All Hat, No Cattle
by Dr. Troyce Fisher, SAI Executive Director
That's the phrase one presenter at the
NAESP conference used to describe the empty promises embedded
in the high stakes testing movement that's sweeping the country.
Many administrators and platform and workshops speakers with whom
I visited at not only NAESP, but also NASSP and AASA are understandably
frustrated about wanting to balance the legitimate need to be
held accountable for reporting progress on student learning with
the growing legislative "solution" of believing accountability
can be reduced to a set of test scores.
As have many of you, I had a recent experience trying (operative
word, trying) to explain to a media person why ITBS and ITED scores
should not be the sole basis for measuring student progress, or
for judging teacher or administrator effectiveness. I said those
test scores are more a snapshot than a scrapbook (borrowing a
metaphor from a middle school principal I know).
I used another metaphor, this one from the medical field: "Would
you want your entire health status summarized by measuring only
your blood pressure?" (That one's a personal favorite, but
it didn't work any better than the scrapbook argument!) I used
an analogy from the world of sports: "How do you post times
for finishing a race, if some of the runners start 100 yards BEHIND
the start line?"
Nothing I offered seemed to have any effect on helping her see
a bigger picture. (And, to her credit, she really was sincere
about wanting to understand why so many educators balk at publishing
test scores.) Many of the arguments I used in that conversation
made administrators and teachers come off sounding like we want
to avoid our legitimate responsibility for ensuring that all students
learn at high levels. Obviously, nothing could be further from
the truth, but nonetheless, that's how it sounds.
Coincidentally, at the time I was struggling with that conversation,
I was reading a little book called The Tipping Point: How Little
Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell. The author
looks at how major changes in society, including ideas and behaviors,
often occur suddenly and unexpectedly. These "social epidemics"
often happen because there are certain people who have a way of
making ideas infectious. His hopeful conclusion is that one imaginative
person applying a well-placed lever can change the world. It's
an intriguing book, one that challenged me to wonder how it is
that we in the educational community can find that one metaphor,
that one strategy, that one argument, that one person (could that
be YOU?) who could start a social epidemic that would change the
growing trend in this country (and now in our state) to reduce
a student's learning to a finite number on any test.
Finding authentic ways to report student progress is a big challenge.
It's one that will continue to be central to conversations about
educational reform and administrator effectiveness in Iowa. (The
good news is that in Iowa we have a requirement for multiple measures
for assessing student progress; the bad news is the general public
will probably use ITBS/ITED scores to rate one school against
another.) SAI is committed to keeping student achievement at the
forefront of our mission, and at the same time helping our members
work with the public to avoid simplistic approaches to accountability.
If the phrase "all hat, no cattle" conveys the picture
of the superficiality of much of the testing movement, this one
from my father, who farmed for 60 years, might be equally as enlightening
to describe the manic approach to accountability we're experiencing
right now. He was fond of saying, "Just remember, no pig
ever got fat on the scale."
There's a tipping point in here somewhere. We'll keep looking.
Top
Blue Hair, Nose Rings and Exposed
Navels
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
To paraphrase Art Linkletter, kids wear the darnedest things!
As I write this, I feel really old. I sound like my grandmother.
"Turn down that so-called music!" "Put some clothes
on! You can't go out looking like that!" What is it about
kids and their clothing and music that so irritates and alienates
them from adults? More important, what is the judiciary saying
about our administrative colleagues' attempts around the country
to address dress and curtail tails?
The basics, of course, are found in Tinker. There the U.S. Supreme
Court found that although students in the public schools have
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, that
right is not absolute. The Court stressed that "undifferentiated
fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome
the right to freedom of expression." Nor can we discipline
students for or prohibit certain kinds of political speech "out
of a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that
always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." Reread those last
two passages. It's important that you understand the ideology
underlying them. On an exam I give in my School Law class, most
of my students think it's appropriate and constitutional to make
a kid remove a "KKK" jacket and invert a "White
Aryan Resistance" T-shirt. Almost invariably the students
cite as their reason the likelihood that these messages will offend
some or most students in the school.
