Posted by Slim
Posted on Teacher Magazine's Web Watch by Amanda Jones
Despite continuing concerns about school safety, some state lawmakers are questioning zero-tolerance policies on weapons, alcohol, and drugs in schools, saying they can unfairly punish students who have harmless intentions. “A machete is not the same as a butter knife. A water gun is not the same as a gun loaded with bullets,” says former school board member and Rhode Island Sen. Daniel Issa, who is sponsoring a bill that would allow school districts in his state to decide punishments for student violations on a case-by-case basis. Stories of the no-tolerance laws gone too far are widespread. For example, according to the Associated Press, a Rhode Island kindergartener was suspended after bringing a plastic knife to school to cut cookies. Ditto for a Utah student who gave his cousin some cold medicine. Utah recently changed its drug policy so that asthmatic students were allowed to carry inhalers. The American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, and some parents have spoken out against zero-tolerance policy. “You’re dealing with individuals,” said Christine Duckworth, a mother of a recently graduated high school student in Rhode Island. “How can you possibly apply one law to every single person and their circumstances?”
June 25, 2007
Help Wanted
Posted by Slim
Posted in Teacher Magazine's Web Watch by Elizabeth Rich
A combination of strong forces, including baby boomer retirements and increased career options for women, is creating growing teacher shortages around the nation, says a Washington Post story. Some three quarters of the country's public school teachers are women, but research indicates that the number of women who pursue teaching after college, as well as their class rankings, has declined sharply since the 1960’s. “It’s not that you don’t have some terrifically talented people going into teaching," says Richard J. Murname, a Harvard economist who has studied the teaching profession. "The issue is you don’t have enough. And many are the most likely to leave teaching, because they have lots of other opportunities.” Compounding school recruiters' difficulties is the NCLB's highly qualified teacher mandate, which has tightened requirements for entering the profession.
Posted in Teacher Magazine's Web Watch by Elizabeth Rich
A combination of strong forces, including baby boomer retirements and increased career options for women, is creating growing teacher shortages around the nation, says a Washington Post story. Some three quarters of the country's public school teachers are women, but research indicates that the number of women who pursue teaching after college, as well as their class rankings, has declined sharply since the 1960’s. “It’s not that you don’t have some terrifically talented people going into teaching," says Richard J. Murname, a Harvard economist who has studied the teaching profession. "The issue is you don’t have enough. And many are the most likely to leave teaching, because they have lots of other opportunities.” Compounding school recruiters' difficulties is the NCLB's highly qualified teacher mandate, which has tightened requirements for entering the profession.
$7 Billion Is Projected Cost of Teacher Turnover
Posted by Slim
Education Week
Schools Have No Handle on $7 Billion Cost of Teacher Turnover, Study Finds
By Vaishali Honawar
Teacher turnover is “spiraling out of control” and is estimated to have cost the nation more than $7 billion in the 2003-04 school year alone, asserts a report released today.
The study from the Washington-based National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future says that despite the staggering expense, virtually no school district now has systems in place to track or control such turnover.
The last attempt to put a price tag on teacher attrition, long acknowledged as a resource drain, was a 2005 report from the Washington-based Alliance for Excellent Education, which came up with the more modest but still hefty estimate of $4.9 billion.
NCTAF officials say their figure of $7.3 billion is higher because it is based on an increased teacher workforce and a slightly higher attrition rate.
Tom Carroll, the president of NCTAF, said that since the time period covered in the alliance’s survey, the teacher-turnover rate has grown from 16 percent to 17 percent—an increase that is significant given the size of the 3.4 million teacher workforce. For this report, NCTAF defined turnover as teachers who leave a district.
Also, he said, earlier studies have not been based on detailed analyses of actual cost data from districts. Researchers for this report closely examined data for five school districts to come up with the extrapolated national figure of $7.3 billion.
Turnover costs for the five districts studied ranged from $4,366 per teacher who left the rural district of Jemez Valley, N.M., to $17,872 per teacher in Chicago. Chicago spends $86 million on turnover each year. Other districts studied include Granville County, N.C., which spent $9,875, and Milwaukee, which spent $15,325. The cost for Santa Rosa, N.M., was unavailable.Turnover costs were typically based on expenses incurred to recruit, hire, and train teachers.
“Often, it is the high-risk schools that are recruiting and replacing teachers all the time,” Mr. Carroll said. While the dollar cost is significant, he added, what is even worse is that students at such schools do not get the benefit of a stable, experienced teacher workforce.
