The Perceived Teacher
Anthony Kunkel
There was a confusion and a darkness in my head and I had to understand what I was doing in this classroom or get out. If I had to stand before those five classes I couldn’t let days dribble by in the routine of high school grammar, spelling, vocabulary, digging for the deeper meaning in poetry, bits of literature doled out for the multiple choice tests that would follow so that universities can be supplied with the best and the brightest. I had to begin enjoying the act of teaching and the only way I could do that was to start over, teach what I loved and to hell with the curriculum.
(McCourt, 1999, P.340)
Not unlike many, I entered the profession of teaching at a later age. My first job teaching was at a rural high school in North Florida. The graduation rate at this school was less than 35 percent. I remember during my first week on the job being handed a large binder with “Sunshine State Standards” written across the front. At that time, early in my career, I found the standards to be intimidating and I put the book on a shelf behind my desk, never to be opened by me again. I spent my first three years of my teaching in Florida, teaching six classes of 9th grade English, and while I am certain that what I taught would have satisfied most (if not all) of the state standards, I was only questioned once about my content. This query was instigated by a small percentage of the veteran teachers at my school who were uncomfortable with my unconventional methods. Quite simply, I had learned that I loved to teach, and I taught what I perceived to be needed most by my students, with regards to my subject area. My students in turn, responded remarkably to my creative antics to get them involved. I came to believe that the best way to run my classes was to seek methods that would engage my students to want to learn. In many cases, I sought to create activities that would simply require them to think in a specific direction. My first year was a constant search for ideas and lesson plans that I thought might be useful. I purchased any and all books I could find that offered learning games and activities in the Language Arts. Most of these were advertised for the primary and middle grades and I enjoyed modifying them to higher aims. I found within my teaching a creative outlet that I had not anticipated.
From Florida I was recruited to a larger high school in North Georgia. Again, I was handed a large binder, only this one read “Core Curriculum Requirements” (CCR). At this school all teachers were required to submit weekly summaries of their lesson plans, along with the matching CCR(s) for each lesson. At first this was unsettling to me, but ultimately it proved a simple task that actually helped in my planning. Usually a specific standard or requirement was easily matched to an objective, or an outcome that I wished to obtain. On those occasions where I felt that it was obvious that I was not satisfying any of the state requirements, I either wrote “other” or copied in the core number for addressing critical thinking. Never once did the standards have any influence on what and how I taught. I was called into the Principal’s office once to explain a particular ongoing assignment that had my AP students writing collaborative novels over the course of the year, but I believe that Principal was more interested in the assignment than he was concerned.
Georgia is one of 18 states known for its high-stakes testing. All students in Georgia are required to pass a high school exit exam to receive a diploma. Along with the AP classes that I taught, I was given the one class of at-risk 11th graders. This class was predominately minority students, both Hispanic and African American, many with a poor history of school participation and attendance. Most of them demonstrated a serious contempt for school authority. Some of these students were considered “exceptional” and came with specific IEPs. Some came with criminal records. I was told up front that the goal was to prepare all of these student to pass the exit exam, and that those with the IEPs would be offered a special education diploma if they could not pass. In truth, I never looked at the prep materials they gave me for this exam. I found that simply engaging these adolescents to participate was challenge enough. I knew so little of the world they came from and sought to create some sense of relatedness that would encourage them to learn and to participate. Of all the classes I have taught, that one class remains the most defining and memorable of my career. I won’t pretend that they all excelled academically, but to the last one of them, they became willing participants who became interested in what they were learning, as well as in what they wished to learn. All of them passed the exit exam in Language Arts.
The point of this narrative is in the perception that I have of myself as a teacher. There are qualities, or traits, that I possess as a teacher that make me effective. What is apparent, though, is that my entire career as a teacher has been against the grain of what is expected of me with regards to educational reform and testing. This does not seem to be uncommon of those identified as ‘effective’ teachers. I do not believe standards to be the enemy, but as I have witnessed various states working diligently to align their standards to a specific (or series of) test(s), as well as working to align the test(s) to the standards, I must cringe at the impositions that are being forwarded upon the classroom teachers. Freedom of pedagogy is becoming a radical concept. In light of the research (old and new) on effective teaching, it would appear that the governing entities pursuing the mandates of educational reforms are completely incongruent with what has been determined to be effective in the classroom.
