompetent and insensitive administrators; unprincipled principals; unfair evaluations; and a lack of administrative support in disciplinary matters, just to name a few"
The Problem of the Study
The problem of this study will be to determine (1) the content of the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes and the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes; (2) the content of the most intensely ranked teacher-reported likes and the most intensely ranked teacher-reported dislikes, and (3) the distribution of the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes and the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes among selected teacher characteristics.
Review of Literature
There is a paucity of literature that is directly on point when it comes to finding out what teachers like and dislike about teaching. Hence, the need for the study. Nevertheless, there is sufficient literature which points to the need for finding out what teachers actually like or dislike about teaching. There is also a conceptual basis for a need of finding out this pertinent information because there is a possible nexus between a teacher's satisfaction or dissatisfaction of his or her needs with the achievement of the students within his or her tutelage.
The National Center for Education Statistics (1997) found that "teachers in any setting who receive a great deal of parent support are more satisfied than teachers who do not" and that there was a weak relationship between a teacher's job satisfaction and a teacher's salary and benefits. The Stenlund study found that "[t]eachers almost universally treasure student responsiveness and enthusiasm as a vital factor in their own enthusiasm, and conversely list low motivation in students as a discourager" (1995). Miller (1981) contends that teacher morale "can have a positive effect on pupil attitudes and learning" and that a pleasant environment for both teachers and students "is more conducive to learning." In a correlational study, Ellenburg (1981) found that teacher morale and student achievement were related. White and Stevens (1988) identified a correlation between "teacher morale and student achievement test scores" in reading and suggested that teachers' attitudes toward the evaluative process and the functionality of their principal were the "strongest predictors of students' achievement" in reading. Relative to student discipline, Blase and Kirby (1992) contend that effective principals "assist teachers with student discipline matters, allow teachers to develop discipline codes, and support teachers'
authority in enforcing [disciplinary] policy." Caladarci (1992) reported that teachers who stated that if they could do it over again that they would not choose to return to the teaching profession cited the following as reasons why they would so choose: "excessive non-teaching responsibilities, large classes, lack of job autonomy and discretion, sense of isolation from colleagues and supervisors, insufficient administrative support, and powerlessness regarding important decision-making processes" (p. 327).
In 1956, Silvey and Silvey at Iowa State Teachers College (now the University of Northern Iowa) conducted a study on "What Teachers Like and Dislike About Teaching." The study was conducted in "selected schools" in Iowa and Missouri. Two hundred and sixty teachers (of 263 employed in the participating school systems) participated in the study, "43 senior high, 30 junior high, 164 elementary, and 23 rural teachers" (p. 359). Like the Trotter study (1984), the researchers employed a content analysis approach about "agreeable [teaching] duties" and "disagreeable [teaching] duties." The teachers' responses generated 926 agreeable duty statements and 891 disagreeable duty statements, resulting in 25 well-defined duty-categories. Less than one percent of the responses did not fall in one of these well-defined duty-categories. Silvey and Silvey concluded that "[t]he behavior of children constituted a primary source of distress to elementary teachers" (p. 358). All teachers (without one exception) indicated that actual "Classroom Teaching" was an agreeable duty. But, a majority of male teachers and female teachers indicated that a disagreeable duty was "Police Type Supervisory Duties, such as Hall Duty, Study Hall Duty, etc." Silvey and Silvey generously stated that "[t]he data contained in this report are far too limited to hazard many generalizations."
The Trotter study (1984) was conducted nearly 30 years after the Silvey and Silvey study but was conducted using a large, culturally diverse school system in Georgia. This study is probably more revealing to what teachers like and dislike in Georgia today. It was a content analysis study wherein Trotter performed a stratified random sampling of elementary schools (six), junior high schools (four), and high schools (two). The teachers from these schools constituted the potential sample for the study. The total of teachers who were potential participants in the Trotter study were 457, breaking down to 161 elementary school teachers, 149 junior high school teachers, and 147 senior high school teachers. To assure anonymity, when the Teacher Likes and Dislikes Survey (TLDS) was distributed in the teachers' individual mailboxes at their schools, a self-addressed, stamped envelope was provided so that the teachers could easily return the completed survey. The teachers were not asked to identify their particular schools or to identify themselves. In addition to their likes and dislikes about teaching, the teachers were only asked to provide their age, gender ("sex"), years of teaching experience, and teaching grade level (elementary school, junior high school, or high school). A total of 230 teachers responded to the survey, constituting a 50.3% response rate.