Solutions Offered
The report makes several recommendations, including a call for the federal government to make the retention of highly effective teachers a focus of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is up for reauthorization this year, and amending the law to hold school leaders accountable for teacher turnover and its costs. Each state and local education agency should be required to report publicly the distribution of qualified teachers, average years of teaching experience in each school, the annual rate of principal and teacher attrition, and the cost of that attrition for each school that it serves, it adds.
It also lays out a series of steps that districts can take to combat attrition: Measure turnover and its costs and then devise a comprehensive human-resource strategy to combat it; invest in comprehensive induction programs; and foster a school culture in which new and experienced teachers work together to improve student achievement.
The report provides an online calculator for districts and schools to estimate their own teacher-turnover costs.
The study includes a handful of examples of districts that have used some or all those steps, with notable success.
For instance, in Clark County, Nev., the fastest-growing district in the country, school officials in the 2002-03 school year used a federal grant to implement a pilot project at 12 schools that had especially high turnover rates—the average teacher tenure at these schools was just 1.9 years. Principals were given a head start in the hiring process and could choose teachers who fit their school improvement plans. The pilot also offered full-time mentoring and slightly higher pay to new teachers.
Three years on, the schools have a teacher-retention rate of between 85 percent and 95 percent, and the program is now being expanded to 27 schools.
Mr. Carroll said that the example of the Clark County district, which includes Las Vegas, offers hope to other districts weighed down by the cost of teacher turnover.
“The good news is that when districts address this problem and take it on directly, when they start to invest in better-prepared teachers and offer them strong support, they can see progress,” he said. “It’s a solvable problem.”
Education Week
Schools Have No Handle on $7 Billion Cost of Teacher Turnover, Study Finds
By Vaishali Honawar
Teacher turnover is “spiraling out of control” and is estimated to have cost the nation more than $7 billion in the 2003-04 school year alone, asserts a report released today.
The study from the Washington-based National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future says that despite the staggering expense, virtually no school district now has systems in place to track or control such turnover.
The last attempt to put a price tag on teacher attrition, long acknowledged as a resource drain, was a 2005 report from the Washington-based Alliance for Excellent Education, which came up with the more modest but still hefty estimate of $4.9 billion.
NCTAF officials say their figure of $7.3 billion is higher because it is based on an increased teacher workforce and a slightly higher attrition rate.
Tom Carroll, the president of NCTAF, said that since the time period covered in the alliance’s survey, the teacher-turnover rate has grown from 16 percent to 17 percent—an increase that is significant given the size of the 3.4 million teacher workforce. For this report, NCTAF defined turnover as teachers who leave a district.
Also, he said, earlier studies have not been based on detailed analyses of actual cost data from districts. Researchers for this report closely examined data for five school districts to come up with the extrapolated national figure of $7.3 billion.
Turnover costs for the five districts studied ranged from $4,366 per teacher who left the rural district of Jemez Valley, N.M., to $17,872 per teacher in Chicago. Chicago spends $86 million on turnover each year. Other districts studied include Granville County, N.C., which spent $9,875, and Milwaukee, which spent $15,325. The cost for Santa Rosa, N.M., was unavailable.Turnover costs were typically based on expenses incurred to recruit, hire, and train teachers.
“Often, it is the high-risk schools that are recruiting and replacing teachers all the time,” Mr. Carroll said. While the dollar cost is significant, he added, what is even worse is that students at such schools do not get the benefit of a stable, experienced teacher workforce.
Solutions Offered
The report makes several recommendations, including a call for the federal government to make the retention of highly effective teachers a focus of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is up for reauthorization this year, and amending the law to hold school leaders accountable for teacher turnover and its costs. Each state and local education agency should be required to report publicly the distribution of qualified teachers, average years of teaching experience in each school, the annual rate of principal and teacher attrition, and the cost of that attrition for each school that it serves, it adds.
It also lays out a series of steps that districts can take to combat attrition: Measure turnover and its costs and then devise a comprehensive human-resource strategy to combat it; invest in comprehensive induction programs; and foster a school culture in which new and experienced teachers work together to improve student achievement.
The report provides an online calculator for districts and schools to estimate their own teacher-turnover costs.
The study includes a handful of examples of districts that have used some or all those steps, with notable success.