Years ago Fred Wilhelm stated something to the effect that teaching was deeply personal and that what worked for one teacher would only mean failure for another (Lamm, 1976). Wilhelm’s notion of teaching as a deeply personal thing in today’s climate of standardization, high stakes testing, and no child left behind could be interpreted as a distinct weakness that is inherent to the profession of teaching. The policy makers, politicians who believe that achievement testing and standardization in education will enhance the quality of our schools and contribute to a student’s ability to learn, are missing the mark. Quite simply, high-stakes testing is doing the opposite of what it was intended. As stated in a recent study conducted by Audrey Amrein and David Berliner (2003) on current policy (no child left behind and high stakes testing), “the evidence shows that such tests actually decrease student motivation and increase the proportion of students who leave school early” (p.32).
The history behind the standardization and high-stakes testing movement that began in the 1970s was founded on the well intentioned assumptions that teachers would be given a guideline to know what was important to teach (and therefore be held more accountable), and that the students would be motivated to increase their efforts in the classrooms. Instead, it has resulted in classrooms that “exacerbate boredom, fear, and lethargy, promoting all manner of mechanical behaviors on the part of teachers, students, and schools, and bleed school children of their natural love of learning” (Sacks, 1999, pp. 256-257). Indeed, according to John Goodlad (2002), “it is not so much the substance of reform cycles but more the side effect that do harm . . . school reforms fade and die, frequently from their own excesses. But their side effects live on as ‘eduviruses’ that add cost to the system and create roadblocks” to any serious attempts to implement actual improvements that are needed (p. 20).
Currently, with the federal government’s No Child Left Behind and high-stakes testing movement, it is reasonable to assume that there will be varying degrees of standard-based requirements within various states. Currently there are 18 states with high school exit exams, and there are nine more who are preparing to implement one (Amrein & Berliner, 2003). California is one of these states and a good example of a state that is in extreme with regards to the current reform movement. Recently I had the opportunity to work with and observe several of the student teachers from one of the Teacher Education Programs as a UC. It was refreshing to witness the student teachers’ desire to be creative and inspiring while in the classroom. It was disheartening to view their changing program bowing to the will (and funding) of the new state requirements for teacher certification. While visiting the student teachers on location I was also disheartened at the difficulty I had in scheduling some of the observations because of the need their cooperating teachers had to maintain a specific pace within a standardized curriculum that had been decided upon, and chosen by, someone other than themselves.
In an alarming study done almost twenty years ago (Csikszentmihalyi & McCormack, 1986), it was determined that what adolescents needed most were a sense of purpose and some meaningful goals toward which they could focus their energy. Time for the adolescents in this study was spent mostly between their peers and in their classes. The average adolescent was reported to spend on the average only five minutes a day with their father and twenty minutes with their mother. Keep in mind, this is a pre-Columbine study, but teenage suicides among the middle class white males at the time of this study had risen over 300% in less than one generation.
Currently in our new generation we must also face the horror of mass murder as well as suicide that adds to the disturbing surge of social pathology from our adolescents. The research of Csikszentmihalyi and McCormack’s study determined that school was the one place most adolescents wished to avoid the most, yet when asked who the guiding influences within their lives were, 58 percent of the adolescents asked mentioned one or more teachers. The implications of this contradiction are obvious. While they may genuinely resent having to go to school, they welcome the guidance and influence of a teacher in their lives. Most often, the teenagers in this study described the teachers who had influenced them in terms of their (the teacher’s) ability to generate enthusiasm for learning through personal involvement with the subject matter (pp. 417-418).
