RoboTeacher, Activate! Standardized-Teaching Initiative Unleashed on Portland educators

From the dustbin of the pre-No Child Left Behind era comes an old scheme repackaged as the latest trend in education reform: Curriculum-Focused Professional Development aka Curriculum-Based Professional Learning. On the surface it may seem like an opportunity for educators to dive deep into content while zeroing in on student learning. However, upon closer examination, this Portland Public Schools (PPS) initiative is clearly designed to control, demoralize, and push out teachers in order to clear the way for the privatization of public schools.

Under the Radar

The shift to Curriculum-Based Professional Learning was quiet, subtle and failed to inform and engage those most impacted by the change. Such lack of transparency is a hallmark strategy for instituting unpopular reforms. The Instructional Framework, the umbrella term the district is using for this latest initiative, was first introduced in the PPS guiding document, Forward Together. The document describes the Instructional Framework as "an interrelated set of tools, practices, and expectations that guide how we support inquiry-based, disciplinary, and interdisciplinary learning." The act of teaching under this framework is understood as "inclusive, culturally responsive, learner-centered, interactive, engaging, and intellectually rigorous." The strategic plan goes on to outline the process that will be used for creating this framework, but does not yet mention curriculum as the centerpiece of the effort.

After Dr. Cheryl Proctor was promoted to the role of Deputy Superintendent of Instruction and School Communities in January of this year, the concept of the Instructional Framework seems to have taken on a new spin. The framework suddenly became centered around adopting corporate curriculum and using consultants to chart the course of its adoption.

In Come the Consultants

In February 2022, Dr. Proctor requested PPS funds for a contract with the notoriously anti-teacher and anti-union TNTP--formerly known as The New Teacher Project--to "develop a culturally responsive integrated instructional framework and PK-12 developmental continuum." Only a month after the PPS Board voted to authorize this expenditure, TNTP staff were already touring schools and dropping practically unannounced into classrooms to do observations, bypassing any discussions with the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT). The teachers being observed learned of the TNTP visits at the last minute in March, but the Instructional Framework was not introduced to all district educators until April of this year when Dr. Proctor emailed teachers, inviting them to "partner with us to develop the new PPS Instructional Framework." By the time teachers were invited to give input, however, the creation of the framework and the related adoption of new curriculum were already under way and close to being finalized.

Eyes on the Money

At first glance, the Instructional Framework sounds commonsense, perhaps a suggested scope and sequence of content-specific, grade-level standards with freedom given to teachers to select materials to support their students' learning. However, a deeper dive examining the language, goals, entities involved, and scholarship which the initiative leans on, make it obvious that the new framework is a much more sinister plan.

The guiding document for the Instructional Framework, sent out by Dr. Proctor, is a "Challenge Paper" from the Carnegie Corporation of New York called "The Elements: Transforming Teaching through Curriculum-Based Professional Learning." 

The paper is coauthored by Jim Short, a program director at Carnegie Corporation of New York, and Stephanie Hirsh, Strategic Advisor/Consultant to Carnegie Corporation's National Education Program Teaching and Leadership Division, and Managing Director with Hirsh Holdings LLC, a company providing consulting for "start ups primarily focused on preK-20 education and other related services." Carnegie Corporation is one of Hirsh Holdings LLC's clients. Carnegie Corporation supports "the creation of innovative schools and programs that personalize student learning experiences, as well as the capacity-building of adults and systems in support of these efforts." One of their philanthropic grantees is Charter Fund, Inc. Since its founding in 2005, Charter Fund, Inc. has "supported over 200 charter networks which collectively served approximately 535,000 students across thirty-six states in 2020-21." Carnegie Corporation also funds the astroturf parent group, National Parents Union, founded in 2020, which is also funded by the pro-privatization Walton (of Walmart fame) Family Foundation with the idea that parents can be galvanized as a force to decimate teacher unions who, in the eyes of the profit-seekers, stand in the way of school privatization. In the words of NPU's co-founder and president, Keri Rodrigues, "teacher unions currently have no countervailing force. We envision the National Parents Union as being able to take on the unions in the national and regional media, and eventually on the ground in advocacy fights." Carnegie Corporation's strategy is multi-prong, but understood holistically, its mission to escalate the demise of the public school system is blatant. 