Seventy-nine of the respondents in the Trotter study were teachers in the age range of 23 years to 32 years; the age range for 75 of the respondents was from 33 to 38 years; and 70 respondents were 39 years or older. Six respondents did not provide their ages. Fifty-eight of the respondents were male teachers, and 172 of the respondents were female teachers. Of the respondents, 88 were elementary school teachers, 92 were junior high school teachers, and 65 were high school teachers. (Seven respondents reported teaching on two teaching grade levels, and four respondents reported teaching on all three grade levels. These respondents probably
taught Exceptional Education classes.) Eighty-one respondents had from one to seven years of teaching experience; 74 respondents had from eight to 12 years of teaching experience; and 71 respondents had 13 or more years of teaching experience. (Four respondents did not report their years of teaching experience.)
In the Teaching Likes and Dislikes Survey (TLDS), Trotter simply stated: "Please write down two things that you like most about teaching." After providing ample space for the teachers to respond, Trotter then asked: "Which one of the two do you like the most? #____". Trotter used the same format for the dislike portion of the survey.
Like the Silvey and Silvey study (1956), Trotter used a "free-response technique." No ideas were suggested to the teachers. No items were provided to which the teachers were expected to respond. Sivley and Silvey stated: "List below five duties you are expected to perform as a teacher and which you enjoy." Also, the study stated: "List below five duties you are expected to perform as a teacher but which you dislike doing." Whereas Silvey and Silvey focused on "duties," Trotter used a more generic "things" concept. Trotter also sought to narrow the teachers' foci to just two things that the teachers like and dislike about teaching instead of the five "duties" that teachers like and dislike in the Silvey and Silvey study.
The 260 teachers in the Silvey and Silvey study reported 926 "agreeable duties" and 891 "disagreeable duties." The 926 "agreeable duties" coalesced into 55 duty categories, and the 891 "disagreeable duties" coalesced into 95 duty categories. The authors stated in their report that there were "considerable overlapping and close similarities in naming the duties and activities, both agreeable and disagreeable" (p. 359). The authors wanted to classify the duties
"into duties or duty-categories which would not be so general and broad as to be meaningless, or so detailed and specific as to be unmanageable" and "the duties were distributed into twenty-five rather well defined duty-categories" (p. 360). Silvey and Silvey stated that less than one percent of the responses did not fit into one of these 25 categories and were eliminated from the study.
In the Silvey and Silvey study (1956), the "agreeable duty" with the highest percent of being mentioned by teachers in all categories (high school, junior high school, elementary school, and rural school) was "Classroom Teaching." It appears that this intrinsic value of actually teaching the students was what the teachers in this study valued the most. What the teachers reported with the greatest percentage as to what they viewed as a "disagreeable duty" was "Police Type Supervisory Duties, such as Hall Duty, Study Hall Duty, etc." A majority of the teachers from all grade levels viewed this as a "disagreeable duty" except for the teachers from the "Rural" category. The teachers from the "Rural" category probably had less students and therefore less hall duty, less fights, etc.
In the Trotter study (1984), the data was gathered in early Spring of 1983, and A Nation At Risk was promulgated in April of that same year; however, the data was gathered from teachers in a large, culturally diverse school system in Georgia before the much-ballyhooed passage of Georgia's Quality Basic Education Act (QBE). The QBE Act set up the Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program (GTEP). This rather stringent evaluative system is often criticized for being abused by administrators, and teachers often (yes, "often") see GTEP as being used in a manipulative, retributive, and punitive manner. Because the data in the Trotter study was gathered in early Spring 1983, the teachers would not have been affected yet by the hysteria
which A Nation At Risk eventually caused throughout the educational communities in the various states. Most states (if not all) responded to the alarm set off by A Nation At Risk by passing various "reform" measures in their legislatures. Georgia was no exception. The evaluative system set up by the QBE Act significantly changed the ambience and mood of the teaching profession in Georgia. The Trotter study, because of its timing, was not reflective of this change in the collective consciousness of Georgia's teaching community.
The 230 teachers who participated in the Trotter study provided a total of 1,064 teaching like and teaching dislike citations. Like the Silvey and Silvey study, in the Trotter study, the teaching likes and the teaching dislikes coalesced into distinct categories, with some teaching likes being labeled as "Non-consensus Teaching Likes" and "Alternative Teaching Likes" and some teaching dislikes being labeled as "Non-consensus Teaching Dislikes" and "Alternative Teaching Dislikes."