In this respect, with regards to the traits or qualities a teacher may have that allows them to be influential to their students, a recent study examined over 100 former students form various backgrounds, asking for their perceptions of teachers who had influenced them, as well as the traits they felt identified the best teachers and worst teachers they had experienced (Black & Howard-Jones, 2000). Those participating in the study overwhelmingly listed the instructional characteristics of their best teachers as those who made learning fun, used new methods, and incorporated group activities into their lessons. Among the most common instructional characteristics attributed to their worst teachers were inflexibility, lectures with worksheets, and no attempts to connect anything meaningful to the class or materials. Of the personal characteristics identified for the traits of the best teachers were, most importantly, caring, concern, enthusiasm, respect, high expectations, and the ability to make the student feel special. Descriptors that identified the traits for the worst teachers were intimidation, no praise, lack of respect, and low expectations (p. 4).
With respect to, and regardless of, the data, numbers, and percentages, that identify the traits discussed by Black and Howard-Jones (2000), there is an image of an effective classroom here. Students wishing to learn. Students wishing for learning to be fun. The effective classroom is an environment where learning takes place. Perhaps the image of what this environment may look like is arguable, but a common theme that most agree upon is that, within this effective classroom, there is an efficacious relationship between the teacher and the student. Nowhere within this relationship has there been any mention of a teacher’s ability to teach to the standards, or to prepare the student for the next round of standardized testing that is increasingly guiding what is to be learned, or to an increasing degree, how it is to be taught. There is little (if any) research that correlates a teacher’s ability to teach to a test as being effective. According to Baines (in press), “successful teaching is not dependent upon standards and testing, but attributable to a teacher’s ability (or inability) to form constructive human relationships. Everything depends upon the relationship—expectations, and outcomes, curriculum and instruction” (p.6).
In another study done (Furrer & Skinner, 2003) that examined the importance of various relationships to a child’s success in school, the following was noted:
Teacher’s ratings of closeness in their relationships with individual students have been found to be predictors of school performance, school liking, and self-directedness. . . In early adolescence, children’s feelings of teacher support predict achievement expectancies and values as well as effort, engagement, and performance. . . Relationships to teachers are considered especially potent because of the many roles teachers play, for example, as a potential attachment figure, as a pedagogue, as a disciplinarian, and as the final arbiter of a student’s level of performance. (p.150)
Furrer and Skinner discuss these relationships in terms of the degree that a student may feel connected to their own learning experience. This sense of “relatedness” that they refer to is considered fundamental to a student’s engagement, enthusiasm, and their participation (p. 149).
In yet another study that examined the perceptions of traits that identified best and worst teachers in two different cultures (Quereshi, 2002), Pakistan and the United States, both cultures perceived traits that identified the ‘best’ teachers as similar, in that they possessed an abundance of “good qualities.” Among the adjectives used to identify these qualities (for both cultures) were: Caring, understanding, enthusiastic, and friendly (p. 4). In another study the perceptions of preservice teacher’s were examined, with regard to the determining characteristics of effective teachers (Minor, et al, 2002). In this study it was believed that effective teachers were, most importantly, caring, creative, enthusiastic, and able to vary instruction to the individual student’s needs, (p. 117).
Again, there is an image that is presented in these qualities. The words “caring” and “enthusiastic” appear most consistently within all the research on traits and qualities of effective teachers. The word “enthusiastic” alone is suggestive of content knowledge. While the term “content knowledge” does appear in Black and Howard-Jones (2000) study, it takes a lesser role to adjectives and phrases with more personal and pedagogical implications. This is not to suggest that content knowledge is a lesser trait within the effective teacher. Indeed, all of the traits and qualities discussed assume a strong degree of content knowledge. This assumption is important, as it is quite possibly foundational to the act of effective teaching, wherein the traits and qualities discussed take place and become evident. In Nietzchean terms, knowledge precedes existence.
In a study done to examine what was taking place within a “quality” secondary classroom, Whalen (1998) wished to identify what he described as “Flow Teachers” (p. 27). Whalen’s research began with the claim that within most secondary schools, adolescents achieve boredom and anxiety significantly more often than they achieve challenge and engagement (p. 23). Whalen’s research is founded on Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) theory of Flow, and his own belief that Flow can be taught. According to Whalen there are three distinctions that make a teacher influential and memorable, and that identify them as a “flow Teacher:”
First, these Flow teachers communicate a rigorous care for their students, a complex blend of high standards and expectations with a consistent commitment to supporting student effort. . . .
