"The best teachers are not merely the technicians of proficiency; they are also ministers of innocence, practitioners of tender expectations. They stalwartly refuse to see their pupils as so many future economic units for a corporate society, little pint-sized deficits or assets for America's economy, into whom they are expected to pump 'added value,' as the pundits of the education policy arena now declaim. Teachers like these believe that every child who has been entrusted to their care comes into their classroom with inherent value to begin with." Jonathan Kozol, Letters to a Young Teacher
I don't often write about my life as a teacher in this space but a teacher is what I am and teaching often informs much of what I write about on this blog whether it is about film, literature, art or politics. I tend to view everything these days in terms of what part of this thing I am reading, seeing, investigating could I apply to the children I teach? Or how does what I have learned today about my students affect what I am reading, seeing, investigating now? The correlation between everything invests what I do with more significance for me. I am reminded of Robert Coles insightful book The Call of Service: A Witness to Idealism, a minister running a volunteer program for the poor says:
"I'm often asked what kinds of lessons we teach our children about the inner city and the people who live there. I answer, Most of our teaching is about ourselves. If we can look at the kind of people we are, and what we're hoping we get from this kind of charity, then we'll stand a better chance of behaving ourselves out there with the people we meet. " (Coles, p. 59)
This idea, that the service one gives is also a form of receiving, is prevalent throughout the book. I have tried to approach my teaching with this in mind (even before I read Coles' book). It keeps me grounded, reminds me of my limitations as a teacher and helps to control the urge to be the one with all the answers. I have been taught a lot from the students I instruct. I once said that being a parent is a truly humbling experience because every day one is confronted with the disparity between how your children see you and the truth, or what you see as the truth, of how you really might be. One can ignore this difference and pretend to be the supermom or dad, the super teacher and become insufferable to others, or one can recognize the difference and try and correct the faults or improve on the limits of our person, striving towards the better angels of our nature and gain a modicum of modesty and compassion towards those we teach.
I am thinking about this because of the ongoing battle (and I find I have to use that word) that is happening in my school system, and many others, regarding reforming our schools. I read a lot of teacher blogs that cover the reform movement, both pro and con. The arguments made on these blogs usually swirl around the talk about what is in the best interests of the children we teach. Some are ardently pro-union, some adamantly anti-union, and some recognize the faults without desiring the abolition of the unions. That's kind of it in a nutshell. Around this idea of pro/anti union blows the winds of ideas that inhabit the reform movement - testing of students, accountability of teachers, restructuring of the school year and, ostensibly, improving the education of our students.
Charter schools factor heavily in many of these arguments. One of the things that I learned in all this blog activity is that the idea of charter schools was strongly embraced by Albert Shanker, the legendary/infamous founder of the United Federation of Teachers and president of the American Federation of Teachers. I find it highly ironic that the man who famously said that he would start worrying about the interests of school children when they started paying union dues advocated for the very thing that has seemed anti-union in so many respects. But then Shanker was a walking contradiction of terms. But despite these contradictions, or despite the disparity between how he may have viewed himself and how others saw him, Shanker wanted charter schools to be models of teacher empowerment, wherein teachers could investigate and experiment with instructional practices that could be vigorously assessed for effectiveness outside the often restrictive bureaucratic regulations that seem to strangle most public schools.
This is a great idea and it is understandable to me why so many are attracted to this particular idea of charter schools. But what, it seems to me, has been lost has been this idea of teacher empowerment. Certainly the people who seem most to champion charter schools do so often at the expense of the idea of unions. Often their denigration of the union comes with a limited knowledge, or a willful disregard, of the history of the labor movement, especially as it concerns teachers and the kind of treatment teachers have been subjected to, even after unions were formed. To some extent it reminds me of an employer I once had, a person who could be quite unfair in their treatment of employees and, when their behavior was pointed out, used to sneer "What are they complaining about? They have a job don't they?!"
It is not surprising that several charter schools in New York and California have decided to unionize. When I read the articles in the NY Times and the LA Times that chronicled the situation and the feelings and thinking of the teachers who decided to take this step I saw the same problem being identified - teachers being disregarded for their input, being told to, basically, shut up and teach and leave the real thinking to those that know better. I would like to say that most charter schools are paradigms of teacher empowerment but, unfortunately, the more I read and hear the more I am disappointed in this hope.
