"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