If the speech is political (e.g., confederate flag, racial, religious
or anti-religious messages, or advocacy of a position on abortion
or AIDS or same-sex marriage, for example), we need to slow down
and take a deep breath. Before taking action, we must be able
to articulate why we believe allowing the student to wear that
button or T-shirt will cause a "material and substantial
disruption." And that's a disruption between and among students.
It is not, repeat NOT about being certain that the button or T-shirt
will offend someone. Of course it will! That's the (student's)
idea when wearing it.
That's political speech. We're to give it the greatest leeway
of any form of student speech. Not so with other kinds of speech,
particularly lewd, vulgar, or indecent speech. As in the "Big
Johnson" and "Coed Naked" t-shirts of recent years.
Many federal courts have spoken; we may prohibit students from
uttering or displaying this type of "speech" in the
public schools. Which reminds me of my favorite inappropriate
T-shirt anecdote. Tom Lane, assoc. supt. at Carlisle, used to
keep a spare T-shirt in his desk drawer and when a student came
wearing something off-color, he would offer to switch with them.
The T-shirt in Tom's drawer read "I Need Attention Today."
If student speech isn't vulgar or lewd, then in general, you may
only prohibit it or discipline for it if it causes a material
and substantial disruption to the school environment.
Is blue or purple hair a political statement? No. Neither is it
lewd or indecent. So if we can do anything about it, it has to
be either after a disruption has occurred or before, if we can
articulate a good faith belief that allowing it WILL cause a material
and substantial disruption to the school environment. Being afraid
that kids will tease a student or maybe decide to join him in
the blue or burgundy hair fad isn't a sufficient reason to ban
the blue or purple hair. You've got to do the old "gut check"
and ask yourself, "Am I playing 'Fashion Police' here? Or
is this reasonably likely to cause a substantial disruption if
I let it happen? If I think so, what makes me think so?"
I often hear the floodgates argument in these situations. "Gee,
if I let this kid wear his (blue, orange, purple, etc.) hair today,
tomorrow everyone will be wearing it that way." Frankly,
that's pretty unlikely. But if it were Dockers instead of blue
hair, would you be as concerned? I doubt it. So what it's really
about is disagreement over the appropriateness of this particular
fad. Kind of like our parents' disapproval of ducktail or Beatle
haircuts in the 50s and 60s. Or skin-tight jeans in the 70s. Or
reversed baseball caps in the 80s. (And 90s. And 00s. When WILL
that sucker die?) And the current Britney Spears wannabes who
dress as (pardon my characterization here) slut-puppies. These
fads are too popular and common to cause a disruption among the
student body. They're neither political statements nor lewd or
obscene. Just relax; this too shall pass . . .
Student Speech Primer:
Before we take a look at a couple of recent court cases, let's
revisit the basics.
o We can ban messages on clothing or accessories that are obscene,
indecent or lewd.
o We can prevent students from expression that defames individuals
or groups. But be careful: Defamation is more than just saying
something 'bad' about someone. I'm reminded of the kid in a North
Central Iowa school district that we'll just call "River
City," who didn't like his baseball coach, whom we'll call
Berra, so he had a T-shirt printed up with the following: "River
City High Baseball/ The Berra Years: 135-389" or some number
unflatteringly but accurately representing the coach's overall
win-loss record. The coach kicked the kid off the team because
of the T-shirt. Oops. Couldn't be defamation; it was true. Didn't
cause a material and substantial disruption; it just ticked off
the coaching staff. Fortunately, Dad didn't sue, but he was hopping
mad. (Remember: Today's kids are the sons and daughters of Tinker-Era
Parents. Folks who only know that "students have freedom
of speech" and who "understand" Tinker verrrry
broadly.) What "defames" individuals or groups? A federal
court upheld an Idaho school district's discipline of a student
who had a T-shirt made up showing his three administrators sitting
on a fence in cowboy attire drinking alcohol and obviously drunk.
o Not all student attire/symbols merit "freedom of expression."
