Readers of this blog know Jersey Jazzman as one of the sharpest bloggers on the web. I invited him to write something specially for the readers of this blog, and here it is:
As an American public school teacher, one of my greatest frustrations is how little our debate about education has been informed by the people who actually do the teaching. It’s not that I think teachers are the only ones who should have a say in education policy; that would be as foolish as thinking that only astronauts who’ve been in space should determine the direction of NASA.
Increasingly, however, I’m finding arguments put forward by pundits that are rather silly to someone who has actually spent his career in front of students. I read their op-eds and their blog posts and their magazine articles and I think to myself: “If this guy had spent a few years in front of a classroom, he never would have written this stuff.”
Take, for example, this post on teaching by the normally estimable Matthew Yglesias:
The new issue of the American Federation of Teachers’ magazine American Educator has a very interesting article from Richard Kahlenberg profiling the most innovative and effective socioeconomic integration schemes at work in public education today, and the considerable success these programs have at raising student achievement. But it ends on what struck me as an odd note:I’ve been highly critical of Rhee’s attack on teachers’ unions in venues like Slate and the Washington Post. I don’t expect her to give up her fixation on unions, but I do help to convince others of a fundamental but too-often-ognored truth: the major problem with American schools is not teachers or their unions, but poverty and economic segregation. That’s what the research suggests. It’s what 80 school districts have come to realize. And until federal officials catch up, it’s what I will continue to push them to acknowledge.The striking thing here is not so much the conclusion that classroom education isn’t very important compared to socioeconomic issues, but the venue in which it appears. The basic logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is fairly clear. Michelle Rhee is an enemy of the AFT, and Kahlenberg’s analysis suggests that Rhee’s agenda is mistaken. So AFT wants to publish Kahlenberg’s analysis.But a straightforward reading of the policy implications of Kahlenberg’s piece is that instead of pursuing Rhee’s reforns, Adrian Fenty’s administration in DC ought to have reduced spending on teacher salaries and invested the funds instead in low-income housing subsidies and tax cuts for high-income families. Promoting more economically integrated schools and neighborhoods isn’t going to seriously reduce the city’s need for police and fire officers, for garbage collection and bus service, or most other things. But if it’s true that socioeconomic integration is much more important for student achievement than teacher quality, then it seems like a no-brainer to reduce expenditures on teachers (accepting that some good ones may leave and be replaced by somewhat worse candidates) and reinvest the funds directly in the key driver of achievement. Now maybe that’s right (though I doubt it) but certainly it’s not something AFT or other unions would be interested in seeing happen.Yet it seems to me that if I want to make the business case for paying Slate writers, I have to persuade the bosses that Slate traffic is related to the quality of the writers employed in an important way. If it’s not fair to blame us for bad traffic because actually all that matters is the photos that accompany the stories, then obviously the thing to do would be to spend less on paying writers and more on photographers or photo licensing services.
See, I read this, and I think: “Matt has no idea what I do, does he? Because, if he did, he never would have written this; it’s embarrassingly clueless about teachers and schools.” I’m sorely tempted to leave it at that – but Yglesias is clever enough here that he deserves a rebuttal that’s based on more than argument by authority. So let me break down my specific objection:
Yglesias’s premise is fairly simple: teachers should not be pointing out the other factors that influence student achievement, because that diminishes their own importance.
But what if those factors are a necessary precondition for good teaching?
What Rhee and her ilk have been trying to sell lately is this notion of the Superteacher: a Mr. Chips or Mr. Holland or Mr. Escalante or Ms. Johnson (or Ms. Rhee – as if) so freakin’ awesome that even a kid with an abusive father or an unemployed mother or untreated allergies will rise above it all and conquer the world and be admitted to Dartmouth. It’s a nice story, and sometimes it even comes true. But not nearly as often as the reformy types would have us believe.
The sad truth is that the correlation between test-based student achievement and socio-economic status is nearly perfect; if poverty wasn’t destiny, that correlation would be far weaker. So it’s critical for good teaching to have a student that is ready to learn, and it’s ridiculous to assume teachers should simply shrug off these impediments and perform miracles.
But that’s not the same as saying that teaching doesn’t matter. Yglesias’s analogy is severely flawed – schools are not businesses – but let’s use it anyway:
If Yglesias’s bosses demanded that he generate traffic to his blog, but then refused to give him a stable connection to Slate’s servers, would that mean that he wasn’t important to the company? Of course not: Slate needs him to generate content, but he can’t do that if he doesn’t have the preconditions necessary for him to do his job.
Imagine if the CEO of Slate went to Matt and said: “Look, nothing is more important than making sure we have good infrastructure, because if we’re not on-line, we can’t get viewers. So I’m going to slash your salary and gut the editorial department so we can invest in making sure our servers are rock-solid.”
Matt might say: “But how can we have a good magazine without writers?”