For instance, in Clark County, Nev., the fastest-growing district in the country, school officials in the 2002-03 school year used a federal grant to implement a pilot project at 12 schools that had especially high turnover rates—the average teacher tenure at these schools was just 1.9 years. Principals were given a head start in the hiring process and could choose teachers who fit their school improvement plans. The pilot also offered full-time mentoring and slightly higher pay to new teachers.
Three years on, the schools have a teacher-retention rate of between 85 percent and 95 percent, and the program is now being expanded to 27 schools.
Mr. Carroll said that the example of the Clark County district, which includes Las Vegas, offers hope to other districts weighed down by the cost of teacher turnover.
“The good news is that when districts address this problem and take it on directly, when they start to invest in better-prepared teachers and offer them strong support, they can see progress,” he said. “It’s a solvable problem.”
June 18, 2007
Punishing honest administrators and teachers while rewarding the dishonest
Posted by Slim
The temptation for administrators to cheat for the appearance of achievement instead of actually attaining it is too strong for some. When NCLB was first passed, a former principal told staff a mouthful stating, “Honest principals will be punished under these guidelines.” This coming from an administrator with a reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth revealed to some of us present what he would do if he wasn’t retiring soon.
As more cases of test taking fraud are coming to light such as reported in New York by Education Week in its story “N.Y. Authorities Probing Potential Test-Score Fraud”, many of us are aware this is just the tip of the iceberg. Creative manipulations include putting non ESL students in ESL classes to boost the scores and labeling bottom end students a grade level lower than they qualify so they won’t be in the tested pool only to be reestablished after the class is tested.
For fear of retribution, honest teachers and administrators keep silent lest the full weight of the system comes down on their heads. TeacherTalk Nevada wants to give you voice to reveal the creative manipulations while protecting the anonymity of educators. Think of us as an academic “Secret Witness.”
The temptation for administrators to cheat for the appearance of achievement instead of actually attaining it is too strong for some. When NCLB was first passed, a former principal told staff a mouthful stating, “Honest principals will be punished under these guidelines.” This coming from an administrator with a reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth revealed to some of us present what he would do if he wasn’t retiring soon.
As more cases of test taking fraud are coming to light such as reported in New York by Education Week in its story “N.Y. Authorities Probing Potential Test-Score Fraud”, many of us are aware this is just the tip of the iceberg. Creative manipulations include putting non ESL students in ESL classes to boost the scores and labeling bottom end students a grade level lower than they qualify so they won’t be in the tested pool only to be reestablished after the class is tested.
For fear of retribution, honest teachers and administrators keep silent lest the full weight of the system comes down on their heads. TeacherTalk Nevada wants to give you voice to reveal the creative manipulations while protecting the anonymity of educators. Think of us as an academic “Secret Witness.”
Teacher suggestions to fix NCLB should be considered according to new study
Posted by Slim
A 3-year Rand Study on the impact of NCLB in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania offers important insights from teachers that should be seriously considered by policy makers. Education Week’s report on the study, “Teachers Say NCLB Has Changed Classroom Practice” by Debra Viadero outlines several adjustments needed to maximize its accountability and minimize the negative, unintended classroom consequences.
The survey of teachers noted the benefits of focusing more on student learning, but pointed out higher achieving students were being short-changed by the strategy of getting the “bubble kids” (marginal students) over the proficiency line. The negative results on staff morale are likely a result of teachers being aware of other weak links such as the misalignment between testing and curriculum.
The article’s conclusion hit on the most pressing reform needed for NCLB, the need to measure student growth (value-added assessment):
“Studies also converged in finding widespread sentiment among educators for using accountability measures that gauge progress by the academic growth that students make, rather than by counting the percentages of students that reach state proficiency targets. Ms. Hamilton said teachers suggested such growth-model systems, besides giving them more credit for their hard work, might take the undue focus off the “bubble kids” in their classrooms.”
Until NCLB incorporates and gauges academic growth, AYP measures will remain arbitrary and a disservice to students, parents, and teachers alike. Valid growth-model systems will protect good teachers, effective methodology, and counter the “dumbing down” and race to the bottom among state definitions of proficiency.
A 3-year Rand Study on the impact of NCLB in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania offers important insights from teachers that should be seriously considered by policy makers. Education Week’s report on the study, “Teachers Say NCLB Has Changed Classroom Practice” by Debra Viadero outlines several adjustments needed to maximize its accountability and minimize the negative, unintended classroom consequences.