Teachers as Robots or Else

The premise of the "Challenge Paper," "The Elements," purports to be equity. The purpose of curriculum-based professional learning, the authors claim, is to improve the outcomes for students of color. They write: 

"Too few students consistently experience great teaching, and too few teachers experience the professional learning that supports standards-aligned instruction. This disproportionately affects students of color, who are far less likely than their peers to have access to rigorous content and coursework. Providing high-quality curriculum to all students is one important step toward equity."

And next comes a key caveat: 

"The impact of curriculum may be muted if teachers don’t update their instructional practices and beliefs. Curriculum-based professional learning can unlock the potential of new curriculum and ensure that all students gain full access to the same learning opportunities."

When unpacked, the above statement positions textbook publishers, ed tech companies, and private educational consultants as key in two areas: as bearers of high quality educational experiences for students, and of "improved teacher practice." When corporate curriculum and curriculum-based professional learning are unquestioningly accepted as guarantees of success, for-profit companies have carte blanche to rearrange education around their products and self-proclaimed expertise, effectively neutralizing the role of a teacher and thus deprofessionalizing the field of education.

Key buzzwords and phrases in both, the PPS Instructional Framework and "The Elements," include such revealing terms as: "instructional coherence," alignment, "change management," "ongoing disruption of thinking and doing."

The idea is that professional learning is intertwined with district-adopted curriculum. Teachers use Professional Learning Communities to develop deep expertise in the curriculum and in the instructional materials, becoming expert at implementing it. They are observed and coached during this process. The Carnegie Corporation claims that prescribed, corporate curriculum is the answer to good teaching and improved learning. They argue:

"Good teaching is rocket science. Teachers achieve this remarkable feat when they apply sophisticated instructional approaches that require a deep understanding of the subject matter and how students learn. . . 

Curriculum is at the heart of these efforts. A well-designed, high-quality curriculum charts a course for student learning by setting in motion a sequence of experiences that build knowledge and skills and create strong critical thinkers. Through textbooks, teachers’ guides, classroom assessments, and other instructional tools, curriculum establishes the pace and pathways for student progress. High-quality curriculum and well-chosen instructional materials can also do the same for teachers. 

Curriculum materials shape and enhance the relationships between teachers, students, and content. They establish what is to be taught, how it should be taught, and how teachers should engage with students to build their understanding." 

One superintendent quoted in "The Elements" document sums it up saying, "The curriculum can play its true role as the center of the instructional vision, and everything can reinforce it.”

Professional Development Morphs into Circus School

To get a sense of how the educator's role and experience is transformed by such a seismic shift in the locus of control over impact on student learning, here is a case study from The Elements "challenge paper":

"The district began with 2,500 teachers in the elementary grades, with a two-day launch event at the start of summer 2019 and additional grade-band meetings throughout the 2019–20 school year. Teachers were observed and coached by their principals, instructional leaders, and literacy coaches, who were studying the curriculum during regular community-of-practice meetings so that they could support ongoing professional learning. There were weekly phone calls between the district and the curriculum designer and optional virtual learning programs for school and instructional leaders. Early on, teachers’ shared planning time was used for studying the curriculum together. . . Instructional moves and strategies from the curriculum also lend structure to professional learning for teachers with features such as learning targets, 'I can' statements, and opportunities for reflection. In learning sessions, teachers experience the same type of instruction they are expected to provide for their students."

This approach is based on the belief in the supremacy of corporate curricula and an extremely narrow definition of a "successful" educator. It devalues teachers' complex practice, as their professional expertise and autonomy are reduced to studying the provided materials and rehearsing canned teaching moves. Education researcher John Hattie has found that "collective teacher efficacy" has the largest positive impact on student learning. Collective teacher efficacy results when teachers explore a problem of practice collaboratively, experimenting, and being fueled by a sense of accomplishment when, as a result of the teachers' doing, students demonstrate learning. Unlike an approach that centers the curriculum, the locus of control here lies with the teacher. Imposing and mandating curriculum while scripting and micromanaging teacher collaboration in a top-down manner results in diminished, not enhanced, teacher morale and efficacy.

Tight Scrutiny, Part & Parcel of the New Instructional Framework

The implementation of mandatory curriculum-based reform, brings description after description of close scrutiny of teachers. Educators are periodically observed and deviations from the adopted curriculum are noted. 