Trotter did not specifically look at the percentage of teachers of who mentioned a particular teaching like or teaching dislike like Silvey and Silvey looked at the particular percentage of teachers who mentioned an agreeable duty or disagreeable duty. Trotter looked at a frequency rating and scored a particular teaching like or teaching dislike by the frequency at which the teachers cited it, and Trotter looked at the intensity rating, adjudged by the number of times that teachers cited a particular teaching like or teaching dislike he or she liked or disliked "the most." The teachers in the Trotter study identified 28 categories for teaching likes and 42 categories for teaching dislikes. Trotter used four judges (non-participating teachers) to sort the individual citations into these 28 categories for teaching likes and 42 categories for teaching dislikes.
Those citations which were sorted into the same categories by at least three of four judges (75%) were termed "Consensus" citations, and those citations which were sorting into different existing categories by the judges were termed "Non-consensus" citations. But, if at least two of the four independent judges did not place a citation into the existing categories, the citation was marked as an "Alternative" citation.
In the Trotter study, after all of the teaching like citations and the teaching dislike citations were analyzed and sorted by the four judges one time and after those citations which were initially judged to Alternative Citations and Non-consensus Citations were analyzed and judged in a second round, those citations which were termed Consensus Citations yielded significantly higher consistency among the judges than the minimum 75%. Among the Consensus Teaching Likes (490 total), the four independent were in agreement on 1,873 out of a possible 1,960 decisions, resulting in 95.5% consistency. Among Consensus Teaching Dislikes (494), the four independent judges were in agreement on 1, 892 out of a possible 1,976 decisions, resulting in 95.7% consistency.
Trotter found that the most frequently reported teaching likes were the following, in this descending order: (1) Interactions With Children; (2) Holidays, Vacations, Time Off, Working Hours, etc.; (3) Personal Satisfaction When Students Achieve, Grow, etc.; (4) Observing Progress, Development, etc., in the Children; (5) Subject; (6) Helping Children Learn, Find Success, etc.; (7) Influencing a Child's Life, Character Development, etc.; (8) Teaching Helpful Information, Skills, etc., to Students; (9) Observing the Students Learn, Comprehend, etc.; and (10) The Challenge of the Job. When it came to Teaching Likes, there was very little change in
the order when Trotter focused on Intensity. The Frequency Score and the Intensity Score were almost identical.
Trotter found that the most frequently reported teaching dislikes were the following, in this descending order: (1) Paper Work; (2) Disciplinary Problems; (3) Salary; (4) Lack of Parental Concern; (5*) Student Apathy; (5*) Lack of Breaks During the School Day; (7) Large Classes; (8) Poor, Incompetent, etc., Administration of the School; (9*) Lack of Administrative Support, Consistency, etc., in Student Discipline; and (9*) Inadequate Supplies. Note that two places on the above ranking scale were ties. When Trotter looked at the Intensity Score, Disciplinary Problems exchanged places with Paper Work in placement One and Two. The teachers rated Disciplinary Problems slightly more intense than Paper Work; however, if the "administration/administrative" categories were merged with "Disciplinary Problems," then the latter category would far exceed all other Teaching Dislikes in terms of frequency score and intensity score.
Among demographic categories, Trotter found that male teachers responded significantly more critically toward their administrator(s) than did female teachers in the category of "Poor, Incompetent, etc., Administration of the School." Elementary School teachers significantly cited the category of "Lack of Breaks During the School Day" as a Teaching Dislike than did Senior High School teachers and Junior High School teachers. This research took place before the Georgia General Assembly passed O.C.G.A. 20-2-218 which provides elementary teachers in Georgia with 30 minutes of duty free lunch. Trotter also found that the teachers with the fewest years of teaching experience had significantly cited more times the category of "Personal
Satisfaction When Students Achieve, Grow, etc." than the teachers with more years of experience.
Is there a conceptual basis for studying what teachers like and dislike about teaching? Does it matter? Do teachers' likes and dislikes about teaching matter relative to students' learning? Is there a conceptual relationship between teaching conditions and the students' motivation to learn? Is it important to even know what a teacher thinks about his or her teaching conditions or situations, especially with the uniqueness of each student? Is it best to simply expect teachers to cope with their teaching conditions without much ado being made over them -- the teachers or their teaching conditions? Is it now alright to simply expect each teacher to follow a scripted curriculum as well as a canned way of delivery and to teach, if you will, from a cookie-cutter mold? The Rand Corporation conducted a study and concluded that "...professional judgment is a prerequisite for good teaching, because unless students are treated according to their particular learning needs, they will be mistreated. Standardized practice is, in essence, malpractice. The need for diagnosis of individual situations and for judgments about appropriate strategies and tactics is what defines a profession" (Darling-Hammond, 1984). Abraham Maslow contends that a mature, healthy individual is a person who is operating on a self-actualizing level, a person who is not motivated by his own needs but by the needs of others. (Examples of self-actualizing people in history are Jesus, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, and Albert Schweitzer.) Maslow stated: "So far as motivational status is concerned, healthy people have sufficiently gratified their basic needs for safety, belongingness, love, respect and self-esteem so that they are motivated primarily by trends to self-actualization..." (1968, p. 25). A satisfied need no longer motivates a person. But, if a person's lower needs are not satisfied, then
Maslow contends that these needs motivate a person and keep a person from being a self-actualizer who is motivated by the needs of others. If teachers' basic needs are not satisfied, then it appears that these unsatisfied need will be the source of their motivation.
