When It Comes to the Teacher Shortage

 When It Comes to the Teacher Shortage, Who’s Abandoning Whom?

 former dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto and the global director of leadership for New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (deep-learning.global). Joanna Rizzotto is an alternative education teacher in Wisconsin and the creator of the Educators Amplified podcast.

Teacher resignations are common knowledge these days. It’s like COVID itself. Nearly everyone personally knows a teacher or knows of teachers who have left in the past year—often abruptly. These days, students often have different teachers, unqualified substitutes—more and more schools are stress zones. It seems like no one wants to be a teacher anymore.

Some see the current situation as a function of the carpet-bombing effects of the pandemic that have been visited upon schools. Relentless, unbearable, ever-worsening pressures make it impossible, some say, for even the most dedicated teachers to remain. What if we were to say that the structural cracks had been there for some time. Like a Florida condominium or London’s Grenfell Tower collapse was inevitable—just a matter of time and additional stress that became the last straw.

Most teachers—from the days of the one-room schoolhouse to the larger contemporary schools—came into teaching to connect with, inspire, and guide students through their growth and development. Over the years, schools became less and less valued by students, while the mandated ‘fixes’ demoralized teachers. Schooling became more boring or alienating for the majority of students as they moved up the grade levels.

The system was held together by external props—standardized tests, fixed requirements about when and where teaching should occur, and micromanagement of everyone. Shaming, naming, and blaming may garner compliance but does nothing to assist learning. Judgment and fear are consistently used as motivators. While some schools did manage, the system as a whole became less and less effective.

Prior to the pandemic, most students and teachers had already become less and less enthusiastic about their daily fare. All along, system actions tended to be one-offs. Leaders overlooked making the system itself more supportive. Now that the system is creaking badly, and blame is being cast in all directions, people at all levels are being forced to go beyond healthy limits.

The pandemic has helped to reveal fundamental weaknesses about the failure of schooling. One way or another, change is inevitable. We see two possible pathways. One is to allow societal forces to run their course. If we do this, it is almost certain that artificial intelligence or machine learning will dominate. Andy Hargreaves and I called this the Business Capital model wherein technological innovation and capital investments drive what happens. Teachers are there, but they are fewer in number and are in service of the machines and those who develop them. No one has to “cause” this model to dominate. It is already embedded into our economy and its investments. To the extent that there is a driver, it is big business.

The alternative pathway is to change the system—not to tinker but to transform it. We call this path the Humanity-Based model in which all students become “good at learning and good at life”; where “belonging, purpose, individual and collective problem solving” is fostered; and “where students know that improving society for themselves and others is essential to well-being and indeed to the future of humanity.” The “human condition” is the focus of this model.

In the meantime, if quality teaching is lacking, if students are insufficiently motivated, if inequality continually worsens, are individual teachers and students to blame or is the existing system the problem? Who is abandoning whom? Our conclusion is that the old, deeply flawed system has de facto abandoned the teachers, not the other way around. We continue to try to patch up a flawed system with segmented ideas. The calls for greater diversity, increased teacher pay, better teacher preparation and professional development (while needed and necessary) won’t amount to much in a bad system. We need to shift our understanding and energy to developing a new system where both new learning and technology develop in tandem.

The business-capital model with its digital ubiquity is the most likely outcome because it operates as a kind of “invisible hand” in a society that does not have counter forces favoring an alternative. We believe that most people do not want digital domination. While teachers and their students are bearing the brunt of our current outdated system, there are people across the system who want what we have called humanity-based learning.

The good news is that we might know more about how to do this than we realize. Ironically, the answer may be found in those educators who decided to stay. What are these remaining teachers who are connected with students doing? What are the teachers who are feeling balanced and not burnt out doing? Chances are, that it’s humanity-based.

When a system is wrong, it’s wrong all over. School districts complain about compliance overload, which of course redounds to schools. Equity gets siloed, local initiative restricted, and intrinsic motivation lessens. The more anxious central leaders become and the more money they have, the more they lay on a cornucopia of distractors that become fatal for coherent system transformation.

By contrast, a humanity-based model facilitates transformation as schools and communities experience greater local autonomy and lateral learning and gain capacity to be influential upward. In the present model, schools are not in a position to benefit from the growing knowledge of innovations and effective practices that can be found in some other schools and districts and in research and innovation such as SoLD (the Science of Learning Development) and in our own New Pedagogies for Deep Learning.

So, how do we get there? If we know anything about complex change, it is that it must be addressed through joint determination by those in authority and those in the situation where the problems lie. Many leaders would say they believe in getting input and they foster participation in decisions. But their actions in a hierarchical leadership structure are a far cry from actually working together on the solutions.

This brings us to those educators who decided to stay despite or maybe even because of the pandemic. They may represent the first building blocks of a new system. Yes, upon returning this year, they may be more adamant about what they are not going to do. Perhaps they will not be as willing to sub or voluntarily serve on committees outside of paid hours. They may choose to use all of their personal time, prefer virtual meetings, and want to work flexibly with their students. But we also detect, more than ever, a strong child-advocate theme. Teachers are concerned about the world that students are experiencing and feel called to be positive and protective on their behalf. Teachers have abandoned the old system, but the truth is that they never left their calling.