CEO: “Hey, you were the one always making excuses for not getting hits: you kept complaining that the servers were going down, and that’s why traffic was bad. We’re fixing that, just like you wanted. But YOU’RE the one who said the servers were important; don’t come around now and try to claim that you’re important too!”
Yes, this is absurd, but it’s the way Yglesias sees the teachers unions’ argument. He believes that pointing out the importance of poverty in student outcomes diminishes the importance of the teacher. But the effectiveness of the teacher’s work is predicated on the student’s environment: the teacher can’t teach if the student can’t learn.
I – and every other teacher in America – live this every day. It’s so ingrained into our daily work that we don’t even think about it: we find it silly to even consider the idea that our role is somehow diminished by the simple fact that student characteristics matter. We work closely with parents because we know what happens at home sets the stage for what we do at school. But the importance of the child’s life outside of school doesn’t mean that what we do is irrelevant.
All of this may not be immediately apparent to someone who doesn’t teach. All the more reason we should be more involved in the conversation.
I don’t know how many teachers Matt Yglesias interacts with, but I think it would benefit his perspectives on education enormously if he added a few more contacts to his address book who work in schools. For that matter, I’d like to see all education pundits spend some more time actually listening to those of us who are doing the job. I know you all went to school and you all send your kids to school, but that’s not really the same thing, is it?
Listen to us: you might be surprised at how much you learn.
Two of the continuing complaints of some teachers is that teachers get no respect and that policymakers don’t listen to teachers.
However, the latest Gallup poll, published in Sept 2012, in Phi Delta Kappa asked Americans, “Do you have trust and confidence in the men and women who are teaching children in the public schools?”
71% said yes.
In terms of influence, most state legislatures, one of the most powerful lobbies is the education union that represents teachers.
So it appears that there is a lot of respect and via their union, teachers have a lot of impact. This does not mean people always agree with teachers (and it does not mean all teachers agree).
But I hope the 71% vote of confidence is impressive.
Once in a while it would be helpful if you could actually address the content of a post without the “hey, look over there!” distractions. Or are you honestly trying to claim that you don’t understand the difference between the media and the general public?
It Joe’s world and if it doesn’t happen to him, it doesn’t exist. He is busy “reforming”. We are busy teaching.
It certainly is higher than Obama’s approval rating – but not high enough, Joe. On the most generous scale, 71% is a low C. That’s not a grade I’d ever shoot for. What does the rubric look like for a low C here?
The Jazzman knows.
To Cheryl – 71% approval seems different than 71% correct on a test. I agree 71% correct on a test is lower than most of us would prefer. But I think 71% approval rating is quite high, and yes, it is higher than Obama’s rating. There is a vast right wing well funded group of folks who seem to be doing everything possible to tear down what Obama is trying to achieve.
Sadly, it appears some people who post here seem to see little if anything positive in Obama’s work. No mention in last night’s posting from Ed Week about his efforts to expand health care, to promote the Dream Act and reform Immigration, to give full respect for people of various sexual orientations, all of which I think is very good for many students and families.
As to Dienne’s comments about pundits…there is a huge amount of attention in most newspapers to feature stories about nice things public schools are doing.
But when journalists meet, many of them talk about how some educators complain that there is “nothing good” about schools in the papers.
Most papers carry stories constantly about good things happening in public schools.
“…there is a huge amount of attention in most newspapers to feature stories about nice things public schools are doing.”
Really? Not in *my* local paper. Just how local are you talking here, the MIDDLEBURY [Indiana] INDEPENDENT?
Dienne, here’s what I found in looking briefly on this website: http://www.lagrangepublishing.com/openpublish/
Lakeland High School feature story about a class making music videos (classic example of a feature story about a public school)
http://www.lagrangepublishing.com/openpublish/article/lhs-hits-web-lip-dub
Prairie Heights Middle School First Semester Honor Roll (List of students doing well in school)
Prairie Heights students attend ISTC (Can’t open this – is it about graduating attending this college, or is it about a visit to the college)
Various stories about high school sports
Dienne, here’s what I found in looking briefly on this website: http://www.lagrangepublishing.com/openpublish/
Lakeland High School feature story about a class making music videos (classic example of a feature story about a public school)
http://www.lagrangepublishing.com/openpublish/article/lhs-hits-web-lip-dub
Prairie Heights Middle School First Semester Honor Roll (List of students doing well in school)
Prairie Heights students attend ISTC (Can’t open this – is it about graduating attending this college, or is it about a visit to the college)
Various stories about high school sports
Do you have a link to that poll?
Here’s a link to the PDK poll:
http://www.pdkintl.org/poll/index.htm
Hmm … The poll you mentioned doesn’t seem to be there. Do you have a direct link?
Reading exchange, sorry this is not working for you. you might want to do a google search. When I click on the link it brings me to the PDK website, which gives an opportunity to download the poll for free.
Two other options if none of this work. If you are near a library that receives the Kappan magazine, you could go there. Or, if you are ok with this, you could send me an email, joe@centerforschoolchange.org. I will then send you a pdf.