An Illinois student who wore an upside-down cross earring and
was told to remove it or be suspended because it was a gang symbol
lost his suit because there was no particular "message"
conveyed by the earring. He testified he wore it to express his
"individuality," but the court said that message didn't
come across to everyone. Symbolic speech has to convey a particularized
message that is likely to be understood by most people in order
to be the kind of speech or expression protected by the First
Amendment.
o Not all gang symbols are subject to being forbidden. Just ask
the Davenport district, where a few short years ago a female student
came to school with a cross tattoo in the web between her thumb
and forefinger. Fearing it represented identification with a gang,
the administrator wisely contacted local law enforcement to ask
if a cross was a current gang symbol. Told that it was, the district
then told the young woman to remove the tattoo. She did, but she
also sued and won. The cross still has at least one other meaning
besides identification with a certain street gang.
o We can prohibit students from wearing clothing that advertises
products or services that are illegal to minors . But be careful
of those "Legalize Marijuana" t-shirts. They are at
least HALF political!
o We can enforce health and safety regulations that impact on
student attire. For example, we can temporarily prohibit the wearing
of jewelry (by boys and girls) in athletics or physical education
class, or (given the current fad of jewelry all over one's face)
even in lab classes or industrial technology/home arts classes
where one's head may be in close proximity to equipment of some
kind. We can require that long hair be piled up, in a ponytail,
or otherwise off the shoulders of a student engaging in sports
because of the safety issue, not the style issue. (The smarter
coach won't say a word to the player with the long or purple hair
or Mohawk; Coach just won't start or play that kid as much until
the hair returns to normal.)
Recent Case Law:
In Louisiana, following the passage of a statute giving school
districts the authority to adopt mandatory school uniforms, a
district conducted an experiment. They required students in some
of their schools to wear uniforms consisting of a choice of two
colors of polo or Oxford shirts and navy or khaki pants. (Organizations
donated clothing for kids who couldn't afford the uniforms, although
the court observed, "Because uniforms are [also] available
at inexpensive retail stores, it is hard to imagine how the purchase
of uniforms consisting of a certain color of shirt and pants could
be any more expensive than the normal cost of a student's school
clothes.") After discovering that test scores went up and
behavior problems went down in those schools, the board uniformly
mandated uniforms. (Sorry; I couldn't resist.) Parents sued. (Apparently
they couldn't resist, either.) Judge ruled for the school and
held that the students' First Amendment rights weren't violated
by a required code of dress. "The board's policy will pass
constitutional scrutiny if it furthers an important or substantial
government interest; if the interest is unrelated to the suppression
of student expression; and if the incidental restrictions on First
Amendment activities are no more than is necessary to facilitate
that interest." Applying that test to the facts of the case,
the court found:
o the board's purpose . . . is to increase test scores and reduce
disciplinary problems;
o this purpose is in no way related to the suppression of student
speech;
o although students are restricted from wearing clothing of their
choice at school, they remain free to wear what
they want after school hours. Students may still express their
views through other mediums during the school day."
A similar result occurred in Kentucky where the school board adopted
a dress code in some ways more restrictive than the one discussed
above. In that Code, tattoos and "unnatural" hair color
were prohibited, ears were the only permissible body piercing
location, and "NO: bagging, sagging, bibs, cargo denim, holes,
frays, jogging pants, rolled up pants, spandex, sweats, capri
pants, clam digger pants, biker pants or nylon material."
Girls' dresses and skirts had to pass "the Flamingo test"
(which I'd never heard of, but is conducted thusly: "Stand
with both feet flat on the floor. Lift one foot and bend the leg
at a 90 degree angle; the other
leg must remain straight. If the back of the skirt touches the
calf of the bent leg, the skirt is long enough.") Heck, I'm
not even sure I could do the Flamingo test, let alone pass it!
But it, along with the rest of a very specific dress code, passed
the "Constitutional test."
