"Ah, These Kids These Days . . ."

"When I was a kid, I never would have been able to get away with that!"
"When I was in school, if I got paddled at school, I'd get the same when I got home!"
"When I went to school, we learned important stuff, not the stuff kids learn today!"
"Kids today don't know anything!"

Any of the above sound familiar?

I am running a risk, but as an educator my view of kids today may run contrary to many of my generation or those slightly older than I.  My take is quite simple:  Kids today are so much smarter than we ever were . . .we don't like to hear that, I know, but I must stress a key point:  They are much smarter in different ways, ones that are important to their world, not the world we planted roots. Now, let me add a second part to that statement:  Kids today are not overly focused on what "we" think they should be, therefore creating the mentality that kids are not like us . . . and in that I find considerable validity.

Three obvious examples make my first point:
*Penmanship--the teaching of cursive writing is fading.  With the exception of our signatures, we seldom cursively write today, so why should we spend time teaching it? It is a dying art.
*Simple Math--who among us does not rely upon calculators and phone apps to do our math for us? I, too, still like to mentally calculate, but I rely upon the calculator to verify my figures.  Kids' addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division skills do not carry the importance that they did when we were students.  Yes, practical application of those skills (such as understanding how to read a ruler/tape measure) are so crucial in certain lines of work, but times have changed--we rely on technology to do our work for us.
*Map Reading--we rely upon GPS systems, whether they be Garmins or Googles--we hit a button, and, good lord, the GPS even talks to us.  What happens if it doesn't work?  Of all the time I am on the road, it is a rare occasion when it doesn't; if it does fail, I resort to the old way:  I stop at a gas station and ask directions!

My claim is quite obvious:  Kids do not need the same intelligence that we did in our era.  Simply stated, they are wired differently.  However, we love to compare the way we were raised with the way kids are raised today, and we continually conclude that our intelligence supersedes theirs . . . I do not agree.  To continue my argument, allow me to focus on the educational system then and now:

*In my day, teachers and students truly were not overly accountable--teachers were not monitored and evaluated dependent upon how their kids did on standardized tests.  Yesteryear's teachers did their jobs as they were trained, but they did not have the pressures of meeting state and national standards; likewise, they did not have the added burden of comparisons with neighboring schools or other schools within the state. Schools did their educating and went on their merry way. I look back at my education, and even though I was quite pleased with most of my teachers, I still recall the lackadaisical attitude that was allowed to flourish: a teacher making an assignment and then retreating to the coaches' room to smoke a pipe, the repeated study halls because a teacher did not want to teach that day, the distribution of worksheets and the instructions to complete them . . . I could go on, but my point should be clear:  what we remember as being quality education would clearly lead to many of yesteryear's teachers being fired today--again, today teachers' accountability is paramount.  If a teacher does not consistently produce, then that teacher had better re-evaluate and double down on teaching strategies because the end could be approaching.

*Does anyone really remember how important the ACT test was when we went to school?  My recollection is that I showed up at New Philadelphia High School on a Saturday morning, took a test, went home, ultimately got my scores, and didn't really care too much about how I had scored.  Truthfully, I do not recall a teacher even stressing anything about the test; today, the ACT is a major determiner of college acceptance and financial qualifying.  Therefore, students take and retake the test with the hope of scoring higher each time.  Classes are devoted to assisting those students, tutors are hired to prep kids in weak areas, and teachers study the test so they can assist their students in learning what is on the test.  Back in the day, so little attention was devoted to those tests--today's kids and parents expect their kids to score well; when the students fail to do so, it is not unusual for the fingerpointing game to begin:  They must not have been taught well.  Again, accountability becomes the central issue.

More examples could be made, but I would hope my point has been made:  Teachers' accountability is vastly different than it was in my era as a student and as a young teacher.

Another point that must be made involves parenting.  Yes, in the day, perhaps our parents were more intimidating and demanding, and I am fairly confident in saying that the onus for learning was on the kid, not the school.  Today's world is a bit different simply because today's parents are in many cases extremely vigilant about their kids' education.  That has pluses and minuses, but that overseeing does create other issues, most notably kids often relying on their parents stepping to the plate and defending them. One offshoot of that oversight is grade inflation; as stated in my initial blog several weeks ago, students' main objective is to get a good grade.  My generation likes to say we "were all about learning."  Revealing my weakness, I don't remember that--I just wanted a good grade so my parents would stay off my hind end! I don't think that much has changed from the students' perspectives: "Give me a good grade, so my parents are happy." In truth, I do not remember parents rushing to their kids' defense if a grade was not what they desired; today, that often is the first reaction.

