As often as we ‘tweak’ the first day back for all staff, we always seek ways to improve the day’s activities based upon feedback from staff and reviewing how the day plays out each year. Just as students bring ‘homework’ to their parents on the first day of school (the seemingly endless forms that must be completed and returned to the schools) all of our staff also have to complete a long list of ‘mandated’ items based upon state requirements (and yes, the state does not come close to fully funding these requirements). These include items related to special education laws (Americans with Disabilities Act, 504 plans), student safety (bullying, harassment, epi-pen, reporting child abuse), and policies related to using electronic devices. One of our newer requirements is completing a state ethics training and quiz, which began when some of our elected state officials ‘crossed the line’ resulting in the reaction that all public employees in the state would be ‘trained’ on ever-changing rules enacted to police public policy. It often seems that if something is a problem with a small group of people—especially if they’re in the public eye—the state responds by creating a solution that must be applied to everyone, whether or not they are likely to ever encounter a similar problem. This often results in increased paperwork, monitoring, and administrative time that is never recognized or paid for. Truly, there are no simple answers that work equally well across the very diverse communities in the state and the various ways that organizations differ in their capacities to implement such requirements.
This disconnect between what we wish to do and what we must do was reinforced by our guest speaker for the afternoon, Mr. John Perricone, author of Zen and the Art of Public School Teaching. John spoke about applying his experiences in martial arts training, especially of applying the principal of ‘Sho-shin’ or looking at each opportunity with a fresh mind, to teaching. He spoke of approaching each class as if it was both the first and last time you would do this lesson. This approach, as well as realizing that teaching is really a complicated activity that is active in nature, requires the participation of both parties, and is based upon personal interactions (rather than a rote set of tasks that can simply be planned, put into place and evaluated on a check list) seemed to resonate with the reasons why so many of our staff entered the teaching profession. As he indicated, years after students graduate, they don’t speak about the curriculum but rather the feelings of support, the personal interactions, and the connections they made with their teachers. Yet these are not the ‘growth’ measures that standardized testing or standardized staff evaluations look at. Mr. Perricone also spoke about a need to use testing as a diagnostic tool to learn more about the strengths and needs of an individual student—not as a means to label teachers, schools and school districts. As with so many educators, and growing numbers of parents, Mr. Perricone questioned the overall validity, usefulness, and application of high stakes tests such as MCAS and PARCC. It will certainly be interesting to note how these essential questions play out in the renewing of education legislation at the national level and in the choices faced by the Massachusetts Board of Education related to standardized testing and the Common Core. These issues are certainly taking a prominent role in the news, in politics, and in the growing ‘opt-out’ movement across the country.