Boyce contends that the motivation to learn is a social process or cultural phenomenon (1983). Boyce also contends that many outside social factors impacts on whether a student bring motivation to learn to school. When students arrive at school with little motivation to learn, the teachers need to be freed up from institutional restraints so that they can reach out to each student's unique situation in order to engage these students who do not bring any motivation to learn to school. Keeping teachers in pedagogical straightjackets, so to speak, does not enable the teachers to be sensitive to the needs of each students.
Carl Rogers, in his On Becoming A Person (1961), contends that students pick up on whether or not a teacher is being authentic, true to himself or herself. Rogers theory of significant learning posits that only a very authentic or congruent teacher can reach the students in a non-threatening environment wherein the teacher has empathy for and acceptance of the students. Rogers contends that establishing a facilitative classroom climate is a necessary prerequisite for significant learning to take place.
Kurt Lewin, in The Psychology of Learning (1942), theorizes that learning can be effectively dealt with only in the broad context of an individual's psychological "life space." Lewin contends that learning is an experience which cannot be treated as an isolated phenomenon; rather, it is conditioned by a field of psychological valences (or, forces) which constitute a person's "life space." Lewin stated that "a teacher will never succeed in giving proper guidance
to a child if he doesn't learn to understand the psychological world in which this individual child lives." He further contended: "Every child is sensitive, even to the small changes in social atmosphere, e.g., in the degree of friendliness or security. The teachers knows that success in learning French, or any subject, depends largely on the atmosphere he is able to create" (pp. 217, 218).
It appears that there is a great importance on meeting the basic needs (physical, safety, security, esteem, social, etc.) of teachers so that they can be more sensitive to the needs of their students. But, if a school system or its school administration does not know the basic needs (or desires, or likes, or dislikes, etc.) of its teachers, then how can these needs be met, even if there were a tendency or motivation to meet them? Therefore, a continual study of what teachers like about teaching and dislike about teaching appears to be in order.
Methodology
Restatement of the Problem
A restatement of the problem of this study will be to determine (1) the content of the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes and the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes; (2) the content of the most intensely ranked teacher-reported likes and the most intensely ranked teacher-reported dislikes, and (3) the distribution of the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes and the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes among selected teacher characteristics.
This study will seek to determine if there are any significant differences in the teacher-reported Teaching Likes and the teacher-reported Teaching Dislikes among four categories: (1) Age; (2) Gender; (3) Years of Teaching Experience; and (4) Teaching Grade Levels (Elementary Schools, Middle Schools, and High Schools). More specifically, this study will address the following questions:
1. What teaching likes do teachers report most frequently?
2. What teaching dislikes do teachers report most frequently?
3. Which teacher-reported teaching likes do teachers rank most intensely?
4. Which teacher-reported teaching dislikes do teachers rank most intensely?
5. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes distribute themselves proportionately among teachers of different age groups?
6. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes distribute themselves proportionately among teachers of different age groups?
7. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes distribute themselves proportionately among male teachers and female teachers?
8. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes distribute themselves proportionately among male teachers and female teachers?
9. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes distribute themselves proportionately among Elementary School (ES) teachers, Middle School (MS) teachers, and High School (HS) teachers?
10. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes distribute themselves proportionately among Elementary School (ES) teachers, Middle School (MS) teachers, and High School (HS) teachers?
11. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes distribute themselves proportionately among groups of teachers with different years of teaching experience?
12. Do the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes distribute themselves proportionately among groups of teachers with different years of teaching experience?
Research Design
The design of this study is a one-shot case study. The study is descriptive in nature.
Independent Variables
The independent variables in this study are the teachers' (1) age; (2) gender; (3) teaching grade level; and (4) teaching experience.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables in this proposed study are (1) the content of the most frequently teacher-reported teaching likes and the most frequently teacher-reported teaching dislikes, and (2) the content of the most intensely ranked teacher-reported teaching likes and the most intensely ranked teacher-reported teaching dislikes.
