Anonymously, we find out what teachers think

Missouri teachers think our students are over-tested.

That is according to a survey released last week by the Missouri State Teachers Association.

Last month I wrote a column on the topic of media access, and how it relates to transparency and the accuracy of what we report.

Many schools -- local and nationwide -- have policies that forbid teachers from speaking to the media unless they have approval from official communication staffers or administrators.

We rarely hear views opposing what's being done in school districts. We fear that reaching out to teachers and getting honest opinions could get teachers in trouble. Teachers don't have communications teams. They are not necessarily media savvy.

Frankly, they don't always know the bigger picture. Their jobs are to spend seven hours a day inside a room with our children. Their effort is not just valued; it is absolutely critical. And so are their voices.

I believe we need to hear from our teachers, who often spend more hours a day with my children than I do. So when I received the news release from the MTSA last week, I took interest.

Sixty-five percent of the more than 3,000 Missouri teachers who answered the question about standardized testing said that the use of standardized testing is too much. Fifty-two percent said that testing took more time away from instruction this year than in previous years.

These are interesting findings, but perhaps not too surprising.

What I found most interesting were the hundreds of comments that teachers, with the protection of anonymity, shared about the nuts and bolts of testing.

It was truly insightful and not at all one-sided.

Many commented on the use of technology for testing purposes.

Some teachers expressed that taking tests on computers the first time went surprisingly well. Some who were teaching at schools that had already been involved in the 1-to-1 technology program said the transition was simple because the students were already accustomed to the technology. Some said the transition to computer testing went great because of all the preparation and prior planning that took place.

Others were frustrated by the process.

One teacher commented that Internet issues caused major delays and hiccups. Some said students, particularly younger ones, didn't handle the technology as well because they were more accustomed to seeing things on paper, and marking up the paper.

Other schools apparently had problems with wifi access not being strong enough to handle all the computers accessing it at once.

Another teacher pointed out that many older students who were tech savvy preferred the computer test, but others who did not have as much access to computers at home were not good typists and struggled.

As I read through the comments, many potential story ideas came to mind. Clearly, the role of IT folks in schools has escalated. The ability to plan and equip schools with the technology needed to test is very important. It definitely played a role in what the teachers deemed a good testing experience.

It would be interesting to examine the roles of school IT folks, the demands they face, how many are needed and how they are compensated. And what about Internet access? How are our rural schools coping with connectivity? Do they have enough bandwidth? Do they have enough technology, and, if not, are they producing students who enter college or the workforce at a disadvantage? Are these tests timed? If so, is it fair for those who have not developed typing skills?

When I talk about access to teachers and public employees in general, I'm not necessarily talking about a teacher giving us a scoop into the dark side of the district. But teachers know things that can simply be brought to light. A story examining the role of typing speed in test taking might illuminate a fairness issue; that is not a criticism of a district. Teachers can tell us about troubles they see. Writing skills are diminishing because of texting, for example.

But would a teacher feel comfortable talking to a reporter about issues when policy states they are not to talk to the media? Even if they are given permission, would they feel comfortable telling us even about a small concern -- when a PR person or school administrator is sitting in on an interview?

As more districts adopt a closed off policy, it becomes even more essential that school boards have an open-door policy. Obviously employees should always try to work out problems with their superiors before taking them up the chain of command. What communication you're getting from the top may not match what's happening in the classroom. The survey brings to light teachers' true feelings about the amount of testing done today. They feel its approaching a detriment to our children's learning.

The issue of access plays into crime news as well. It used to be routine for reporters to talk shop with cops. Even dispatchers. Years ago, we used to do beat calls, making calls twice a day to our police departments. We would call dispatchers at sheriff's offices and police outfits and just ask if anything happened that slipped under our radar. Occasionally such calls would reveal something. Over time, dispatchers refused to give any information at all.

We've had more than one conversation like this, as recently as a couple of weeks ago:

"Yes, this is the Southeast Missourian. We heard something about a shooting on the scanner, but didn't catch the location. Can you give it to us?"

"You'll have to catch public information officer So-and-so. He's not available until tomorrow morning."

"Is there someone else we can call?"

"I'm sorry; he's the only one."

We had the same issue recently with a boil water alert, which I wrote about last week. Even people with knowledge of certain information are fearful of sharing it with the media, fearing discipline -- for sharing correct, nonpolitical and important information! Rather, it must come from a communications expert. These PR folks, in many instances, are more interested in getting their bosses re-elected than they are informing the public of important news. They are doing as directed.

The government, at all levels, has commandeered the news business. It is becoming increasingly difficult to capture even day-to-day news and happenings. It goes all the way to the president, who was chided this week by The Wall Street Journal for running the least transparent administration in U.S. History.

Rarely in the past five or so years has a public employee told us anything that didn't make the public entity look impeccable.

Yet, the minute you make an anonymous survey available from a teachers association, thousands of honest, fair and important assessments come to light.

Bob Miller is editor of the Southeast Missourian.