"The Elements" paper notes: 

"When Teaching Lab coaches first visited the district in fall 2019, they 'saw a lot of deviations from the curriculum in an attempt from teachers — well-meaning attempts — to try and make the curriculum more accessible,' said Partnerships Manager Sarah Tierney. In some classrooms, teachers omitted certain questions or tasks that were harder for kids to get to, she said. 'There was an injection of a lot of teacher-created, seemingly in-the-moment, low-level questions that were designed to help but ended up only helping students form a baseline rather than deep understanding of the text or task at hand.' It was a slightly better version of the instruction that had already been occurring. The main improvement was that teachers and students now had access to a high-quality, inquiry-based, rigorous curriculum. They just had to figure out how to use it."

As part of the change process, teachers are coached by district personnel as well as contracted "curriculum-aligned" coaches who claim to "provide teachers with high-impact, job-embedded feed - back and opportunities for reflection."

Teachers receive one-to-one coaching, in some cases creating videos of instruction that "coincide with cycles of feedback" to further reflect on. Teachers "receive personalized feedback grounded in the materials, advancing their knowledge and skillfulness with it." The Carnegie Corporation claims that "feedback for teachers is aligned to the curriculum and consistent from one observer to the next." The district’s feedback protocol is meant to give "teachers time to internalize their coach’s feedback" with the expectation that educators will "perfect and adjust" their curriculum-aligned instruction.

Coaches use methods such as ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ learning to maximize their influence. The use of teacher-created materials is clearly frowned upon. 

"The Elements" paper states: 

"More than half of U.S. teachers craft curriculum for their students, either by borrowing from multiple sources or creating their own materials. . . Such hard work and creativity are laudable, but teachers do not have unlimited time and resources, and we should not expect 3.7 million people to develop their own ways of doing things. There is a longstanding myth that creative lesson planning is the mark of a great teacher. A more consistent, equitable, and commonsense approach would be to relieve teachers of curriculum development responsibilities and let them focus their energy where it matters most for student outcomes — on classroom instruction."

A Historical Precedent

In 2000, similar curriculum-based reform initiatives were implemented in California, spurred by the first ranking of California’s public schools, based on a single high-stakes multiple choice test score. Standards-based reforms were introduced, forcing schools to develop "an intense, schoolwide focus on improvement." Scripted curriculum was adopted in the lowest-performing schools under the guise of equalizing the quality of education for children of color. The aim of imposing a uniform curriculum and teaching moves was described in the 2003 EdSource report on the lowest-performing schools:

"When educators and researchers address the question of why student achievement improves, they consistently see many of the answers centered in the classroom—in the curriculum materials teachers have available and their skill in using those materials effectively. Most school improvement experts believe that a key part of maximizing teachers’ efforts is for schools to adopt a unified, well-integrated curriculum and instructional approach. This schoolwide focus means that all teachers are using the same books, have had the same training, share a common set of expectations for student performance, and use the same methods to assess student progress."

The focus was on "changing teacher practice, leadership dynamics, and staff culture," as well as ongoing coaching of teachers. 

Teachers rebelled. As EdSource states, "Open Court (curriculum), with its directed approach to reading instruction and professional development, has been a subject of controversy in LAUSD and elsewhere in California. Experienced, skilled teachers in particular have complained about the prescriptive nature of the program and its resulting tendency to inhibit them from using their own professional judgment and adapting instruction to individual student needs."

Carnegie Corporation is more clever than to force adherence to scripted instruction in the 2020s. They explicitly state that teachers need to show some flexibility during classroom discussions, but even this "flexibility" must fit within the parameters of the canned plan:

"Developing fluency in a curriculum does not mean simply following it to the letter; teachers should still adjust their instruction to meet students’ needs. Educative materials . .  should help teachers anticipate likely challenges, offer context and suggestions, and prompt teachers to rehearse instruction with a wide range of student questions and discoveries in mind."

United Teachers Los Angeles educator, Molly Sides, outlined in the magazine, Labor Notes that eliminating curricular and professional development choice results in the de-skilling of the profession.

Sides wrote, sharing her experience with curriculum-centric reform: 

"Teachers have been scapegoated for problems in our schools, leading politicians to want to 'teacher-proof' education. As one scripted-program trainer said, 'Anybody should be able to walk into a classroom and, knowing the page, start teaching.'