The survey of teachers noted the benefits of focusing more on student learning, but pointed out higher achieving students were being short-changed by the strategy of getting the “bubble kids” (marginal students) over the proficiency line. The negative results on staff morale are likely a result of teachers being aware of other weak links such as the misalignment between testing and curriculum.
The article’s conclusion hit on the most pressing reform needed for NCLB, the need to measure student growth (value-added assessment):
“Studies also converged in finding widespread sentiment among educators for using accountability measures that gauge progress by the academic growth that students make, rather than by counting the percentages of students that reach state proficiency targets. Ms. Hamilton said teachers suggested such growth-model systems, besides giving them more credit for their hard work, might take the undue focus off the “bubble kids” in their classrooms.”
Until NCLB incorporates and gauges academic growth, AYP measures will remain arbitrary and a disservice to students, parents, and teachers alike. Valid growth-model systems will protect good teachers, effective methodology, and counter the “dumbing down” and race to the bottom among state definitions of proficiency.
June 14, 2007
Washington Education Association tells the U.S. Supreme Court it has “no fiduciary responsibility to its members”
Posted by Slim
The CCEA and other NSEA affiliates don’t have a monopoly for arrogance and screwing its members. Local examples can be read at Teachers4change at www.teachers4change.net.
By being frankly honest in testimony before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the political use of dues, the Washington Education Association stated in no uncertain terms they do not have a fiduciary responsibility to its members. Their behavior reflects this attitude, admitting to multiple violations during a state investigation and was fined over $590,000 by a Thurston County court.
The WEA also had a rather bizarre concept of 1st Amendment rights, asserting their “collective” right to free speech overrode members & non-members “individual” free speech rights. You can read the Evergreen Freedom Foundations announcement below regarding today’s Supreme Court decision, which is a major step to protect teachers from abuses by teachers’ unions.
REMEMBER! The short window to drop NSEA and affiliate membership is coming soon. The drop period was for years July 1 to 15, but information is the CCEA has recently restricted it to July 1 to 11. Call your local to verify and you can get assistance from us at TeacherTalk NV, the Association of American Educators or from Teachers4change. How many of you were told you can join anytime, but can only drop membership during a short window?
Liability coverage for far less and providing more coverage is available with the Association of American Educators at www.aaeteachers.org.
The CCEA and other NSEA affiliates don’t have a monopoly for arrogance and screwing its members. Local examples can be read at Teachers4change at www.teachers4change.net.
By being frankly honest in testimony before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the political use of dues, the Washington Education Association stated in no uncertain terms they do not have a fiduciary responsibility to its members. Their behavior reflects this attitude, admitting to multiple violations during a state investigation and was fined over $590,000 by a Thurston County court.
The WEA also had a rather bizarre concept of 1st Amendment rights, asserting their “collective” right to free speech overrode members & non-members “individual” free speech rights. You can read the Evergreen Freedom Foundations announcement below regarding today’s Supreme Court decision, which is a major step to protect teachers from abuses by teachers’ unions.
REMEMBER! The short window to drop NSEA and affiliate membership is coming soon. The drop period was for years July 1 to 15, but information is the CCEA has recently restricted it to July 1 to 11. Call your local to verify and you can get assistance from us at TeacherTalk NV, the Association of American Educators or from Teachers4change. How many of you were told you can join anytime, but can only drop membership during a short window?
Liability coverage for far less and providing more coverage is available with the Association of American Educators at www.aaeteachers.org.
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
A Non-Profit Public Policy Organization
PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482, www.effwa.org
---------------------------
...Because Freedom Matters!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 14, 2007
Contact: Booker T. Stallworth, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482
Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented. The result was approved unanimously, but there were three partial concurring votes. The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was issued in a pair of consolidated cases, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (05-1589) and Washington v. Washington Education Association (05-1657)."
"We are elated that the U.S. Supreme Court has honored the First Amendment rights of teachers by overturning the state Supreme Court’s decision," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “The Court understood that the constitutional rights of teachers should be protected and are not superseded by the union’s statutory rights. This ruling will help protect non-member teachers from having their agency fees used on union politics against their will."
At issue in the case is a state statute that required labor organizations to get permission from nonmember workers before using mandatory dues for political purposes. “Nonmembers" are workers who have resigned from the union but are forced to pay collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment.
The WEA admitted to multiple violations during a state investigation and was fined over $590,000 by a Thurston County court.
The WEA later claimed in court that had no 'fiduciary responsibility' to its members and that the law unconstitutionally ‘burdened’ its free speech rights. The Washington Supreme Court agreed.
