When Educational Leaders See Employees and "Human Resources" and "Human Capital: Are You Devaluing Teachers?

What is wrong with using the terms “human resources” and “human capital” as an educational leader?

I was reflecting today on my time in “human resources” and I realized that the entire time working in that area, the word “human resouces” always caused me just a slight shiver when I heard and used it. Why?

It is actually the word “resource” that is a bit bothersome, because it refers to “any material, person, or asset that can be USED to meet a need, solve a problem, or produce something value.” In other words, the term refers to USING people for some purpose.

I suppose it is just that word “USED” that bothers me, because that word so easily slips into manipulation and exploitation. The term “human resource” also makes me think of something like “natural resources” which are extractions from nature USED AND EXPLOITED for manufacturing purposes.

So the term “resource” has always had a slightly bad smell for me.

Then why not use the term “human capital” instead? Sometime ago, our North Carolina Public Schools started labeling its work force and teachers “human capital." When I heard the monthly webinar with the state called the “Human Capital Webinar” I had that same quiver of uncomfortableness.

But the word “human capital” has a bit of stench to me as well. Why? Capital means in many ways the same thing. Capital is a broad term for “financial assets, such as money, or physical assets, like machinery and buildings, USED to produce goods, services, or generate income or value.”

So is using “human capital” any better? Not really. One still has to slightly hold the nose on the “USED” part of that meaning if one sees people for more than just a tool to be used to reach a goal. It still has that slightly off-putting smell.

But, I suppose if your intention is truly to USE people for these purposes, then these terms work well. 

Still, I can’t help but wonder how the use of the words “human resources” or “human capital” somehow deeply affects how leaders view those to whom they lead, especially school leaders. 

Words have meaning and they have power. I have always believed that, and the terms and words a leader chooses, has power over a school leader’s work.

By viewing people as “resources” or “capital” to be used and manipulated for organizational purposes seems to avoid attaching any other value for people other than how they can be used for those purposes. This means leadership is about using and manipulating people to produce, and I think too often, school leaders will resort to any tactics to achieve their purposes.

Just maybe that’s why “accountability” has become gospel to educational leaders. Educational leadership as a field has taken all it can from the world of business, including the terms “human resources” and “human capital.” Accountability in the form of test scores gives purpose, and teachers simply become the resources and capital to that end.

Using words like human resources and human capital allows the school leader in good conscious to engage in the same kinds of exploitation and manipulation tactics as business leaders sometimes engage in. It can use people for the achievement of a simply purpose: increased test scores.

Perhaps it’s all OK in the end, but I do think educational leaders need to be a bit skeptical of all these leadership concepts and philosophies that have infiltrated educational leadership as a field. 

Why? Because education is NOT just about “producing graduates” or even “producing citizens.” Narrowing education education into any single purpose or purposes limits its possibilities.

Education as a field is notorious for "relabeling" things when a term becomes fashionably and culturally unacceptable or somehow viewed negatively. For example, I still laugh to myself when I hear the word "learning cottages" to describe "mobile classrooms" or "classroom trailers." But I am not advocating a label change here, because this is not a language issue; it is a educational cultural issue and will not change by changing the "human resource" or "human capital" label. Those are only deeper symptoms of a way of thinking that sees employees as objects of exploitation for purpose. That's what should be the target for revision.

I realize that organizations are going to use the words “human resources” and “human capital.” But, I have always valued my own “slight discomfort” at the use of the terms, because it was always a reminder to me that, these terms did not have to determine how I viewed employees and that I could value them as the human beings they were too.

Can Non-Teaching Administrators Effectively Evaluate Teachers?

The arguments about whether school administrators who haven't been classroom teachers can effectively evaluate teachers is never-ending. At the heart of that argument is actually whether teaching is a professional skill requiring great expertise, or whether, as some business-minded people seem to think, it's a skill that anyone can do, with as little training as possible. But can an administrator who has never faced the day-to-day management of a classroom full of students adequately pass judgment on the quality of a teacher? I would say probably not. Before the barrage of emails start, let me clarify my reasoning for using the word "probably."

To teachers who think I should have used the words "definitely not" instead of "probably not," let me say that I don't think there are absolutes here. There are certainly administrators out there who have enough intuitive understanding of what "good teaching" looks like that they might be able to do an adequate job of evaluating teachers. But, and this is important, I think that is by far the exception. 

In the United States, there is a prevalent belief that somehow a successful businessman is capable of "super-heroic" feats and should be respected as capable of doing anything---from being a great leader to a politician. This is evident in how many times political advertisements display proudly the title "Successful Businessman" as if that somehow automatically qualifies them for office. As an offshoot of this belief is the idea that a person who's managed a thousand-plus employee corporation can somehow step into a school and manage it just as well. The same thinking seems to apply to those who are military leaders. They also are somehow revered by some and seen as fully capable of managing schools and districts simply due to their established leadership abilities, and this includes the evaluation of educators. But I submit to you that neither business leaders nor military leaders are always capable of managing educational organizations. They are definitely not always capable of judging the effectiveness of classroom teachers simply because when they do judge teaching, they automatically see teaching as a simple task of "imparting knowledge" to students and not a complex set of experiences and activity that are designed to make the deeper learning of critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, etc. possible. Sure, these business leaders quite often are creative and experienced people when it comes to solving problems. But their experiences lie within organizations where employees are easily dispensed with, and if products are defective, they can be simply discarded. In the educational enterprise, we can't dispense with students when they are somehow not measuring up like so man defective parts; we have to teach them from where they are. Also, while we could easily fire teachers not quite measuring up, we then have to face the issue of trying to find another teacher in a climate of fewer teachers and fewer young people becoming teachers. In fact, most teachers, and I would add principals, don't fall into the black and white categories of "good" and "bad." Most fall in the middle where evaluation is incapable to making those extreme categorizations. Instead, good administrators are often in positions of working with all teachers to move and improve to the "good" category.

Classrooms are very complex places. After having spent 16 years of my 25 years in them, every single time I enter one to evaluate a teacher, I always remember that. It does not translate into a sympathetic lack of will to honestly complete the evaluation; it simply means I view classroom teaching through a lens of complexity that allows me to see many more of the subtle things that happen as a teacher engages students. It took time for me to develop that lens. I think it fair to say, that lens allows me to better understand teaching and learning, and it makes me a better evaluator. 

Often, when an administrator has never been in the classroom lacks having this lens, he must resort to the only lens he has, which is often tinted with a superficial understanding of teaching and learning. That means he grasps for simple evidences of good teaching like test scores, attendance, and graduation rates, which are numerical in nature and easily placed on a yardstick. He doesn't see teaching through a lens of complexity and understanding. It is for that reason, I would say that administrators who have taught for a period of time themselves understand "good teaching" better. Those at the extremes of good teacher and bad teacher are certainly easier to recognize, so the non-teaching administrator could easily recognize their expertise or lack of skill. It's all those in the middle that need the coaching and support that escape the black and white categorization of a superficial understanding of teaching and learning. A non-teaching administrator is often simply incapable of seeing the complexity of teaching.

Honor Roll: 50 Must-Read K-12 Education IT Blogs

I can't help but feel a bit honored to be included among those bloggers in EdTech Magazine's "Honor Roll: 50 Must-Read K-12 Education IT Blogs." This includes many ed tech heroes of mine such as Will Richardson and David Warlick. It's a great list to be included, and one I am going to make sure gets loaded into my Google Reader. Thanks EdTech Magazine.

Here's the link to the "Honor Roll: 50 Must-Read K-12 Education IT Blogs."