Where is teacher voice?
A recent article caught my attention. The article discusses how teachers bring implicit theories about how students learn best into their teaching practice. These theories inform our beliefs about “best practices” in the classroom. However, teachers rarely get to participate in broader conversations about these practices or have our perspectives validated.
The author argues that teachers should make their theories explicit, as we have valuable insight from our daily experiences in the classroom (I do, actually). However, we are often treated as “automatons” rather than professionals whose expertise should inform policy debates.
The article cites several reasons why teachers have been excluded from these conversations, including gender bias (the profession is majority female) and the focus on test scores over other measures of learning. It also notes that teachers can test ideas on a small scale but not determine if they would work system-wide like academic researchers can.
Ultimately, the author calls for greater inclusion of teacher voice and perspective in discussions about educational theory and practice. He argues that many policies fail because they do not account for the theories and experiences that actually mobilise teachers’ work with students on a daily basis.
Imagine that - listening to actual experts?!
The author expands on the latter point by arguing that policymakers and education leaders often impose blanket "best practices” or curriculum changes on teachers without consulting us or understanding the reasons behind teachers' existing approaches.
Some key ideas around that from the article:
Teachers develop our own theories and ideas about what works best for our students through our daily classroom experience. But these are rarely taken into account when setting policy.
Buying a set curriculum or mandating a specific teaching approach often conflicts with teachers’ own beliefs and experiences. This can lead to poor implementation or resistance from teachers. This is why I wrote the upcoming Holistic Language Instruction.
The “best teachers” already have a thoughtful grasp of why they employ certain methods based on their specific students. But they may lack the official vocabulary of published theories.
Critical theories adopted by some teachers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, may better meet the needs of certain students than dominant theories. So these shouldn't be dismissed.
Surveys show teachers tend to draw on multiple approaches, tailoring methods to individual needs. But policies often try to impose one standardised model.
Overall, the author advocates listening more to teachers themselves rather than treating them as passive, interchangeable conduits of external theories or curriculum. Accounting for teachers’ hard-won wisdom could lead to policies and practices better suited to actual student outcomes.
Wow! Who would have thought!?
From a critical perspective, the exclusion of teachers that the article describes does seem highly condescending and patriarchal. A few key reasons why:
It denies teachers the basic agency and respect that should come with our expertise and experience in the field. We are the ones directly interacting with students daily, yet we have little input on what governing theories or methods “should” guide that.
There are clear power dynamics at play, where mostly male policymakers and academic researchers impose top-down decisions on a predominantly female teaching workforce. This mirrors and perpetuates long-standing gender inequities.
It treats teachers as interchangeable implements rather than unique professionals. In reality, teachers have our own valuable philosophies and approaches developed through practice. But these go unheard and are often actively suppressed via mandated curriculum or pedagogies.
The knowledge produced by formal research is privileged over the knowledge stemming from teachers’ lived experience. This devalues critical perspectives shaped by interacting with marginalised communities over theories often produced through dominant paradigms.
Ultimately, it undermines basic principles of workplace autonomy, dignity, and democracy - teachers can be made subject to binding decisions about their own profession in which they have little say. This not only disempowers us but has negative consequences for the whole educational system.
Nothing about us, without us
Many traditionalists contend that our Congressional representatives represent the ‘will of the people.’ However, critics (like me) highlight the outsized influence of moneyed corporate interests upon politicians, calling into question just how well the priorities of average citizens are accounted for.
For example, big businesses in capitalist America spend vast sums lobbying politicians and donating to their campaigns. In return, policies frequently support the profit motive over public services. The infiltration of schools by big corporations peddling educational products is one such example that serves shareholder interests more than it does students.
Corporate publishers and edtech companies develop materials and platforms aimed squarely at capturing market share rather than enhancing learning. Yet through political connections and PR sieges, these subpar products get mandated for classroom use. Publishers even fund pseudo-scientific “evidence mills” generating dubious data praising the efficacy of their wares.
So whilst our Congresspeople ostensibly represent local interests, I would argue their allegiances clearly lie with lining the pockets of their corporate donors. Until we eliminate the corrosive influence of money in politics, citizens’ voices will always play second fiddle to the wants of capital. We deserve representatives who answer to public need, not private greed. But we must organise and make those demands loudly heard.