"The next step is to make sure the law is strongly enforced in state to ensure the WEA and other unions are in compliance. The WEA has been busily attempting to undermine the law while it was under Supreme Court review," Williams said.
Additional Information
For the most up-to-date information, photos, video, key documents related to the cases, and a weblog on the case, please visit www.teachers-vs-union.org.
###
A Non-Profit Public Policy Organization
PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482, www.effwa.org
---------------------------
...Because Freedom Matters!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 14, 2007
Contact: Booker T. Stallworth, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482
Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented. The result was approved unanimously, but there were three partial concurring votes. The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was issued in a pair of consolidated cases, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (05-1589) and Washington v. Washington Education Association (05-1657)."
"We are elated that the U.S. Supreme Court has honored the First Amendment rights of teachers by overturning the state Supreme Court’s decision," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “The Court understood that the constitutional rights of teachers should be protected and are not superseded by the union’s statutory rights. This ruling will help protect non-member teachers from having their agency fees used on union politics against their will."
At issue in the case is a state statute that required labor organizations to get permission from nonmember workers before using mandatory dues for political purposes. “Nonmembers" are workers who have resigned from the union but are forced to pay collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment.
The WEA admitted to multiple violations during a state investigation and was fined over $590,000 by a Thurston County court.
The WEA later claimed in court that had no 'fiduciary responsibility' to its members and that the law unconstitutionally ‘burdened’ its free speech rights. The Washington Supreme Court agreed.
"The next step is to make sure the law is strongly enforced in state to ensure the WEA and other unions are in compliance. The WEA has been busily attempting to undermine the law while it was under Supreme Court review," Williams said.
Additional Information
For the most up-to-date information, photos, video, key documents related to the cases, and a weblog on the case, please visit www.teachers-vs-union.org.
###
Empowerments success in Las Vegas: Teaching by ability level, not grade
Posted by Slim
There are two articles in the Las Vegas papers today about the success of empowerment schools. In addition to the key ingredient of empowering teachers in empowerment schools, such innovations as teaching students based on ability levels instead of chronological age appears to be extremely effective.
Teachers should be correctly concerned about the perversion of empowerment as a label to empower weak principals to micromanage instead of empowering secure principals to pass on the freedom to teachers.
Empowerment schools, if done right, could weed out the small minded administrative control freaks and replace them with true education leaders. I say only “could” because districts in Nevada have a natural inclination of twisting good ideas into merde.
Given the Peter Principal is the norm in school districts, the biggest challenge for empowerment is finding qualified principals, not teachers.
There are two articles in the Las Vegas papers today about the success of empowerment schools. In addition to the key ingredient of empowering teachers in empowerment schools, such innovations as teaching students based on ability levels instead of chronological age appears to be extremely effective.
Teachers should be correctly concerned about the perversion of empowerment as a label to empower weak principals to micromanage instead of empowering secure principals to pass on the freedom to teachers.
Empowerment schools, if done right, could weed out the small minded administrative control freaks and replace them with true education leaders. I say only “could” because districts in Nevada have a natural inclination of twisting good ideas into merde.
Given the Peter Principal is the norm in school districts, the biggest challenge for empowerment is finding qualified principals, not teachers.
June 11, 2007
Empowering teachers is the answer
Posted by Slim
The professional opportunities provided by empowerment convinced a Clark County teacher to remain in education as recently reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Antonio Planas reported in his June 9th article Switch is on to recharge schools that second-grade instructor Jacob Berg decided to stay in teaching because, “The authority given to teachers at Culley made Berg re-evaluate his career plans.” The deeper story behind the article and empowerment is the importance of the management approach taken in schools.
TeacherTalk Nevada has long said the micromanagement, one-sized fits all approach pursued by Nevada’s school districts under the pretext of meeting the NCLB standards does a disservice to students and teachers alike. The best and brightest teachers are leaving the profession while the NSEA and its affiliates remain silent about administration eroding teachers’ professional judgment and discretion.
The success of empowerment schools does not just rest with empowering the principal, but relies on the principal in turn empowering the entire staff, certified and classified alike. Good administrators who are confident and secure in themselves personally and professionally avoid the self-serving urge to micromanage. Modern management theory supports such an administrative style as being the most effective for organizations.