I realize that you and I have disagreed. But I will respect your privacy if you give me your email.
Hope one of these options will work for you.
Hey Joe, we missed you yesterday when you neglected to respond to Diane’s post about segregation in charter schools in your home base of Minneapolis.
What happened, no opportunity to misdirect the discussion?
Actually, Michael, I made several posts. One involved the former African American, liberal Democratic former Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights who strongly disagrees with Orfield. Sounds like you missed this so I can repost.
A key point is that families of color see a key difference between being told they MUST send their children to a clearly inferior school, miles away (that’s segregation) as compared to having a variety of choices, including some that are beating the odds. (That’s democracy at work)
Orfield and Ravitch equate no choice and having choice. They equate being forced to attend an inferior school with having options.
What is your definition of “inferior” and why should any school be “inferior”? Who deems a school “inferior”? Do you believe the “reformers when they say a school is “inferior”? If so, why do you believe them?
Actually, Joe, I have to agree with Jazzman, as I, too, have addressed the very serious problem of ZERO experience in teaching in Congressional Committees:
http://alternative-edukation.blogspot.com/2013/02/education-is-broken-part-ii-or-where.html
I think what the respondents seem to be miffed about, and I could be mistaken, is the fact that this story is about “pundits” and policy makers and your poll is about “parents.” I know that I have strong support from many of my parents. Recently, in regards to an academic/instructional issue in my classroom, I had to tell an army of parents NOT to stand up for me. I have very high expectations and standards and sometimes, parents of alleged “A” students, usually kids are really good with worksheets but not problem solving, get quite upset that their child gets the first “B” ever in my science class. So parental support is not an issue. The fact that we have policy makers with no teaching experience, is very disconcerting
For example, would you have a military committee comprised solely of people who had never served? Or who had been draft dodgers? Perhaps the Commerce Committee should have communists from old Russia with no small business experience? Or, even better, imagine if we stacked the positions in the Intelligence Committee with people that actually weren’t very intelligent? Well, actually, I think that last one has already been done.
Anyway, my point is, as is Jazzman’s, nowhere else (that I’m aware of) is there the case that there are people in charge of something of which they have no experience. I believe, the reason for this, is that they aren’t REALLY interested in reforming education, but rather, once in a while in the election cycle, it just looks good on one’s resume to show how hard they have “worked for the children.” They say, “If only it weren’t for the mean ol’ nasty teachers and their unions, we could save this country and our children,” as they reach for a Kleenex and weep, just a little, for the camera.
Joe, I’ll acknowledge that teachers are still held in high esteem by the public; that’s not the same as the media.
The issue of union influence on state legislatures is a larger topic I’ll save for another day. For now, let’s just say this: if teachers unions had such influence at the state policy level, would the stuff that’s been happening be happening?
The crux of my piece – and I thought I was pretty clear about this – is that the national DIALOGUE about teaching is not being informed by a teacher’s perspective. I give Yglesias as one example, but you are welcome to visit my blog and see many, many others.
Left-leaning pundits are conditioned to think of teaching as a union/jobs issue, it is time for them to wake up and see that more than teachers’ jobs are at stake. Our nation’s free and equal education system is under attack from a profit-motivated privatization and “reform” movement, a rapacious education-industrial complex. The American Dream of opportunity for all is at stake. A healthy democracy requires a well-educated educated populace–democracy itself is at stake. Wake up, Matt Yglesias! Wake up, pundits!
The Jersey Jazzman gets it right, again.
A truly brilliant post!
Great post as usual from JJ; my extension from this: http://atthechalkface.com/2013/02/04/what-is-the-matter-my-lord/
Jersey, thank you for a fantastic and refreshing booster shot of truth.
JJ-Did you write a letter about this to American Educator?
No, I didn’t. I like to read one if someone did.
And thanks for you insightful analysis
Thanks everyone. And thanks Diane for the opportunity to post here. And for the many posts pointing to my blog.
Thank you so much. I’ve been in many meetings where the quote about “the greatest in-school factor is the teacher” is presented as the end of the conversation. We are not supposed to have anything to say after being offered that nugget of wisdom. Otherwise we’d be belittling our own roles! So it’s refreshing to have an example of why this is absurd. Of course teachers are important, but that doesn’t mean non-school factors can be ignored.
And to the accusation that anyone who mentions the many non-school factors that affect student achievement is just making excuses, I’ve always wondered what these people think WE THINK we are doing in our low performing schools. If we were excuse makers, would we be the kind of people who dedicate our careers to the neediest and hardest to educate children? If we were just job security-grubbing, excuse making, lazy and ineffective staunch unionists, wouldn’t we be actively seeking out the more comfortable, less challenging middle class schools where achievement is high enough? Maybe those schools are stocked with such people (though I tend to doubt it; even high performing schools are challenging places to work). But wouldn’t it just be an improbable coincidence that nearly ALL the ineffective, excuse making teachers can be found in the low performing schools? REALLY?