Side note: A few years ago, the Iowa legislature adopted the following
statute:
The board of directors of a school district may adopt, for the
district or for an individual school within the district, a dress
code policy that prohibits students from wearing gang-related
or other specific apparel if the board determines that the policy
is necessary for the health, safety, or positive educational environment
of students and staff in the school environment or for the appropriate
discipline and operation of the school. Iowa Code § 279.58.
It appears to me that this would be sufficient authority for some
brave school board to stick its toe in the School Uniform waters.
Any takers?
In March the Sixth Circuit decided "more information is necessary"
and reversed a district court decision that supported two three-day
suspensions of students for wearing T-shirts with a confederate
flag and Hank Williams, Jr.'s face on it. For the unenlightened
northerners among us, the Confederate flag is a symbol of resistance
and persistence to those who begrudge the loss of the Civil War.
To blacks, the same flag is a symbol of government-approved slavery
and a reminder of all things bad in their heritage. Over the past
several years, many southern schools have abandoned "Johnny
Reb" mascots and dumped their confederate flags out of respect
for the feelings of minority students. This particular school's
dress code prohibited clothing "with any illegal, immoral,
or racist implications." One day a boy and his girlfriend
wore matching Hank Williams, Jr. T-shirts (on Hank Sr.'s birthday),
and they were suspended for three days because they refused to
turn their shirts inside out. When they returned following the
suspension, guess what they were wearing! Uh-huh. That bought
them another 3 days. It will be a while before we know the outcome,
as the Sixth Circuit ordered the parties to provide more information,
such as whether the confederate flag has been singled out ("whether
the school board had selectively applied dress code to some racially
sensitive symbols but not others"). Stay tuned.
My favorite case from recent years involved the T-shirts of two
sons of a constitutional law professor in Massachusetts. Observe
the progression and escalation of the controversy:
o Kid wears T-shirt to gym class: "Coed Naked Band: Do It
To the Rhythm" (a gift from his mother!) after being asked
not to; gets 3 nights of detention for insubordination. Appeals.
Pending appeal he wears
o T-shirt with two men in naval uniform kissing each other w/
tag line "Read My Lips" and a marijuana-leaf T-shirt
reading simply "Legalize It!" Board adopts dress code
that prohibits, among other things, clothing with "comments
or designs that are obscene, lewd, or vulgar."
o On first day of new dress code policy, kid wears T-shirt reading
"Coed Naked Civil Liberties: Do It To The Amendments".
(Not surprisingly, this one was specially made.) On the same day,
his younger brother wears a T-shirt reading "See Dick Drink.
See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't Be A Dick." They refused
to invert or change their shirts, so they were sent home.
o School board upheld the banning of these shirts. On the same
day, younger son wore T-shirt with a picture of a gerbil on the
front and the tag line, "Coed Naked Gerbils" on the
front and "Some People Will Censor Anything!" on the
back. Although he was sent to the office again, he was allowed
to wear this one by his principal. Three days later, he appeared
wearing a new T-shirt:
o "Coed Naked Censorship: They Do It In South Hadley"
(the school district) without consequence.
o He also wore a Smith College anniversary shirt reading "A
Century of Women on Top" without being disciplined. (I sense
the principal wearing down.)
o A couple of weeks before school was over, both brothers wore
their original (unacceptable) T-shirts again. This time, the "Coed
Naked" shirt didn't require a change, but "See Dick
Drink" was still a violation. The lawsuit is brought.
Bottom Line: The school's dress code prohibiting the "obscene,
profane, lewd, or vulgar" comments passed constitutional
muster, and the T-shirts for which the boys were disciplined were
held to violate the policy because the principal said so. The
portion of the dress code that prohibited clothing that "harasses,
threatens, intimidates or demeans an individual or group of individuals
because of sex, color, race, religion, handicap, national origin
or sexual orientation" did NOT pass muster. I wouldn't get
too worked up about the last one; I think this is a case of a
judge who wanted to "split the baby" so that both sides
won. (The kids were never disciplined under the harassment portion
of the policy, so I'm not sure how that became an issue.)
