Teacher input the missing ingredient
School board’s flawed iPad program exemplifies a failing top-down approach
It will come as no surprise to secondary teachers in the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board that students are not happy with the iPad rollout. The devices have very limited value at this level. But this story speaks to a much more profound issue within education; that of the lock step, groupthink mentality that is enforced by boards of education when it comes to teaching staff. Teachers are expected to teach their students how to think critically, to analyze information and form conclusions. But woe betide the teacher who looks at board or ministry policy with an analytical eye and talks about it publicly; critical analysis by classroom teachers is not welcome.
In the case of the iPads, the groupthink process goes as follows: A strong-willed director with his own vision presents the notion of 21st Century Fluencies, which involves providing an iPad for every student in the HWDSB. Superintendents quickly fall in line, adhering to a top down decision-making structure. You can’t question the director. School administrators do the same, because they are expected to be cheerleaders for all board policies. In order to attain the position of superintendent, principal or department head, you had better be prepared to sing the praises of all board and ministry policies, even if you don’t believe in them. And if policies change tomorrow, as policies often do, you had best be prepared to jump on the new bandwagon.
From the earliest rollout, it was clear to many that this device did not meet the needs of students. But there was never a real opportunity for teaching staff to discuss or debate the issue. In this case, to criticize the rollout was to be labelled a Luddite, when in fact people were simply interested in more appropriate technologies. To be analytical as a teacher means to be labelled “difficult,” not “on board,” or, especially in the case of more senior teachers, “out of touch,” especially when it comes to the “god of technology.”
Teachers are also warned by their boards and by their federations not to
take issues to the media, even for a civilized debate. It is seen as criticism, and will be met with threats, bullying and harassment from board human resources. We saw this play out in public during the ARC process in Hamilton, where the board attacked a principal who had the audacity to speak up for his school. We saw it when a teacher from Durham appeared in a TV interview to talk about the violence she and her colleagues face daily. She appeared in silhouette with her voice disguised for fear of board reprisal. We see it now as teachers in Peel are warned not to discuss the controversy over the teaching of the novel “To Kill A Mockingbird” in the media, because “it would be quite problematic” for them. The goal is to shut down debate, and have one voice speak on all educational issues: the public relations department of boards.
If we allowed for more input from classroom teachers, we could avoid mistakes like forcing secondary students to use iPads when what they really want is a textbook. We could have avoided a math curriculum that did not provide students the skills they needed to be successful in later
grades. An average high school in the city has between 80 and 100 teachers; educated, creative, critical thinkers who often specialize in their fields. Imagine a system in which their input and ideas are not wanted, not valued, not asked for? Instead, if they are audacious enough to question policy they are told to be quiet and do as you are told. Madness. What a waste of talent.
It would be easy to dismiss this piece as the ramblings of a bitter retired teacher. But that would be wrong. Instead, it is an attempt to illustrate the fact that those who actually teach in classrooms everyday have less and less to say about changes in education. One of the critical principles of vaunted education systems in northern Europe is the idea that classroom teachers are highly respected and given professional autonomy. It’s one thing to say “we respect our teachers.” It is entirely something else to actually do it. If we expect major improvements in our education system, we must start here.