Certainly our public schools are no better in this example. In some districts teachers are not only told what to teach in terms of curriculum but even what to say, working off a script like some automaton that doesn't have the sense or ability to figure out what to use for lessons nor how to present the material. It is almost ironic that our nation talks so much these days about democracy and freedom, and we as teachers are supposed to not only teach this but demonstrate how democracy works to our students, and yet so many in the reform movement seem to feel that teachers do not need to have a seat at the table when discussing how education can work at their schools or even to make decisions concerning their classroom. This comes with the easy scapegoating that occurs, the blaming of teachers for the failure that really belongs to our society.
Paolo Freire talked about "redirecting our educational practice toward the goal of an authentic democracy" in his book Education for Critical Consiousness. He says:
"I was convinced that the Brazilian people could learn social and political responsibility only by experiencing that responsibility, through intervention in the destiny of their children's schools, in the destinies of their trade unions and places of employment through associations, clubs, and councils, and in the life of their neighborhoods, churches, and rural communities by actively participating in associations, clubs, and charitable societies.
They could be helped to learn democracy through the exercise of democracy; for that knowledge, above all others, can only be assimilated experientially. More often than not, we have attempted to transfer that knowledge to the people verbally, as if we could give lessons in democracy while regarding popular participation in the excercise of power as "absurd and immoral." We lacked --and needed--sufficient courage to discuss with the common man his right to that participation. Nothing threatened the correct development of popular emergence more than an educational practice which failed to offer opportunities for the analysis and debate of problems, or for genuine participation; one which not only did not identify with the trend toward democratization but reinforced our lack of democratic experience." (Emphasis mine)
"Those who can't do, teach." I actually had this quote thrown at me by one of my students quite recently. He misunderstood, in a generous way, the definition of the phrase. He thought it meant that when athletes become old they can no longer perform so they become teachers of their sport. I explained how that phrase is used by many in our society as a way to say that teachers are incapable of success in other walks of life so they are left with teaching. I said that this phrase goes hand-in-hand with that old chestnut "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?!" There has always been a very open lack of respect for teachers in our society. Oh, we talk about the importance of education and how important it is to have good teachers but listen to the talk out there, look at the comments on articles about education on the website for the Washington Post, or any newspaper for that matter, listen to the callers on talk radio. The denigration, disrespect and utter disregard for teachers is pretty powerful.
In all the talk about doing what is best for the children one important fact gets lost: that we cannot do best for our children if we do not do best for our teachers. It is a two way street that involves treating everyone with the respect, consideration and compassion that they deserve. I said once, on a comment on another blog, that when so much is thrown out about how terrible our teachers are, that over half our workforce needs to go, that the problem with our educational system lies with the teachers, that these remarks or held beliefs reflect on all the teachers in our system. It's not as if we can wear a sign that says "They don't mean me." Low moral and bitterness sets in and everyone suffers - especially the children.
What needs to happen involves true leadership. Not the leadership of "waning statesmen and chinless kings" (to quote Don DeLillo), not the leadership of benevolent dictators (those that prefer to decide what is best for the rest of us because "they know better, trust us"), but true leadership wherein the leader meets with the very people they wish to lead - the parents and the teachers and, in the case of high school, the students - hear what is said, listen to suggestions and formulate a plan that makes everyone feel invested in the outcome.
Teachers especially need to be heard. Why more-so than others? Because we are the ones who spend 6 hours a day with the future citizens of our country. I prefer the positive presumption by Jonathan Kozol, quoted above, that we are the "practitioners of tender expectations" and that when I say teacher I don't need to say to anyone that "of course I mean the good teachers". When people refer to the medical profession by and large they do not do so in such a derisive manner as they do with teachers despite the existence of charletons and quacks that operate under the banner of a medical degree. Give us the respect we deserve and the "genuine participation" that our positions as teachers in our communities demands.
To our respective leaders I leave this quote of Mencius (4th century B.C.E., Confucian sage):
"To pretend force is Humanity - that is the mark of a tyrant, and a tryant needs a large country. To practice Humanity through integrity - that's the mark of a true emperor, and a true emperor doesn't need a large country... If you use force to gain the people's submission, it isn't a submission of the heart. It's only a submission of the weak to the strong. But if you use Integrity to gain the people's submission, it's a submission of the sincere and delighted heart."
Posts
5 comments:
Hello Lodesterre,
This was a lovely post. I'm so sorry these awful attitudes about teachers have emerged. They are the opposite of what is needed for struggling schools, which in my view is simply more nurturing.