Selection of the Subjects
The teachers selected for this study will be teachers in the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) who are members of the Metro Association of Classroom Educators (MACE). The teachers who respond to the survey will be the subjects of this study. The teachers will be sent the Teaching Likes and Dislikes Survey (TLDS) and asked to respond. The teachers will be assured anonymity and will be provided with a stamped, self-addressed envelope.
Instrument To Be Used
The instrument to be used in this study is the Teaching Likes and Dislikes Survey (TLDS). (See Appendix I.) Dr. John Trotter, who developed this instrument on his study, gave this researcher permission to employ this instrument for this proposed study. (See Appendix II.) Dr. Trotter, Chairman and CEO of MACE, also gave me permission to survey the MACE teachers for this proposed study. (See Appendix IV.)
References:
Dissertation
Trotter, J.R. (1984). What teachers like and dislike about teaching educational
Institutions in the state of Georgia (Doctorial dissertation, University of Georgia 1984).
Journal Articles,
An article on the Scripps Howard/ Ohio University poll is at http://www.scrippsnews.com
(Fair Test the National Center for fair and open Testing).
Ravitch (210). The Death and Life of the Great American School System:
How Testing and Choice Are Understanding Education.
Johnson, J. Andrew Yarrow, A. Rochkind J. Amber O. (Public agenda)
www.publicagenda.org/pages/teaching-for-a-living
Lyons,J. Advancing the Teacher Profession (2010) Young teacher looks at the future
Center of Teaching Quality, http://teachingquality.typad.com
Trotter, J.R (1995). The Teachers Advocate magazine
National Center for Education Statistics (1997).
Blasé, Joseph, and Peggy Kirby. “ Bringing Out the Best in Teachers:
What Effective Pricipals Do. “Newbury Park, California: Crowin Press,
1992. 156 pages. ED 341 165.
Ellenberg, F.C. ‘Factors Affecting Teacher Moral.’ “NASSP Bullentin 56, 12 (December 1972):76
Miller (1981). contends that teacher moral can have impact pupil attitudes.
White and Stevens (1988). Identified a correlation between “teacher moral and student achievement test scores.
Silvey and Silvey (1956) What Teachers like and Dislike about Teaching (University of Northern Iowa).
Caladarici Study (1992) would teacher change field if they knew it was hard to be a teacher.
A great deal of what is wrong with American Public Education today is the ravenous greed of vulture capitalists like Bill Gates who are interloping in an area about which they know nothing. They are denizens in a foreign land, pushing their agenda in this more than one-half trillion dollar industry which they apparently just discovered. I have been saying for years that this cataclysmic disruption that these billionaires have caused in American Public Education has resulted in much more harm than good. These billionaire school “reformers” are in actually school deformers. They have wreaked havoc on the landscape of American schools on the scale of Hurricanes Hugo and Katrina.
The educational kibitzing that these billionaires have engaged in has undermined public education here in the United States, and we believe that it is the desire of many of them to totally destroy public education as we have known it here in the United States. They have donated millions upon millions of dollars to charter school organizations as well as to organizations which seek to tie evaluating a teacher’s performance to the test scores of the students. The latter may sound good on paper but it is wholly unrealistic.
#education #students #school #teacher #schools #dollar
Ever since President Reagan commissioned his Secretary of Education, Terrell Bell, to come up with a report about the status of public education in the United States and the result was the publication of A Nation at Risk, public education has indeed become “at risk” in the United States. Sometimes in life the cure is much worse than the ailment. In the case of public education in America, all of (1) the tinkering and meddling from the non-profit educational foundations usually run by Ivy League educated non-educators who are intent on changing the tenor of American schools by infusing a distinctly left-oriented social agenda and (2) the fleecing and profiteering of the public schools by avaricious capitalists who see a golden opportunity to cashing in on the privatization of the public schools have left public education in the United States grasping to hang onto its very soul.
This incongruent set of actors is plundering American Public Education (APE) not unlike the vandals and Vikings who wreaked havoc in northern Europe and England. #opportunity #education #europe #schools #educators #Teachers
Teachers are actually the most abused professional people in the country. Do you think that medical doctors or attorneys would permit their patients or clients to come to their offices and shout obscenities at them? Would they tolerate some faceless and feckless state bureaucrat to come and randomly observe them while they treat their patients or counsel with their clients? Would they countenance the notion of allowing some State snoopervisor to demand that they submit their daily and weekly plans for meeting with their patients or clients? Ad infinitum. Ha! #people #medical #teachers #doctors