Douglas McGregor outlined in his 1960 management book The Human Side of Enterprise- Motivation Theory X and Y. Theory X is also known as the McDonald’s approach, a micromanagement model that successful companies, except fast food joints, have long ago rejected as they enter the 21st century. Theory Y has been accepted by the business world while public schools in Nevada race to embrace the obsolete Theory X.
As you read McGregor’s outline below of Theory X and Y, compare it to your own experiences as a teacher in Nevada. (source: http://www.envisionsoftware.com/Articles/TheoryX.html) Empowerment embraces Theory Y, which we as professional educators need to start articulating to each other, the public and the media.
The professional opportunities provided by empowerment convinced a Clark County teacher to remain in education as recently reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Antonio Planas reported in his June 9th article Switch is on to recharge schools that second-grade instructor Jacob Berg decided to stay in teaching because, “The authority given to teachers at Culley made Berg re-evaluate his career plans.” The deeper story behind the article and empowerment is the importance of the management approach taken in schools.
TeacherTalk Nevada has long said the micromanagement, one-sized fits all approach pursued by Nevada’s school districts under the pretext of meeting the NCLB standards does a disservice to students and teachers alike. The best and brightest teachers are leaving the profession while the NSEA and its affiliates remain silent about administration eroding teachers’ professional judgment and discretion.
The success of empowerment schools does not just rest with empowering the principal, but relies on the principal in turn empowering the entire staff, certified and classified alike. Good administrators who are confident and secure in themselves personally and professionally avoid the self-serving urge to micromanage. Modern management theory supports such an administrative style as being the most effective for organizations.
Douglas McGregor outlined in his 1960 management book The Human Side of Enterprise- Motivation Theory X and Y. Theory X is also known as the McDonald’s approach, a micromanagement model that successful companies, except fast food joints, have long ago rejected as they enter the 21st century. Theory Y has been accepted by the business world while public schools in Nevada race to embrace the obsolete Theory X.
As you read McGregor’s outline below of Theory X and Y, compare it to your own experiences as a teacher in Nevada. (source: http://www.envisionsoftware.com/Articles/TheoryX.html) Empowerment embraces Theory Y, which we as professional educators need to start articulating to each other, the public and the media.
Motivation Theory X
A Theory X manager makes the following general assumptions:
• Work is inherently distasteful to most people, who will attempt to avoid work whenever possible.
• Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to be directed.
• Most people have little capacity for creativity in solving organizational problems.
• Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
• Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and often coerced to achieve organizational objectives
• Most people resist change.
• Most people are gullible and not particularly intelligent.
Essentially, Theory X assumes that the primary source of most employee motivation is money, with security as a strong second.
Hard Approach | Soft Approach
Under Theory X, management approaches to motivation can range from a hard approach to a soft approach.
The hard approach to motivation relies on coercion, implicit threats, close supervision, and tight controls -- essentially an environment of command and control. The soft appoach is to be permissive and seek harmony with the hope that in return employees will cooperate when asked to do so. However, neither of these extremes is optimal. The hard approach results in hostility, purposely low-output, and hard-line union demands. The soft approach results in increasing desire for greater reward in exchange for diminishing work output.
It would appear that the optimal approach to human resource management would be lie somewhere between these extremes. However, McGregor asserts that neither approach is appropriate since the fundamental assumptions of Theory X are incorrect.
The Problem with Theory X
Drawing on Maslow's Needs Hierarchy, McGregor argues that a need, once satisfied, no longer motivates. Under Motivation Theory X, the firm relies on money and benefits to satisfy employees' lower needs, and once those needs are satisfied the source of motivation is lost. Theory X management styles, in fact, hinder the satisfaction of higher-level needs.
Consequently, the only way that employees can attempt to satisfy their higher level needs in their work is by seeking more compensation, so it is quite predictable that they will focus on monetary rewards. While money may not be the most effective way to self-fulfillment, in a Theory X environment it may be the only way. Under Theory X, people use work to satisfy their lower needs, and seek to satisfy their higher needs in their leisure time. Unfortunately, employees can be most productive when their work goals and higher level needs are in alignment.
McGregor makes the point that a command and control environment is not effective because it relies on lower needs as levers of motivation, but in modern society those needs already are satisfied and thus no longer motivate. In this situation, one would expect employees to dislike their work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in organizational goals, resist change, etc., thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. From this reasoning, McGregor proposed an alternative: Theory Y.
Motivational Theory Y
The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are continuing needs in that they are never completely satisfied. As such, it is these higher-level needs through which employees can best be motivated.