And thanks for the garden analogy comment on my most recent post. I was so stunned when Buck responded the way he did; to me it reflected a mentality which is so insensitive and harsh. I only value it because I think it's useful to get insights into how others really think.
Thank you, Perimeter Primate, I have been enjoying your blog very much. I think there is a bit of resentment going on there - namely that people should be more grateful that these foundations, to whom Buck is beholden, are doing what they do. In other words, shut up and do what they say. I think Freire put it best when he spoke of genuine participation. But genuine participation would require a different type of education, wouldn't it? After all, an informed public, as has been said in so many places, is the very foundation of our democracy. As Ben Franklin himself put it:
"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
Or, as Orwell might put it: Knowledge is power and he who controls the knowledge has the power.
I agree with The Perimeter Primate. You state your point poignantly.
As a teacher, I used to think and talk with some of the same and similar quotes.
My Uncle Maurice, one of those "evil" entrepreneurs, would say, "So, what are you going to do about it? Get the money together and do it." "Follow my principles," I'd think. "Be honest to beliefs." He knew what I was not saying, and let me off the hook with a smile and a lasting memory.
I didn't know how to gather enough money or other stuff to save the world as I wanted to do.
I later found out that people with enough money and persuasive positions knew what I knew and more. I learned their vocabulary and logic.
Then, I found out that they had similar goals to mine. We worked together to accomplish small steps that gave some people a leg up.
I hope you find similar people with whom you can work. You never know who might read your blog!
So, a tip. Show them that you can work with them.
I hope you
Mr. Heiny,
I am not really quite sure what you are getting at. I clearly talk about cooperation in my post. I quote Freire about genuine participation in democracy - a participation that involves educating people so that they can participate meaningfully in their democracy. I call into question the co-opting of the charter school movement by those who claim to be in the "reform" education movement and turning the idea from one of a school run by teachers and parents - genuine participation - to one of corporate, top-down management.
Freire talks about dialogue and how dialogue leads to education, he also speaks of the cultural invasion characteristic of anti-diaologue:
"Any invasion implies, of course, an invading Subject. His cultural-historical situation which gives him his vision of the world is the environment from which he starts out. He seeks to penetrate another cultural-historical situation and impose his system of values on its members. The invader reduces the people in the situation he invades to mere objects of his action. The relationships between the invader and invaded are situated at opposite poles. They are relationships of authority. the invader acts, the invaded are under the illusion that they are acting through the action of the other; the invader has his say; the invaded, who are forbidden this, listen to what the invader says. The invader thinks, at most about the invaded, never with them; the latter have their thinking done for them by the former...
Propaganda, slogans, myths are the instruments employed by the invader to achieve his objectives: to persuade those invaded that they must be the objects of his action, that they must be the docile prisoners of his conquest. Thus it is incumbent on the invader to destroy the character of the culture which has been invaded, nullify its form, and replace it with the byproducts of the invading culture."
(from Education for Critical Consciousness)
I quote this so extensively because I think it is an apt description for what is happening in the reform movement and with charter schools. When I read that the KIPP schools base their operating philosophy around E.P. Seligman's theories - both learned helplessness and learned optimism - I am reminded of what Freire says in the quote above. When I hear someone tell me I need to learn the vocabulary and logic of others in order to achieve my goals, I am again reminded of this quote.
I talk about true cooperation in my post and the need for better cooperation, not co-opting, not adapting, but a listening, giving, reciprocal process - a dialogue - by which all benefit, grow and learn. I don't see how dialogue can occur if I adopt the language of those I am trying to engage - I will merely be a parrot, repeating what they want to hear. No education there. As William Stafford says "I don't eat that bread."
Thank you, Lodesterre, for clarifying your point. Thanks for asking what I meant.
Respectfully, I meant to say two things.
It takes only one person to do something that can make important changes in people's lives. So, what am I, you, or other readers doing to make those changes.
It takes (or more) two to converse. If the other person does not use my vocabulary and logic, I must find ways he will use in order to talk with her about what I think important.
So, I learned the vocabulary and logic of people with money, etc. in order to talk with them about my ideas. During these exchanges, I learn more about the value of their positions than I wanted.
They broadened my capacity to make the changes I think important: to increase student choices through increasing learning beyond whatever it is at any moment in any setting.
I found out I could talk with people behind previously locked doors without using the rhetorical and political baggage as well as other biases I held that closed doors to me. As a result, I found out that they too wanted meetings of minds.
Perhaps others can benefit from my Uncle Maurice's lesson.
Yes?
Post a Comment