Panel of Contributors: Shift in teaching not a good thing Panel of Contributors: Shift in teaching not a good thing (December 14, 2005)

By Jim MacKenzie

After teaching for an unbelievable number of years, I am still perplexed by the inevitable crush of expectations that each fall brings. The fall of 2005 has been particularly brutal. Having a perspective that spans decades allows me to attempt to analyze the profound changes that have affected education. I am neither encouraged nor optimistic.

When I began teaching in the 1960s, my mentors emphasized the primacy of classroom instruction, the importance of the academic development of each student, and the maintenance of high standards that reflected motives and goals desired by the school community.

Our funding was generated through property taxes and there was a great deal of local control, both at the school site and district level. We felt we had an adequate income to cover our expenses, so there was no need for educational foundations, bonds or money-raising activities to augment our budget. California led the nation in providing a quality public education.

Teachers made many important decisions to custom-fit the class or school demographics. In the Sequoia district, we didn't teach the same curriculum at San Carlos High as we did at Ravenswood. There was room for individuality, creativity and specialization. Teachers were encouraged to take risks and experiment with innovative educational delivery systems.

Educators felt involved, important and valued. There was adequate time to meet and collaborate with our peers. The social studies department at San Carlos independently developed some of the finest and most meaningful educational materials I have ever seen. Students were invigorated and cooperative, in large part due to their teachers' enthusiasm and commitment.

The state of education today has changed dramatically. The Serrano-Priest case and Proposition 13 altered the structure of educational funding. As a result, our district suffered some major negative consequences. State funding comes with state mandates and changed expectations. We not only receive considerably less relative funding per student, but we are being told by the state and federal bureaucratic systems how we have to spend some of those funds.

Influential individuals in the state -- most of whom were not classroom teachers -- felt that it was imperative to have uniform curriculum, textbooks and philosophy -- the one-size-fits-all approach. "Accountability" became the new buzzword. Standardized state and federal tests began to modify and then direct the course curriculum. Teacher morale and relative effectiveness of instruction no longer seem to be major considerations in the educational process. Many decisions are now being made as far from the classroom as M-A is from Washington, D.C.

During the last five years the Bush administration has instigated the most insidious program of all: "No Child Left Behind." Despite the fact that I believe I am doing some of the most effective and meaningful teaching of my career, I am being told, as are many other teachers, that there is a question as to whether I am a "highly qualified teacher" and that I need to "improve my program." Without any direct observation, it puzzles me as to how the federal government can condemn the efforts we are making at Menlo-Atherton. On the contrary, most students, parents, universities, colleges, national news magazines, the military and employers have concluded that Menlo-Atherton is an outstanding school. Educators are being asked by our state and federal overseers to alter our approach, individuality and support materials. The new program should be all-encompassing, and strictly monitored for accountability. Yet, as a result of inadequate funding from the very same sources that have mandated these changes, we are unable to facilitate the process required. Of course, this procedure also means the sacrifice of vocational, elective and extracurricular offerings. A school site such as M-A is overwhelmed by the enormity of the task.

We are forced to cut out instructional days to accommodate required testing, but there are many teachers who question the validity, reliability, objectivity or wisdom of these tests. If our goal is to prepare the students with the skills needed for real world/life experiences, are these tests really an accurate measure of this objective?

I realize that I am venting the frustration of a troubled veteran teacher, but the public should be aware that there are many other teachers who are even more exasperated than I am. It should be made clear that many of those teachers are the youngest, most inexperienced and thus most vulnerable, but these teachers represent the potential for the future success of public education. The teaching profession could easily see a mass exodus sometime soon.

I still love to teach. I only wish that "they who must be obeyed" would let me. Jim MacKenzie teaches economics and psychology at Menlo-Atherton High School and is a member of the Almanac's Panel of Contributors.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.