I had to giggle a bit, though, thinking of this arrogant Con Law
prof who had to eat a little crow in front of his sons and his
students, and tried to imagine the relief that principal felt
when the youngest son finally graduated.
Please: If you are contemplating discipline (which doesn't include
requiring a kid to invert a T-shirt or wear a different one) for
student expression, wait. Touch base with your school attorney
or me or somebody who's not invested in the situation. CYA, boys
and girls!
Top
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
As the monthly
deadline for submitting newsletter articles approaches, I always
find it tempting to simply re-cycle an article from a previous
issue and see if anyone notices. I've never actually succumbed
to the temptation, but this month I'm coming close!
I'm writing this article exactly 10 days prior to what was supposed
to be adjournment day for the Iowa General Assembly, although
it appears the session will extend beyond the established April
27 adjournment date. Hopefully, the session won't drag on into
mid-May. By the time you read this the legislature should have
packed it in and gone home for the year.
So why steal material now from one of my past articles? Simply
because after months of promise, the legislative picture doesn't
look much different now than it did last December. When I submitted
my January SAI Report article on December 15th, I made several
observations and predictions regarding the fate of the promised
teacher/educator compensation bill. It's interesting, and disheartening,
to look at today's reality compared to what we were looking at
several months ago.
Here are excerpts from my January article. Sound familiar?
It still looks like teacher/educator compensation will be the
major educational issue to be debated (in the legislature) this
year. However, in spite of all the attention this topic received
during the interim between sessions, it may be extremely difficult
for legislators and the governor's office to forge agreements
on how to address the compensation issue.
On the positive side, there has been considerable work done toward
the creation of a merged plan based on the work of the Marvin
Pomerantz
(Republican) group and the John Forsyth (Democratic) group. In
November, legislative leaders from both parties met with the governor
and staff, and Ted Stilwill to discuss a combined planning effort.
Two areas of agreement emerged from that meeting.
First, there was an acknowledgment of progress that had already
been made and agreement that new policy in Iowa should include
four major elements:
1. Base pay levels that enable Iowa to be strategically positioned
for education talent;
2. Variable pay that provides additional compensation if student
performance improves significantly;
3. Continuing education that will directly support better teaching
practices; and
4. Induction programs with mentors that will support new teachers.
The second area of agreement provides for developing additional
levels of detail that could support the legislation needed to
implement the above-mentioned concepts.
Unfortunately Iowa's early blast of wintry weather forced the
cancellation of a meeting originally designed to include all legislators,
the governor's staff, the Department of Education,
professional associations and others to set the stage for legislative
support of the merged plan. As of this writing no follow up meeting
has been scheduled, so it appears the 2001 session will begin
without the consensus that was being sought in November and December.
Adding to the uncertainty surrounding teacher compensation legislation
are the questions regarding the state of Iowa's finances. Initial
indications are that tax revenues will increase only moderately
in the 2001-02 budget year, but not sufficiently to provide legislators
with the money they feel they need to cover new "big-ticket"
items.
Compounding the problem is the desire of the Republican leadership
to authorize additional tax cuts.
The state's Revenue Estimating Conference is anticipating a 4.4
percent growth in tax revenues for 2001-02. That lead Legislative
Fiscal Bureau director Dennis Prouty to conclude that the state
will be short of funds to pay for currently authorized programs
and to add new proposals.
Well there it is, and here we are, still debating the same issue
with little consensus being built during the entire four-month
legislative session. Obviously legislating in a time of severe
financial restrictions is difficult work. Under these conditions
usually no one winds up happy with the results. However, promises
made should mean promises kept.
Equally obvious to me is the need for true visionary leadership
in Iowa if we are to hold on to the quality we have in our educational
system and to make it even better. I'd be interested in hearing
your thoughts on how Iowa should proceed with supporting and improving
education during a time of crisis.
During the interim (between legislative sessions) I'd like to
put together a compilation of your thoughts, observations and
suggestions to present to legislators over the summer. Do you
have some constructive thoughts that could move the educational
dialogue forward? I'm not looking for the negative or the cynical,
although current realities could easily bring out the worst in
all of us.