A just released study from Australia analyzed 65,000 news articles about teachers covering the last 25 years. The headline: “No wonder no one wants to be a teacher.” The author drew three conclusions: “We are fixated on teacher quality,” “teacher work is made out to be simple (it’s not),” and “teacher bashing is the norm.”

Our future, our very survival as a species, depends on human and social development. We need machines, and they are ever more powerful. But they are not powerful enough to save our planet. We need the ingenuity, hope, and drive of humans—groups and collectives.

You can’t fix what you don’t understand. Most people don’t understand how the current system is at fault. Decide to create a new, different, better system. Put it in motion. Do it in partnership with teachers, parents, communities, and students. When students and teachers come to feel that they are a big part of the solution, no one will feel abandoned!

You’re an Educator. What Can You Stop Doing This Year?

When people ask us how our jobs as teachers or leaders are going, how school is going, our go-to response is typically, “I’m busy,” or, “Things are busy,” or “It’s just really busy.” You get the idea, right? However, if you do a search online, you will find conflicting information about whether we are truly busier than we have been in the past.

For example, these articles from the Atlantic and BBC suggest we are not as busy (yes, they were published before the pandemic). This article from Psychology Today suggests that during the height of the pandemic, we were busier than ever because of Zoom meetings being scheduled to keep up with the changing nature of the pandemic, and this one from Canadian Business (also before the pandemic) says we are definitely busier than before.

Regardless of what the articles may say, many of us feel busier than we have been in the past, even if we are looking at the past before the pandemic with rose-colored glasses. What we really need to do is not get caught up in debating whether we are busy, but instead, we need to focus on making sure as we move forward to reduce or replace the actions, strategies, or initiatives that are no longer impactful.

A Focus on De-implementation

A few months ago, I published a book called De-implementation: Creating The Space to Focus on What Works (Corwin Press), and from the time I was researching the book to now as I write this post, I have engaged in workshops, coaching sessions, and one-on-one conversations with educators who are looking at engaging in actions in the new school year that are more impactful, at the same time they make space to spend more time at home with loved ones or friends.

De-implementation is the abandonment of low-value practices (van Bodegom-Vos L, et al.). What I suggest in the work I do around de-implementation is that there are two ways to look at the idea of abandonment.

One way to view abandonment is to partially cut back on something. This usually happens because we are required to do it, but we can pull back to meet our needs. The second way to view abandonment is to replace the action because it is just not working for us.

Additionally, to scale down or replace can be slightly complicated, so I am suggesting that there are two methods of de-implementation. One is an informal reduction or replacement, for which we don’t need a team to make the decision and can begin today or tomorrow. The second method is a formal replacement or reduction for which we do need a team and to engage in a process that will take time and some effort.

I have had the opportunity since last year to survey more than a few thousand educators, which includes teachers, leaders, school psychologists, and many others, and I decided to look at the top areas that they would like to partially pare down or replace. The following are the examples of reduction or replacement that came up the most. A few of these are also covered in my book on the topic.

As always with a list, something you would replace or scale back may not be on my list, so connect with me on social media to let me know where you would begin the process.

Partially Cutting Back

Email – This example comes up all the time, and I focused on it in the book as well. People need to set boundaries over when and how often they check email.

Meetings – Just like in a few of the articles above, we seem to find ourselves in meetings for meetings’ sake. It’s time to reduce the number of meetings and make sure we start those meetings by developing success criteria. Here’s a YouTube video that helps describe what that might look like.

Assessments – Teachers have consistently told me that they will reduce the number of assessments they give to their students because they don’t always have time to grade them or learn from those assessments anyway. They want to give fewer assessments so they can build in more time to learn from student responses.

The time spent after school – Many teachers have said that they would like to spend less time in their classrooms after school. Teachers shouldn’t feel that they have to spend countless hours after school, unless of course, they want to or are engaging in deeply meaningful actions while they are there.

Fewer walk-throughs – This has been a huge topic of interest. Walk-throughs can be impactful if we engage in them correctly (check out this YouTube video on the topic). Unfortunately, whether it’s due to a directive or a lack of knowledge of the purpose of walk-throughs, some leaders are doing them just to say they do them. Leaders are reducing the number of walk-throughs so they can be more purposeful with their approach.

What Educators Are Replacing

Zero-tolerance policies – School districts are moving away from zero-tolerance policies that can be harmful and discriminatory and moving toward more equitable approaches such as restorative justice. This would be under the umbrella of formal de-implementation because it takes time.

Traditional grading – As another example of a formal de-implementation due to the time it takes to do it right, schools are replacing traditional grading with standards-based grading.

Traditional meetings – Educators responded on surveys that they are replacing agenda-driven meetings with more of a flipped process in which they can learn from one another around a challenge they are facing in their school or district. The collective leader efficacy process can help with the goal of having more purposeful meetings.

Time in their office – There has always been a struggle for leaders when it comes to leaving their offices. The balance between engaging in management actions as opposed to instructional leadership is often a complicated journey. Leaders, instructional coaches, and teachers on special assignments are scheduling time in their calendars to get into classrooms and learn from students.