Mike's Midweek Musings - Vol 1
Shocker: Edu Professors and Teachers Disagree
Hi all,
Welcome to the first edition of Mike’s Midweek Musings - a place for me to share interesting tidbits that I come across in my line of work - creating and curating content for educators.
Herein you will find all the things that I hope you’ll find useful, interesting, or at least worth a chuckle. It’ll change from week to week and, indeed, probably will not be published each and every week - only when I have enough things to share.
Note: I’ll include 3-4 things that are super quick and to the point. I’ll also include one piece that takes a little more time, but I hope to make it worth your investment. Cheers.
Five Things to Share This Week
Quick Hits:
A Survey RE: Surveys (so meta) [30 sec]
Wow! [5 sec]
Just for the 😂 😂 [20 sec]
Why Have One Meeting When Two Will Do? [60 sec]
A Longer Read:
Death Match: K12 Teachers v. Ed Professors [3 min]
To commemorate the launch of Midweek Musings, we’re offering 10% off all subscriptions for one week! Expires October 25th!
Click here to see all the goodies you get when you go paid!
#1 Should I try it?
We have subscribers in every state, every Canadian province, and tens of countries around the world.
My question for you is this: Should I conduct a salary survey?
It would be anonymous and would include as much detail as I can get on the annual salary, benefits, etc. for common admin positions in each location. And, yes, results would be shared with both free and paid subscribers alike. Are you in?
#2 Fight the Clock
“The chief prevention against getting old is to remain astonished.”
- Kevin Kelly (from his essay “103 Bits of Advice I Wish I Had Known”)
#3 This required some planning 😂 😂
#4 Save Time By Holding MORE Meetings?
I became obsessed with the Tim Ferriss Show some time ago. His interviews of world-class leaders were fascinating while I was in business school and stole tons of strategies from the private sector and applied them as an administrator.
Here’s a great concept that I only recently stumbled upon - “The Two Meeting Rule.”
Whenever you have a problem to solve that requires input from staff, plan to hold two highly structured meetings instead of one less focused meeting.
Typically, we jump into a meeting without a clear idea of what it is we’re trying to solve. And attendees want to “check the box” of participation, so they regurgitate basic information and compete for airtime, without actually saying much of substance. This goes on for two-thirds of the meeting. The last third is spent rushing toward a mediocre solution to a poorly understood problem.
Instead, hold two meetings - one to define the problem and one to solve it. Here’s how it breaks down:
Meeting #1: Define the Problem
Send out any information as “required reading” prior to attending the meeting. Make it clear that only unique perspectives should be offered, and not everyone has to speak. Avoid restating basic information. Once you’ve clearly defined the problem, take the time to ask, “Is this a problem we actually want to solve?” You have limited resources. If the consequences aren’t too bad and your staff is already overwhelmed, maybe you stop here. There’s no shame in that.
In-between: Wait 1-7 days
Providing a gap between meetings is crucial. Oftentimes, someone comes up with a brilliant idea while they’re gardening or laying in bed a few days later, but they feel the time to contribute has lapsed. “Think Time” between meetings can lead to more and better options.
Meeting #2: Determine the Solution
Reconvene and allow folks to share their unique ideas (again, no rehashing basic facts). Once you land on a potential solution, ask the question, “And then what?” Are you going to have parent volunteers help coordinate the community event? Great. What expectations do you want to communicate? Who will train them? What if they cancel at the last minute? Be sure that the solution isn’t creating ten more problems. Finally, once you find an optimal solution, decide on the next steps and assign action items.
The Longer Read (3 min)
#5 BREAKING: Teachers and ED Professors Disagree (and what to do about it)
Warning: By the end of this article, I’m going to recommend obliterating teacher prep programs entirely. But hear me out. I think it’s worth considering.
Not sure why we needed a survey to figure this one out, but this article that EdWeek published is worth a read.
As it states, there’s a critical disconnect between academia and full-time classroom teachers. The focus is on math teachers, but recent research shows this is to be a problem at all disciplines and levels.
What’s going on here?