Give it some thought, and if you'd like to have your ideas shared
with legislators over the summer, write to me at marcus@sai-iowa.org.
Someone has to assume leadership in moving Iowa's educational
agenda forward. Why not Iowa's educational leaders? Thanks in
advance for your contributions!
Fun (and learning) in the sun!
by Dr. Elaine Smith-Bright, SAI Director of Professional Development
Late June is the perfect time to get away for a little fun,
relaxation, family togetherness, and learning! The Okoboji Effective
Schools Conference, a collaboration between SAI, Iowa ASCD, and
the DE, is scheduled for June 19, 20 and 21, and provides the
perfect opportunity to recharge your energy after the long Iowa
winter and the grueling school year schedule. We, along with Iowa
ASCD and the DE, know it is an exceptionally long drive for some
of you to come to one corner of the state, but on the participants'
evaluation sheets where we ask if we should plan again for next
year-it's always a resounding yes! They love this conference.
Arnold's Park, a boat ride on the Queen II, a round of golf, fishing,
local theatre productions, boutique shopping, fine dining - OKOBOJI
HAS IT ALL! Plus, a great learning experience for which you can
get DERU credit or 1 hour of graduate credit from Drake University.
This year's topic is NAVIGATING THE WHITE WATER OF CHANGE. Now,
I know that most of you will think, "I have heard all I want
to hear about change." But let's face it, it still is a very
challenging process that continues to be written about and studied.
Witness the success of Who Moved My Cheese.
Following the National Staff Development Council's recognized
plan for quality educational development, the conference has been
built around content, process, and context. On the first day,
Charlotte Danielson will provide us with the content as she delivers
an overview of her work in Enhancing Professional Practice: A
Framework for Teaching. The framework takes the complex activity
of teaching and divides it into 22 components clustered in four
domains of responsibility: planning and preparation; classroom
environment; instruction; and professional responsibilities. We
will also have practitioners from Iowa districts who were recipients
of DE grants implementing induction/mentoring programs for first-year
teachers using the Danielson framework share their challenges
and experiences.
The second day will give participants a variety of best practices
for developing an atmosphere of trust to facilitate the change
process, dealing with resistance to change, building ownership
and individual accountability and finding time for job- embedded
learning. The final day will be devoted to the idea of context.
How does all of this "fit with" and integrate into state
mandates?
Plenty of time has been allotted for teams from districts to learn
together and productively process what they hear each day. Mentoring
new teachers and evaluations of all teachers has created a continual
"buzz" across the state and the legislature this year.
The same will undoubtedly come for administrators. To manage change
it's important to have a basic understanding of the change being
considered (so you can enlist support); know the reason why the
change would be beneficial or what type of rewards it would produce;
and be able to dialogue effectively about the proposed change.
The original meaning of the old French word 'changer' was 'bend,'
or 'turn' like a tree or vine searching for the sun. The idea
that 'the only constant is change' has been a truism of life since
at least the time of Heracleitus, circa 500B.C. In profound change
there is learning (Senge, The Dance of Change, 1999). Come learn
with your colleagues and us!
In the ever-dynamic world of education, teachers move between
buildings, between districts, and excitedly prepare bulletin boards
for their very first classrooms. There is much to learn about
a new teaching job besides the names of one's students and colleagues.
Proper orientation and mentoring can mean the difference between
a successful year and a frustrating or disastrous one for new
teachers.
At Southeast Polk, new teacher orientation begins several days
before the full staff gathers. With 30-40 new teachers each of
the last three years-some new to the profession, some new to the
district-it is important to make them feel welcome and comfortable
in their new surroundings. We bring them into the District Office
boardroom for breakfast and introductions. Every District Office
staff member is introduced, so the new people can put a face with
the name of the payroll person, the business manager, the superintendent's
secretary, the receptionist, etc. Each district-level administrator
talks about his/her area of responsibility, so new staff members
get a feel for how transportation, food service, student services,
curriculum and instruction, human resources, and other departments
work together for the benefit of all students and staff.