Second, Flow teachers model a contagious enthusiasm for learning, especially for the intellectual adventures to be found with their chosen disciplines. . . .
Finally, . . . they spend considerable time considering how to match their students to challenges that enhance the experience of intrinsic rewards and catalyze the development of talent. . . creating more opportunities for students to direct their own learning when signs of boredom are emerging. (p. 27)
Care and enthusiasm. Again, the image of the classroom is the same, only Whalen provides us a spin on the significance of what is taking place. Again, teacher content knowledge is implied.
According to Goodlad (2002), “the linchpin of each American’s necessary apprenticeship in democracy is a qualified, caring, competent classroom teacher” (p. 16). In a1996 report, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future outlined steps that must be “taken in order to have competent, caring, and qualified teachers in every classroom by 2006” (Goodlad, 2002, p. 23). According to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, “the single most important action the nation can take to improve schools is to strengthen teaching” (http://www.nbpts.org/edreform/index.cfm). According to the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reform movement:
All schools must close the achievement gap, offer more flexibility, give parents more options, and teach students based on what works. Under the act's accountability provisions, states must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. They must produce annual state and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about state and school progress. (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/index.html?src=ov)
There is a large disparity between what those interested in education believe are needed in education, compared to what those in politics demand schools “must” do. One of the goals of the NCLB reform movement is to have in place, by 2006, “highly qualified” teachers who possess a bachelor’s degree in subject area, and show proficiency in content knowledge and teaching. If the dots are to be connected here, the “highly qualified” teacher will be the teacher who is best able to “close the achievement gap”, and “teach what works” with regard to the test that will comprise the “report card” made available to parents and communities. There is little room for caring and enthusiasm within the description of the NCLB purpose. As Goodlad (2000) points out, the only people benefiting from the NCLB movement are the “growing panolpy of companies seeking profit from the public’s investment in schooling” (p. 20).
The last 30 years has suggested that education reform is and will be an ongoing political platform. The wording of the NCLB mission is self-evident. It is not a proposal that acknowledges the importance of what has been suggested with regard to teachers, but instead a platform that offers little and demands what schools and teachers “must” do. Content knowledge is important, but it is only the beginning of the classroom experience—for both the teacher and student. The perceptions that we have of teachers are founded on many defining moments within our lives. As a teacher I experience these moments with my students, and in these moments there is a shared experience. Learning takes place, as does teaching. It is in the caring and enthusiasm where fewer children will be left behind.
References
Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2003). The effects of high-stakes testing on student motivation and
learning. Educational leadership, 60 (5). 2-37.
Baines, L. (2004). Teaching like you mean it. Pedagogy (article in press).
Black, R. & Howard-Jones, A (2000). Reflections on best and worst teachers: An experiential
perspective of teaching. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 34 (1),
1-13.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & McCormanck, J. (1986). The influence of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan,
67 (6), 414-419.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Furrer, C, & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95 (11), 148-161.
Goodlad, J. (2002). Kudzu, rabbits, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 16-30.
Howe, Q. (1991). Under running laughter. New York: Free Press.
Lamm, Z. (1976). Conflicting theories of instruction: Conflicting dimensions. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
McCourt, F. (1999). Tis: A memoir. New York: Scribner.
Minor, L. et al. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of
characteristics of effective teachers. The Jou8rnal of Educational Research, 96 (2), 116-
148.
Quereshi, M. Y. (2002). Perceptions of traits that identify the best and worst teachers in two
cultures. Journal of Experimental Education, 49 (1), 4-8.
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we
can do to change it. Cambidge, MA: Perseus Books.
Whalen, S. (1998). Flow and engagement of talent: Implications for secondary schooling.
NASSP Bulletin, 82 (595) 22-37.