My point is this:  Teachers today are under pressure for kids to get "good" grades; as a result, grading scales have been relaxed to ensure that more kids get an "A," (or at least a higher grade) so those students can have a "more positive feeling about themselves," as I have heard many a parent express. I will say this: More kids are getting higher grades than they deserve . . . changing times. As stated, pluses and minuses are part of  that, but my experience tells me that parents are much more protective of their kids in today's world.  If the kids are getting the grades the parents desire, then all is well with the world. Grade inflation?  I guarantee that most parents will say it might happen,"but it hasn't happened with my child."  OK, as we like to say today, whatever. We often wonder why children are defensive about so many issues they confront; perhaps it has something to do with the way we are raising them.  Let me make this point:  One reason the ACT has such added importance is because the same (or similar) test is being taken by all--yes, I understand that test anxiety, time limitations, and so on do play roles.  As a result of the test's commonality, though, scores can be legitimately compared, much more convincingly than a student's GPA, which varies from school to school and can be unfairly influenced by lax grading scales. In many cases, a kid's ACT score may be a better indicator of the student's skills than his or her GPA. My point:  Perhaps we place way too much emphasis on grades than we do actual learning.

Another observation I have made is that somewhere, somehow, sometime, we became convinced that we were stellar, high-achieving, dedicated students during our time.  My response is quite simple:  How did that happen?  If I recall correctly, many of my peers and I did not "set the world on fire" when it came to academic excellence--solid students, yes, but certainly not the highest of achievers. Dedicated? Soul-search for a moment--were you really? I know the boy writing this wasn't. Just as our memory often clouds our past athletic glory, we sometimes misrepresent our own academic strengths.  Translated, many of us, including me, were not the students then that we might want to remember ourselves as being.

Now, in regard to my second point:  Kids are not overly focused on what we think they should be.  I expect kids to be avid readers and skilled writers--most are not.  I expect kids to be more productive than just sitting and playing video games--most are not.  I expect kids to take their headsets off and verbally communicate--many do not.  I expect kids to dress properly and treat others respectfully--many do not.  I expect kids to have a strong work ethic--few do. So, let's agree that back in the day our parents might have stepped in and made kids be more compatible with the parents' expectations.  Today we are much more lenient with kids because we allow them to "be themselves."  Our parents in the day could have cared less about that: for the most part, they wanted us to be like them, so they sometimes demanded, smacked, paddled us into submission.  Today, parents' control is a bit more limited; translated, many kids get away with a whole bunch more disrespect than "we" would have ever tolerated . . . but please look at our society.  Isn't that simply the way it has evolved?  Society has forced us to adapt with it whether we want to or not! An additional point:  Review my points in this paragraph--each of the aforementioned is related to how these kids are raised.  Pointing our fingers at the schools for not developing the mindset we desire is a cop-out--schools re-enforce, but the character issues are all on the home environment.

As I pull all this together, here is my perspective: 
*Kids know so much more than "we" did;
*"We" like to hang on to the idea that "we" were raised better; instead, I think "we" were raised differently, in a society that was less protective, less promiscuous, and less tolerant;
*"We" might not have been quite as academically dedicated in high school as "we" might like to think!
*"We" oftentimes judge kids unfairly, but oftentimes it is quite deserved;
*"We" frequently hang on to our convictions because "we" fear what is becoming of this world!

Borrowing a songline from Bye, Bye, Birdie, "What's the matter with these kids these days?" the kids are different in certain ways, but the real point is it's a different world!

I would hope this posting will generate considerable feedback--I look forward to hearing your reactions!

Perception Is Reality . . . Isn't It?

This entry could possibly invoke numerous reactions . . . I look forward to hearing them!

Are educators perceived as professionals?

I would think if any teacher/administrator were asked that question, the response would be an overwhelming "YES!" I would expect nothing to the contrary.  However, if the taxpaying public were asked that same question, I suspect the majority would disagree for a variety of reasons . . . and that is where the disconnect occurs.

To begin this discussion, I must first explain a few key points:

*As my readers know, I am a retired public school teacher; as a result, my occasional bias toward the profession is genuine;
*Many of my friends and acquaintances outside the school building are not educators; thus, their views often conflict with mine.
*As a result of my interactions with both educators and non-educators, I can clearly see that how we (as educators) often view ourselves is not how everyone does . . . and that is why I am exploring this topic.

Writing on this sensitive matter is akin to walking through a field of landmines . . . moving gently forward but knowing possible danger lies ahead.  Let me explore a few timeworn comments I have heard from others:

*You (educators) get three months off in the summer;
*You get holiday vacations;
*You get snow days;
*You get . . . fill in the blank.

I find myself cringing as I write those words, but these are the standard criticisms leveled toward teachers.  While I find myself shaking my head at the aforementioned remarks, I do understand them because the majority of our working world do not always share those work perks . . . they get perks (time and a half, double time,  . . .), but certainly not the same ones as educators. I get that, but, obviously, more details remain to be explored.  While many may attack the so-called easy life that teachers are perceived as living, that has little to do with my focus in this writing.  I am not saying teachers are this and teachers are that and we should show more appreciation toward them; instead, I want to head in a slightly different direction.

