ORIENTATION CHOICE

You might think of the content of this posting as getting into the weeds of civics and social studies education. I hope you don't. My intent is to give you a bit of insight as to the options that civics educators – teachers and material developers – have when planning what approach they intend to take as they meet the challenges of their jobs. What I have to say here actually pertains to all social studies educators as well as educators in other fields (minus the references to social science content). My efforts are inspired by the work of Alan Tom. He wrote a paper many years ago which gives us a useful language as to the basic options these educators have as they address their subject matter. His paper identifies four basic goal oriented approaches. He arrives at these four orientations by posing two questions: What type of issues should social studies' lessons emphasize? And, what type of knowledge should social studies' lessons emphasize? Let me explain.

In terms of the first question, Tom offers two options. They are descriptive issues and proscriptive issues. An educator who chooses descriptive issues feels his/her main goal in the classroom is to present to students the content his/her subject offers in describing reality, either as it is now or how it used to be. On the other hand, an educator who chooses proscriptive issues feels that his/her main responsibility is to have students deal with visions – or ideals – of what reality should be or should have been. To give analogous expectations, if we want to be told about how the world is, we might turn to journalists, but if we want to get some take on how the world should be, we might turn to a minister. So one can view this choice as one in which an educator decides whether he/she is more like a reporter or a priest. My experience tells me that most teachers view themselves more like a reporter than a rabbi.

In terms of the second question – with what type of knowledge should his/her students be concerned – there are two options: product and process. Those who choose product see themselves imparting conclusions; for example, Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 or cleanliness is close to Godliness. Of course, these examples are offered only to illustrate the type of knowledge this choice entails; we would hope that teachers and material developers who choose product select more powerful conclusions. For those educators who choose process, their lessons would emphasize having students learn those processes by which conclusions are derived. This educator is not so interested in imparting content of the subject matter – its conclusions – but on how that content is discovered or reasoned.

With these two questions answered, the educator falls into one of four categories. I want to point out that these categories are ones of emphasis. By claiming an educator is of one orientation is not to say that he/she does not venture into one of the other orientations. It simply means, he/she will, through instruction or materials, dedicate more effort and concern over the demands associated with the category he/she favors. Let's look at each of the four categories.

• Descriptive/Product: This educator will emphasize the facts, concepts, generalizations, theories, etc. of his/her subject matter. He/she will want to make sure that he/she is imparting the subject's substantive content. Descriptive/Product in civics or social studies calls for an emphasis on understanding social phenomena. This, of course, will be calibrated so as to meet the sophistication of the students. In terms of the challenge this choice presents to the teacher, he/she needs to be able to gauge sufficiently well the level of abstract thinking his/her students can handle successfully. This is not easily done, especially in a class with more than twenty students, but that is the life of a public school teacher. Of the four categories, my experience tells me that most educators hold this orientation.
• Descriptive/Process: This choice calls for civics and social studies educators to have their students engage in research projects or lessons to become familiar with and practice the protocols of social scientists. This opens up lessons to a wide variety of activities that students could perform. This could include survey research, experiments, analysis of historical documents, analysis of gathered data from such sources as the US Census or opinion survey services. Here, the emphasis is on the methods by which understanding of social phenomena can be formed.
• Proscriptive/Product: This category includes those teachers who want to instill the values of some reference group. The reference group could be one that promotes religious views on morality, a political ideology, or an agenda of some interest group or faction. This promotion can vary from messaging that is direct and unambiguous or it can take the form of more subtle approaches. The methods used in this category can also include practices educators call the “hidden curriculum.” To give you a simple example, the use of bells in school reinforces the value of punctuality along with providing the practical signaling of classes beginning and ending.
• Proscriptive/Process: Educators who fall into this category will emphasize lessons in which his/her students engage in techniques of valuing. The main effort is to have students develop mental processes that employ logic as students are called on to reason through value dilemmas. As opposed to Proscriptive/Product category, this approach does not aim at having students incorporate a set of moral or political perspectives. Instead, students are to develop their own values over situations in which costs will be incurred by whatever choices they make in the dilemmas they are presented. The students are expected to defend their choices and to show consistency as the teacher questions the student. This approach is often compared with what is known as the Socratic Method.