This type of de-skilling affects job security and divides new teachers from veteran teachers who have developed teaching strategies of their own. Opportunities for workplace collaboration are squelched.

For students the effects are equally intense. The elimination of critical thinking and the homogenization of knowledge are cloaked in egalitarian rhetoric. Program content is often racist and class-biased, and always stifling."

Educators as a Thing of the Past?

A 2005 article in the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies entitled, "The Future of Teacher Education and Teaching: Another Piece of the Privatization Puzzle," examines the link between school privatization efforts and the future of teaching and teacher education. The scholars assert that "current 'reform' strategies are intentionally driving well-educated professionals from the classroom and that once a teaching shortage has been exacerbated, teaching will be virtually fully deskilled." 

They describe the transformation of the profession in this way: 

"At this point, 'teaching' will be provided by alternate 'delivery mechanisms' that make teachers virtually obsolete. These developments are desirable to business and government first, because privatization of education will not produce maximum profits until labor costs are reduced, and second, because professional teachers largely oppose the lie that standards and accountability as they are being implemented will benefit poor children."

For top-down reform enthusiasts such as the Carnegie Corporation or TNTP, teachers this day and age seem like a moot point. They see educators as fundamentally ineffective and in need of scrutiny and "reeducation." As a result, teachers are relegated only to take on the role of a substitute or glorified personalized digital learning monitor. These anti-teacher entities also believe that educators and their unions stand in the way of the profit-driven dismantling of public education. In their view, mandated, scripted curriculum can drive out expensive veteran teachers who insist on academic freedom. In the short-term, they desire to automatize education, giving new hires instant substitute plans, and conservative parents the curriculum transparency they are demanding in order to crack down on the surfacing of "controversial" subjects such as race and gender in classrooms. In the long term, imposing curriculum will also drive out students who are bored of textbook learning and dissatisfied with novice teachers, creating a steady stream of charter school candidates.

Teacher Resistance Will Be Neutralized 

Carnegie Corporation admits that the process of imposing curriculum and micromanaging teacher collaboration will engender resistance. They write: 

"Teachers can be skeptical of inspirational promises from outsiders and experts. They are fiercely protective of their students and need direct experience with new curriculum materials to trust that they can work. But teachers also are highly adaptable once the benefits to students are clear. Effective curriculum-based professional learning starts with experiences that promote changes in instructional practice that produce better outcomes for students. These experiences are designed to contradict teachers’ assumptions and disturb their equilibrium. To address the dissonance, teachers need to experience curriculum materials as learners and have opportunities to use them with support and arrive at a new understanding of students’ capabilities."

Furthermore, the authors of "The Elements" foreshadow dissonance, disruption, and demoralization: "Change is disruptive. It requires adults to let go of old ways of doing things and recasts their experience and expertise as less relevant or in need of an update. Supporting curricular change means guiding teachers to come to grips with uncertainty."

The conservative think tank, The Fordham Institute, which promotes and authorizes charter schools, supports curriculum-based professional learning as a tool to hasten privatization. The institute lauds the Carnegie Corporation's ideas in "The Elements," and argues that curriculum reform is a cost-effective way to bring about school reform. They also anticipate teachers pushing back:

"Transformative professional learning may create a high level of cognitive dissonance, disturb teachers’ equilibrium, and must include the time and support they need to reflect on and revise their thinking. This happens as teachers gain new evidence about what works with their students through using the curriculum materials, which prompts changes in practice and, ultimately, beliefs and assumptions."

The initiative comes with its own system for neutralizing teacher opposition called The Concerns-Based Adoption Model. The model "provides a framework and tools for understanding the change process and providing appropriate support to individuals experiencing it." Its main components are: Stages of Concern About the Innovation, Levels of Use of the Innovation, and Innovations Configurations.

In other words, those educators not crushed by the constant evaluations, micromanagement, and mandate to use a limited scope of materials and techniques will be steered through the outlined "change management process" and required to conform. Others will be pushed out.