At first glance, it may seem like a cycle that starts with mentor teachers. Julie Booth, an education professor at Temple Univesity, claims that student teachers are often told by their mentors that the “newfangled” methods they learned in grad school won’t “actually work in the classroom.”
And, to be honest, it’s not hard to see why.
I do a lot of PD with schools where we center the experience of real teachers. I’ve spent hundreds (if not thousands) of hours interviewing great teachers about their day-to-day reality.
And I can tell you that nearly every single one of them felt woefully unprepared by their teacher prep program. Like, to the point of real vomit-inducing panic during their first few weeks (or even months) of school.
And these great teachers eventually take on student teachers. And when the student teacher wants to give a new strategy a spin, they’re often met with, “That’s not how real teachers do it, Junior.”
Of course, this is oversimplified. I’ve certainly had student teachers myself who tried something new and it worked. I sometimes even adopted it myself.
More often, however, seasoned teachers resist. This leads to statistics like the following that highlight the gap in beliefs between professors and teachers.
We work in a profession where theory can be easily (and almost instantaneously) tested. This isn’t physics. You don’t need a spendy particle accelerator to test an idea.
Any professor with a hypothesis could sign up to sub in one of the 128,961 public or private school buildings tomorrow and get some real, boots-on-the-ground feedback on their idea - assuming no research ethics issues. You and I both know schools could use the help.
But, of course, that’s not what happens.
As I think back to my own graduate experience, most of my professors spent some time in the classroom. Indeed, the promotional material for the program states “All our [faculty] are experienced PreK12 teachers who have gone on to become leaders in teacher education.”
But, I can only recall two of about a dozen who were either actively teaching at the time or had been in the classroom within the last 5-10 years. Many had taught for a few years, moved on to doctoral work, and hadn’t been in front of a class in decades.
Now, I’m certainly aware that there’s a bevy of adjunct professors out there who still teach part-time (or even full-time) and, in my experience, those were the best instructors! But it seems to be the exception. (If you know otherwise, please do respond and set me straight.)
So, how do we fix it?
As I mentioned, I have some hare-brained ideas. One is a minor tune-up and the other is a revolution. The real answer probably falls somewhere in between, but here we go:
Option 1:
All education professors (and consultants) should be required to do the following:
Sub in a classroom at least one day a month or two unbroken weeks each school year
Sub as an administrator for one week each year
In an ideal world:
Take a sabbatical from university every 5-7 years to teach one full year in a K-12 classroom
[Honesty time: This is partly why I’m on sub-lists in a few districts near my home. Truthfully, I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I haven’t done it very much at all lately. I consult with schools and that’s my “excuse” - I’m around kids and educators all the time! But it’s not the same as actually teaching kids. I hereby commit to making the time to sub more soon. Hold me to it!]
Option 2:
Do away with ed prep programs entirely. Instead, take more of a vocational school approach. Districts “sponsor” promising individuals with bachelor’s degrees and require the following:
Test for expertise in content knowledge like our current system (e.g. Praxis exams)
Require future teachers to “apprentice” under 4-5 experienced teachers for at least a year
Spend the final months of that year co-teaching and assuming increasing responsibility
This stint could serve as an extended job interview for the sponsoring district
Accept a job with realistic expectations of the profession (and zero grad school debt)
I know this isn’t going to bridge the chasm between education theory and practice, but it seems like a step in the right direction.
Agree? Disagree? What would you add? Let me know in the comments, reply to this email, or complete this short poll.
Thanks so much for reading the first installment of “Mike’s Midweek Musings.” I’ll have more to share in the coming weeks. In the meantime, keep an eye out for our regularly scheduled “Inspo Vids” email this Saturday.
Cheers,
Mike
P.S. If you’d rather not receive these midweek messages but would still like to receive the Saturday emails, you can do the following:
Login to Substack
Go to “Settings” and select “Hey, Mike Alpert!”
Toggle the “Midweek Musings” notifications to “off”
Don’t forget 10% off your subscription! Expires October 25th!
Need more reasons? Check out the insane value of becoming a paid subscriber!