The word professional has strong implications; doctors, nurses, and lawyers come to mind when I categorize how most people view professionals because their career choices require exit exams, ongoing education, personal interaction with the public, and, most frequently, confidentiality. Teachers--like doctors, nurses, and lawyers--must meet the same qualifications listed above.  At one time long ago, teachers were highly regarded as professionals . . . but did something happen to alter that? I contend that--in the public's eyes--the answer is yes; in many ways, we as educators have contributed to our own perception.  Being so bold to say that, I must explain my logic:

*Personal Appearance--I admit to being old school with various quirks as a result, but I am a firm believer in the adage of dressing for success.  As a young teacher at Strasburg High School many years ago, I clearly remember my superintendent, Al Osler, gently reminding me that if I wanted to be treated as a professional then I had better dress as one.  Watching my administrators wear suits/sport coats and ties every day was impressive; likewise, watching my male peers wear shirts and ties made an impact.  I am not so naïve, however, as to think that just because a man wears a tie that he is automatically a quality teacher--I get that, and I also do not mean to imply that certain jobs within a school should require a tie (physical education, art, and industrial technology come to mind). What I am saying is that when we do not dress professionally, it merely provides the public with more ammunition to say we aren't professional because we look just like anyone else. I must stress that public schools rely on the support of communities, and those taxpayers are frequently quick to judge us in a negative light, deserved or not.  When I wear a golf shirt to school, I am not so sure that I am sending the signal that I am a professional educator. (Many schools have "dress down days" where employees pay a fee toward a specific charity--I am not talking about those occasional times.) My financial advisors--bankers and investors--wear suits every time I meet with them; my doctor wears a shirt and tie under his lab coat; when I have consulted with an attorney, he is wearing a suit.  My point should be obvious:  If I want to be perceived as a professional, like the aforementioned, I need to at least look the role.  My hunch--with no true facts to support it--is that if the perception is genuine, it will go a long way in influencing my standing within the community as well as with my students.  One other point before I move on:  Female educators who dress sharply ooze with professionalism; knowing that they take considerable pride in how they are perceived--just as with males--plays such an important role in how others view them.

*Public Comments--Human nature seems to indicate that we like to talk; I could probably go out on the proverbial limb and say we like to be heard. How often have we been in a conversation when the other person is already talking before we are done making our point? (Score that as one of my major weaknesses, as my wife tells me repeatedly to shut up and let her finish talking!) As educators, we frequently overstep our boundaries by making public comments that expose us to criticism (been there done that, by the way). Our often openly-stated wishes for snow days, for example, immediately send a negative signal to non-educators because they don't live in the same little world we do. Snow days in their work world are practically nonexistent and require them to find babysitters, to alter their everyday lives . . . ; to teachers, it mostly means a day off (even though we may be grading or preparing how to consolidate our lessons into fewer days) . . . non-teachers don't want to hear about our wishes. Additionally, we are occasionally guilty of sharing a bit too much information; while I attest that this is not peculiar to just the teaching profession, we certainly learn that parents do not want their kids' issues being discussed too openly. With the responsibility of teaching comes the responsibility of oftentimes keeping our personal observations, thoughts, and wishes to ourselves--when we step outside those boundaries, we are risking unnecessary criticism, particularly when we bring it on ourselves.

*Writing Skills--As an English teacher, I am heavily biased about this point.  Simply stated, if we are professionals, we are expected to clearly understand how the English language works and to produce clear manuscripts that are distributed to our students via handouts, to scholarship committee members via recommendation letters, to our students' parents via written communication, and to our administrators and peers via occasional professional correspondence. It boils down to this: Can we write well? Allow me to answer my own question:  Not always. I say that not as a criticism simply because all of us are wired differently--stereotypically, math teachers, for example, are not strong writers.  Their minds are not "word-oriented"; rather, their minds are "number-oriented," thus making them experts in their field. (Conversely, most English teachers are weak in math!) We all know that humans have their niches; it is a rare occasion when someone has the whole package.  However, when the public reads a teacher's correspondence that is poorly written, an immediate negative reaction is triggered.  From my seat, it all comes down to knowing our strengths and weaknesses; when I need help with my taxes, I go to a tax preparer just as when I have a household plumbing problem, I call a plumber.  As a teacher, if I know I am not a good writer, then I need to be sure to have a strong editor who can correct and improve my writing before it meets the public.  When manuscripts are presented, they have to be reflective of competent writers whether we have edited the documents ourselves or whether we have had editorial help. With grammar mistakes, misspelled words, and confusing points present, the reading public is quick to pounce.

I suppose one could read this blog today and be quick to judge me as putting myself on a pedestal . . .  that person would be wrong but not too far off. Maintaining the professionalism of educators is an important priority in my life--I don't want others criticizing us when we have control over certain elements. Facing the facts, I know that various situations arise where we are going to get criticized or perceived unfairly, warranted or not; however, presenting a positive, professional image is under our control, and I contend--paraphrasing my previously-mentioned mentor--if we want to be perceived as pros, then we had better hold up our end of the bargain!

Your thoughts?