But The Books Are Racist

One of the criteria used by the district was that the curricula selected for adoption needed to be ranked in the top tier in by EdReports, a non-profit set up by Common Core State Standards promoters to review publications for compliance with the CCSS. EdReports is funded by CCSS and charter school enthusiast, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the semiconductor company, Broadcom Corporation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Walton Family Foundation of Walmart fame, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation which supports charter schools as well as groups such as The New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF), described by education researcher, Thomas Ultican, as "the Swiss army knife of public school privatization."

Unfortunately, the high school English Language Arts curriculum being considered for adoption by PPS gets many things wrong on race. The textbooks strike teachers as material crafted and curated to market in states with laws banning discussion of race, racism, and gender. 

As an example, the Language Arts textbooks contain numerous passages glossing over the truth about the Native American experience and history, omitting any mention of genocidal policies. This is in direct contradiction to Oregon Senate Bill 13, Tribal History, Shared History which was passed in order to correct the practice of teaching racist ideas about Oregon's tribes in schools. Additionally, the textbooks radiate toxic patriotism. The authors are heavily white and male, and even some the selections by authors of color are either outdated in their treatment of the topic of race and racism, or taken out of their larger political context, neutralizing their potential to galvanize students to become advocates for racial and social justice.

EdReports admits it has heard similar criticism from its focus groups, yet, the organization prioritizes the importance of standards-alignment and lets racist content slide. All three types of issues listed below can be found in the textbooks up for adoption by PPS.

In its 2021 primer on Culturally Centered Education, EdReports states: 

"Despite efforts by publishers in recent years, we heard from interviews and focus groups that many curricula fall short of meeting the needs of diverse populations. In our research, we found several clear examples of the ways in which instructional materials are culturally limited, if not inherently biased or racist. Some of the specific concerns we found include: 

■ Erasure is the act of erasing the cultural characteristics and histories from the classroom. . . 

■ Distortions occur when publishers present a distorted view of history or “mystify” the causes of events. . . 

■ Several interviewees raised concerns with superficial representation, where Black, Brown, LGBTQIA identities are reflected in materials in only cursory ways and pop in and out of the text. . . 

There were many potential reasons about why publishers are struggling with incorporating (culturally centered theories and models) of instruction principles into instructional materials. One of our interviewees expressed doubts that publishers have the fluidity to be responsive to the plurality of racial and ethnic groups that our education system is trying to serve. She pointed to the vast diversity across regions and within regions as a barrier to ever creating truly flexible and fluid curricula. This was echoed in other interviews. Other interviewees pointed to the standards and said that any effort to make classrooms more culturally responsive starts with adjustments to the standards which will then force changes to the curricula."

Fighting for Democracy

Portland Association of Teachers does have an academic freedom clause in its contract with PPS. Article 10 entitled “Academic Freedom and Instruction” states the following:

“The District shall consult with professional educators over decisions regarding the selection of districtwide textbooks. Within generally accepted professional and content standards, professional educators are responsible for determining the supporting materials and methods used for day to day instruction, including differentiating instruction based on student needs.”

 

Still, we must remain vigilant. As Patricia H. Hinchey and Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, authors of the article, "The Future of Teacher Education and Teaching: Another Piece of the Privatization Puzzle," advocate, there is "an urgent need to plan an active response,. . . and to find ways to extend and support . . . union resistance."

 

Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan emphasize the need for a collective fight for democratic public schools, but also for the protection of those teachers who are targeted for being visible and influential in that fight. They write:

"The strongest champions of the welfare of all children have always included their teachers and the unions that represent them. While unions must attend to economic issues, they also provide invaluable support to teachers who stand up for children's rights when vengeful administrators seek revenge against them."

The authors are correct when they say, that "rather than democracy, the current situation only serves to strengthen hegemony—the power of one group to control the lives and thinking of others, or to paraphrase Gramsci, the power of one class to disguise its own interests as the best interests of other classes (as in the insistence that's what good for business is good for everyone), thereby not only imposing domination but also transforming beliefs, values, cultural traditions, and social practices to perpetuate the existing social order."

Teachers, as workers, must resist top down restrictions on their academic freedom and fight with their unions to "move towards democratic schooling and work against cultural hegemony—and to insist on a place for the caring, professional and dedicated teachers envisioned by such educational leaders as Ira Shor, Henry Giroux, Nel Noddings, Jonathan Kozol, Alfie Kohn, Lisa Delpit, Gloria Ladson-Billings and an army of others."