I present these categories with parents in mind. If you are a parent, hopefully these categories will help you ask questions of the social studies teachers to whom your children are assigned in school. Remember, the categories are not exclusive designations. They simply identify the possible orientations which teachers will tend to favor. All teachers, for the most part, exhibit some of the traits associated with each of these options. For example, I can't think of a teacher who would not promote honesty as a value students should hold, but that does not mean these teachers fall within the proscriptive/product option. To determine where a teacher stands in relation to these categories, a parent would have to ask the teacher a set of appropriate questions. The effort to do so can be useful in understanding the teacher's philosophy. The parent will be more disposed to understanding the teacher's expectations. The same can be said of a parent reviewing the textbook used in civics or other social studies classes. What is interesting and possibly counterproductive occurs when there is a teacher coming from one orientation using a text based on another orientation. In most social studies classes, at least in public schools, teachers don't choose the textbook they use. They simply are given the text and have to coordinate their efforts with the structure, content, and activities the text contains. What usually happens is that the teacher simply follows the orientation of the text. As a matter of fact, most teachers view their jobs through the prism of one of these orientations, usually Descriptive/Product, and are unaware that a choice has been made.

COUNTING ON OUR PRINCIPALS

There was a delightful story on the TV show, Sunday Morning (June 1), describing the workings of “one room” schoolhouses in today's America. Apparently, there are quite a few of these around the country. They're limited to rural areas. They are situated in schoolhouses, small in size, big enough to service up to, roughly, thirty students. One teacher runs the show – no principal, no counselor, no registrar; you get the picture. One of the teachers interviewed says she has a teacher's meeting with herself where there is pure agreement with any decisions that are made. What I found most appealing about this approach to education was the absence of bureaucracy. Not only are decisions readily made, but students are not exposed to an officious staff who are there to meet impersonal job roles. They are, instead, exposed to expectations that regular schools do not provide – such as cleaning up the place. While we are talking about only one relatively small building and a limited staff per school, this is not education on the cheap. One room schools are just as expensive to run, on a per student basis, as regular school settings are. As has always been the case, these classrooms have various grade levels in the one class and the students have the same teacher, assuming there is no turnover, year after year. A student who goes through the experience, as indicated by the one student interviewed who did and is now in a regular high school, got just as rigorous a course of study as in a regular school. An interesting aspect of this type of learning is that students eavesdrop on lessons that are meant for older students and, by so doing, get useful hints as to what awaits them in the years to come. The one aspect that seems to be a drawback is, once a student finishes eight years of the one room setting, he or she is thrown into a regular high school with thousands of students. This calls for the student to go through an adjustment period.

Could such an arrangement be tried in large cities? Perhaps the district can convert an ample sized apartment, such as a city situated doctors' office, to accommodate twenty or so students. The “school” can service the kids of the neighborhood who can, in turn, readily walk to school. Such an effort would have to be manned by specially trained teachers. Perhaps keeping track of students, on the district level, would be a nightmare. But the students have the potential to form meaningful bonds with the same teacher over the years. Oftentimes, inner city kids lack this kind of adult relationship. They can potentially identify with that teacher and become close, and this, in turn, can add motivation for the student to do well – to please this nurturer. Will such an arrangement work? I think it is something to think about and perhaps worth trying in limited numbers.

The Sunday Morning story reminded me of a bit of advice I have voiced in this blog several times. There are no “silver bullets” out there that will fix what's wrong with education. Education is a complex business. But Americans seem to be determined to find that silver bullet. So if one reform needs to be tried, then let me take a stab at it. It's fun to think in these terms and perhaps what is suggested here offers some insight into what set of changes should be implemented.

I asked myself: what one educational factor, if changed, would have the most effect on schooling? Most people would point to teachers. As a former teacher, believe me, I do not underestimate the value of a good teacher. But in terms of having the most impact on this institution, I look to the principal.

The leader at a school site, if allowed to be a leader, I believe could have the most effect on how a school is run – either for better or worse. But if the principal becomes the focus of our change efforts, how should we conceive of that position? Regardless of what changes we are willing to try, I believe how we view principals has to be changed. But such changes need to be done in the right context. First, let me state that whatever exact changes are made, parent, teacher, and community representatives should be brought in to discuss those changes. I envision changes being entailed in the contract a principal would sign; they would be spelled out as the exact job description and listing of expectations. What I am offering here is a broad outline of what the principal-ship should look like.

A principal's contract should reflect the demands of a particular school and the community the principal serves. Any school, no matter what the income level of the families served are or other resources the school has, should aim at having the vast majority of its graduates go to college. Why? Because of the demands of our economy. Without a college education today, chances are that an individual will be stuck with employment that will not provide a reasonable level of income to support a family and allow the person to prepare for an adequate retirement. So if this is a general condition, for each school, those charged with hiring a principal should develop, as part of a contract, criteria for judging a school's effectiveness along the lines of this overall goal and the population the school serves. Further, these criteria should be analyzed so that performance can be measured with high levels of sophistication over a five year period, the life of the contract, so that evaluators can see whether the school improves at a reasonable rate. Short of that, this progress should be reasonably measurable on a yearly basis so that a principal can receive formative evaluations that point out where a principal needs to improve. Of course, if a yearly evaluation points to a situation in which the school is seriously heading in the wrong direction, then it can be used to justify dismissing the principal before the five year contract period is completed.