Payroll, accounts payable, and insurance specialists go through
paperwork to demonstrate how to fill out a purchase order request,
a leave request, an insurance claim, and a time card. District
personnel make sure all forms are filled out and signed properly.
After the official business is taken care of, the fun begins!
Armed with maps, the whole group piles onto a shiny, yellow school
bus with a P.A. system, and we take off on a tour of the district.
With 114 square miles to cover, most new teachers never would
get a chance to see the whole district, and we think it's important
to give them a feel for the scope and size of their new employer.
The community relations coordinator serves as guide and provides
the history of the district, as well as landmarks, demographics,
and fun facts to know. The tour drives by all seven elementary
schools, the secondary complex and through all the district communities.
It also gives the teachers first-hand knowledge of the ride many
children take twice each day of the school year.
Toward the end of the tour, we take them to a local restaurant
and treat them to a delicious lunch, after which we finish up
on the way back to District Office by teaching them the school
song via a song leader, cassette tape and flyers with the words
printed out. We tell them they can't get off the bus until they
know the school song! It ends the tour on a light note and helps
build some school spirit for their new district.
After spending the afternoon on required information such as bloodborne
pathogens, mandatory reporting, etc. the new staff spends the
next day in their respective buildings and classrooms, meeting
with the principals and then with the director of curriculum and
instruction. Those two days are meant to set a positive tone,
make the "new kids" feel welcome, and give them a chance
to get oriented before the rush when the entire staff returns.
When the new teachers get in their buildings, the mentoring program
takes over. A good mentor can help build a teacher's self-confidence
in an unfamiliar situation, explain how the organization works,
encourage professional behavior, teach by example, listen to personal
problems, offer wise counsel, share critical knowledge, head off
negative intentions or behaviors, and just be there in times of
need. Their leadership is invaluable to help explain the district's
instructional expectations, offer advice on best teaching practices,
and assist in implementing the Dimensions of Learning instructional
framework.
Southeast Polk's mentors, assigned by building principals, are
thoroughly trained to proactively counsel new personnel and help
them get acclimated to their new surroundings. The mentors meet
their counterparts at a luncheon during inservice days, send notes
of encouragement, meet at regularly scheduled times, request feedback,
and review the following procedures with them: attendance, book
checkout, discipline referrals, detention/in-school suspension,
dismissal routine, mileage policies, inventory forms, purchase
order, building assistance/intervention teams, Phase III, report
cards, grading system, and others.
Although instructional practices may be the most important part
of mentoring, mentored teachers also need to know the "basic
stuff": where the bathrooms and teacher's lounge are, what's
expected during lunch or recess duty, how to run the copy machine,
assembly procedures, emergency drill procedures, who the health
aide and nurse are, and what time is lunch! Having one trusted
person to ask about these policies and practices makes it easier
for the message to be consistent.
As the days pass, more in-depth information can be shared: the
financing of activities, how faculty members are compensated,
and limits that exist concerning funding; rules established for
use of school facilities outside the normal school day; procedures
for student fund-raising; club activities; the role of the guidance
counselor; services available to students and staff; policies
concerning field trips, guest speakers, and films; lesson plans;
association memberships; and the role of other staff in the building.
There is so much to comprehend, many things may have to be addressed
more than once.
An effective mentor will continue to follow up with her/his counterpart
as the year progresses. By the end of the first grading period,
the new teacher may have concerns about certain students and need
advice about particular problem situations. The mentee may have
questions about grading policies and wonder if he/she is assigning
the proper amount of homework. The mentor should be sensitive
to whether the new person is settling in to the system and making
friends in the building.
A detailed list of questions for each stage of the process is
provided to mentors so they can better help their charges understand
the system and inevitable red tape of any school district. The
building principals also stay in touch with their new staff members,
keeping the lines of communication open.
At the end of the year, the mentoring process is evaluated by
both parties to see what has been successful. Teachers who are
comfortable and confident in their new surroundings will be able
to focus more on teaching strategies and student learning, a constant
goal for educators in the 21st Century.