In strong contrast to Theory X, a Theory Y manager makes the following general assumptions:
• Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable.
• People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational objectives if they are committed to them.
• People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards are in place that address higher needs such as self-fulfillment.
• The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations.
• Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are common in the population.
• Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.
Under these assumptions, there is an opportunity to align personal goals with organizational goals by using the employee's own need for fulfillment as the motivator. McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft approach.
McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity assumed by Theory Y and therefore may need tighter controls that can be relaxed as the employee develops.
Applying Theory Y Management - Business Implications
If Theory Y holds true, an organization can use these principles of scientific management to improve employee motivation:
• Decentralization and Delegation - If firms decentralize control and reduce the number of levels of management, managers will have more subordinates and consequently will be forced to delegate some responsibility and decision making to them.
• Job Enlargement - Broadening the scope of an employee's job adds variety and opportunities to satisfy ego needs.
• Participative Management - Consulting employees in the decision making process taps their creative capacity and provides them with some control over their work environment.
• Performance Appraisals - Having the employee set objectives and participate in the process of evaluating how well they were met.
If properly implemented, such an environment would result in a high level of motivation as employees work to satisfy their higher level personal needs through their jobs.
A Theory X manager makes the following general assumptions:
• Work is inherently distasteful to most people, who will attempt to avoid work whenever possible.
• Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to be directed.
• Most people have little capacity for creativity in solving organizational problems.
• Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
• Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and often coerced to achieve organizational objectives
• Most people resist change.
• Most people are gullible and not particularly intelligent.
Essentially, Theory X assumes that the primary source of most employee motivation is money, with security as a strong second.
Hard Approach | Soft Approach
Under Theory X, management approaches to motivation can range from a hard approach to a soft approach.
The hard approach to motivation relies on coercion, implicit threats, close supervision, and tight controls -- essentially an environment of command and control. The soft appoach is to be permissive and seek harmony with the hope that in return employees will cooperate when asked to do so. However, neither of these extremes is optimal. The hard approach results in hostility, purposely low-output, and hard-line union demands. The soft approach results in increasing desire for greater reward in exchange for diminishing work output.
It would appear that the optimal approach to human resource management would be lie somewhere between these extremes. However, McGregor asserts that neither approach is appropriate since the fundamental assumptions of Theory X are incorrect.
The Problem with Theory X
Drawing on Maslow's Needs Hierarchy, McGregor argues that a need, once satisfied, no longer motivates. Under Motivation Theory X, the firm relies on money and benefits to satisfy employees' lower needs, and once those needs are satisfied the source of motivation is lost. Theory X management styles, in fact, hinder the satisfaction of higher-level needs.
Consequently, the only way that employees can attempt to satisfy their higher level needs in their work is by seeking more compensation, so it is quite predictable that they will focus on monetary rewards. While money may not be the most effective way to self-fulfillment, in a Theory X environment it may be the only way. Under Theory X, people use work to satisfy their lower needs, and seek to satisfy their higher needs in their leisure time. Unfortunately, employees can be most productive when their work goals and higher level needs are in alignment.
McGregor makes the point that a command and control environment is not effective because it relies on lower needs as levers of motivation, but in modern society those needs already are satisfied and thus no longer motivate. In this situation, one would expect employees to dislike their work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in organizational goals, resist change, etc., thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. From this reasoning, McGregor proposed an alternative: Theory Y.
Motivational Theory Y
The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are continuing needs in that they are never completely satisfied. As such, it is these higher-level needs through which employees can best be motivated.
In strong contrast to Theory X, a Theory Y manager makes the following general assumptions:
• Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable.
• People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational objectives if they are committed to them.
• People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards are in place that address higher needs such as self-fulfillment.
• The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations.
• Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are common in the population.
• Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.
Under these assumptions, there is an opportunity to align personal goals with organizational goals by using the employee's own need for fulfillment as the motivator. McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft approach.
McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity assumed by Theory Y and therefore may need tighter controls that can be relaxed as the employee develops.
Applying Theory Y Management - Business Implications
If Theory Y holds true, an organization can use these principles of scientific management to improve employee motivation:
• Decentralization and Delegation - If firms decentralize control and reduce the number of levels of management, managers will have more subordinates and consequently will be forced to delegate some responsibility and decision making to them.
• Job Enlargement - Broadening the scope of an employee's job adds variety and opportunities to satisfy ego needs.