With that, the process of interviewing candidates for the position can begin. Questions asked of these prospective principals should concern how that person sees him/herself and the school staff advancing the school's performance toward the identified aims. The candidate should be able to give a good developmental picture of how progress will occur and what state the school will be in after the five years are over. The prospective principal should be able to describe and explain his/her approach to the job as a detailed philosophy he/she would bring to the position.

Once hired, a principal should be given a great deal of autonomy. The person should be able to hire the staff, beginning with the assistant principals – this responsibility is something school district officials like to hold onto in order to reward or punish administrators throughout the district. Oftentimes, assistant principal positions are given to those incompetents whom district officials don't know where to place. The principal can then hire the teachers he/she feels would help in meeting the aims outlined for the school. While the supply of teachers, at any given time, limits the choices a principal has, he/she can look for, as best he/she can, those prospective teachers who buy into the philosophy the principal has. The conditions of employment for teachers and staff members should include the provision that continued employment is contingent on performing in accordance with the principal's philosophy. Why do I emphasize this element? I see this aspect as a way to promote, if not guarantee, consistency in the experiences the students have in the different classes they attend. Enhancing the consistency that students experience, I believe, is critical to successful instruction but is often disregarded in running schools. I will explain why shortly.

I believe the success of any school would be enhanced by running the school according to federalist principles. But that's me. While I cannot claim that that is the only way to meet success, I do believe that creating a viable community among administrators, teachers, other staff members, students, and parents increases the probabilities that the school will meet expectations of all of its stakeholders. From personal experience, I believe my high school was run by such an approach though the word federalist probably did not occur to any of the people involved. While I was there, that school was successful even though the income level of the school was not very high. It was a Catholic school, so one can consider the school having a built-in unifying philosophy – at least as compared to most public high schools. And while all of the teachers did not belong to the religious order that ran the school, most did. They were members of the order's regional district and were trained in the same teacher training facilities. They followed the philosophy of the founder of the order and reflected also the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas. My point is, there was consistency in the instruction I received and I, therefore, never questioned the legitimacy of any one teacher. But if a student is meeting up with inconsistency, then when challenged, it becomes too easy for that student to question what a teacher is trying to do. Consistency means that expectations range within limited boundaries. It guards against some teacher being too easy and others being too unreasonably hard. It also helps in establishing the guidelines by which teachers can be evaluated. A student, under this mode, knows what's up. Let me be clear; I am not saying teachers have to agree or believe a particular political view or ideology or agree on social issues. As a matter of fact, diversity in these areas is probably preferred. But in terms of educational philosophy, agreement should be sought.

After the five years, the principal's contract is up and the person, if he/she wants to continue, goes through the process again. Others should be allowed to vie for the position, but an incumbent would probably have an advantage, assuming the identified aims and goals set out five years before have been reasonably met. A change of principal can be very disruptive – given a change at the top could lead to mass changes in the school's personnel. But opening up the process to this degree could protect a community from being stuck with a person who is not performing sufficiently well.

Under this system, other considerations, in terms of prospective principals, should be kept in mind. The person should see being a principal as a lifelong position, not as a step toward a “downtown” job. In order to facilitate this, a bonus system could add incentives. If the school is performing according to predetermined goals and aims, the principal should be given generous bonuses over the years this is accomplished. The district might also consider a bonus lump sum designated for the school so that the principal can distribute it among the staff as he/she sees fit. The district should be on guard against cheating or fudging the numbers. Outside evaluators should be used. This form of compensation would add a degree of power the principal can use to motivate staff and give, for example, a teacher a more tangible sense if he or she is doing a good job.

So, this is how I would change this one factor – my silver bullet. Would it be enough? Short of a comprehensive approach to solving school problems, I do believe addressing the way we look and treat principals would have the most “bang” for our efforts. On what expertise do I base this position? Twenty-five years of classroom experience and a few graduate level courses in administration inform my thinking, but that doesn't make me an expert. What I do feel fairly certain about is that a principal, more than any other person on a secondary school campus, does establish the tone and mood of that school. I have had good principals and I have had awful principals and all of my co-workers knew the difference.