• Participative Management - Consulting employees in the decision making process taps their creative capacity and provides them with some control over their work environment.
• Performance Appraisals - Having the employee set objectives and participate in the process of evaluating how well they were met.
If properly implemented, such an environment would result in a high level of motivation as employees work to satisfy their higher level personal needs through their jobs.
June 4, 2007
Teachers are the missing link in policy decisions
Posted by Slim
The voice of teachers is not heard in Carson City during education policy debates and decisions. Yes, the NSEA postures itself as being that voice, but many concerns of teachers are not addressed by the union as it pursues its own narrow political agenda at the expense of educators. As long as we let the NSEA get away with pretending to speak for teachers, the rhetoric in the Legislature will remain irrelevant to the realities we see in the classroom.
Susan Graham raises this issue in Teacher Magazine and recognizes the isolation faced by teachers, but glaringly omits the leading reason in her article “Why We Need Teachers at the Policy Table.”
Graham writes, “We have lacked a common voice. The immediacy of the needs of our students tends to isolate us in our classrooms and limit our access to our colleagues.”
Many of us see the NSEA and its local affiliates as well as the administration benefiting and contributing to that isolation. In her conclusion Graham also states:
• “Education and educators deserve serious nuanced conversations, not quick sound bites and catchy headlines.”
• “Teachers are willing and able to help with the heavy lifting of improving the quality of American education. But far too often we are left out of the discussion, or even perceived as dysfunctional cogs in the education system.”
Both are true and will remain true until we break from the union paradigm that is not appropriate to our field and negatively defines us in the eyes of the public. We will be treated as professionals with a seat at the policy table when we no longer let the NSEA misrepresent our concerns. A major step in that direction is provided by the Association of American Educators (AAE), a non-union professional organization.
The AAE describes itself at www.aaeteachers.org as:
“The Association of American Educators is the largest national, non-union, professional teacher
association, offering educators an alternative to partisan politics and non-educational agendas of the teacher labor unions.”
Because the AAE is not involved in spending members’ dues for partisan agendas, they provide greater liability coverage for far less cost. AAE membership is $150 per year in contrast to NSEA annual dues of $600. Keep in mind you can only drop NSEA membership from July 1 to 10 in Clark County and July 1 to 15 in the other 16 counties.
The sooner educators recognize the union is the biggest hurdle for getting the professional respect they deserve; the sooner we will have a respected voice in education with a seat at the policy table.
The voice of teachers is not heard in Carson City during education policy debates and decisions. Yes, the NSEA postures itself as being that voice, but many concerns of teachers are not addressed by the union as it pursues its own narrow political agenda at the expense of educators. As long as we let the NSEA get away with pretending to speak for teachers, the rhetoric in the Legislature will remain irrelevant to the realities we see in the classroom.
Susan Graham raises this issue in Teacher Magazine and recognizes the isolation faced by teachers, but glaringly omits the leading reason in her article “Why We Need Teachers at the Policy Table.”
Graham writes, “We have lacked a common voice. The immediacy of the needs of our students tends to isolate us in our classrooms and limit our access to our colleagues.”
Many of us see the NSEA and its local affiliates as well as the administration benefiting and contributing to that isolation. In her conclusion Graham also states:
• “Education and educators deserve serious nuanced conversations, not quick sound bites and catchy headlines.”
• “Teachers are willing and able to help with the heavy lifting of improving the quality of American education. But far too often we are left out of the discussion, or even perceived as dysfunctional cogs in the education system.”
Both are true and will remain true until we break from the union paradigm that is not appropriate to our field and negatively defines us in the eyes of the public. We will be treated as professionals with a seat at the policy table when we no longer let the NSEA misrepresent our concerns. A major step in that direction is provided by the Association of American Educators (AAE), a non-union professional organization.
The AAE describes itself at www.aaeteachers.org as:
“The Association of American Educators is the largest national, non-union, professional teacher
association, offering educators an alternative to partisan politics and non-educational agendas of the teacher labor unions.”
Because the AAE is not involved in spending members’ dues for partisan agendas, they provide greater liability coverage for far less cost. AAE membership is $150 per year in contrast to NSEA annual dues of $600. Keep in mind you can only drop NSEA membership from July 1 to 10 in Clark County and July 1 to 15 in the other 16 counties.
The sooner educators recognize the union is the biggest hurdle for getting the professional respect they deserve; the sooner we will have a respected voice in education with a seat at the policy table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
