In a continuing fall-out from Motoko Rich’s article in the New York Times about charter teachers who plan on a two-or three-year career, Sara Mosle reflects how her own views about teaching have evolved. When she joined Teach for America some 20-plus years ago, she was part of a cohort that thought that youthful enthusiasm was superior to experience. It was not uncommon for her and her colleagues to put in 100-hour weeks.
Now that she is older and a parent, she sees things differently. For one thing, she sees the need for veteran teachers. For another, she sees that 100-hour work weeks are impossible for those who have a family or a life outside of work. And she believes that being a parent has made her more understanding of the hopes, fears, and responsibilities of parents.
My reflection on her article: She is not saying that you have to be a parent to be a good teacher; she acknowledges, as Wendy Kopp does not, that inexperience is not a virtue but a starting point on the learning curve of a challenging profession; she implicitly (and maybe explicitly) challenges the charter model that assumes a workforce of teachers who are 22 or 23, only a few years older than their students, ready to work 100 hours a week and then move on to find their real career elsewhere.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Sadly Sarah and some in the charter public school movement doesn’t know that the same debate took place in alternative public schools, 20 years before charters started. Historical context does help.
The alternative and innovative public schools that survived generally had a mix of faculty. Some were new and some were veterans. That mix has many virtues.
Jenny! Read the article Ravitch refers to here! Odd that I just referred to your parenting skills or serendipitous? 😀 I can never put this article on FB but I believe we, too, are better teachers now because of parenting as well as age!
Being a parent also makes one a better teacher because you have a much deeper understanding of children’s growth and development, something the so-called reformers willfully ignore and seek to banish from the the schools.
Growing up is one of the hardest things to do in life, and it’s easy for some to forget that. Parenthood places those difficulties before you every moment of the day.
Just more divide and conquer.
How so?
Judging people by whether they can be a good teacher if they are not a parent.
Thanks for clarification. I’ve seen great teachers who were parents and great teachers who weren’t. How about you?
I disagree. The profits should be returned to the taxpayers.
Should teachers be parents first? – The Washington Post
Sara:
‘I cannot imagine sending my daughter to a school where not a single grown-up in the building has any direct comprehension of the inner workings of adult family life.’
Valerie Strauss:
Something else difficult to imagine is a school completely filled with young Teach For America recruits, who only get five weeks of summer training before they are put into classrooms in America’s neediest schools. Rather than asking if teachers should be parents first, a better question might be whether people should be allowed to teach without proper training.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/03/should-teachers-be-parents-first/
And Sara finds much fault with Diane’s “tone” in her new book. The review is in the Atlantic Google it.
Yes, Sara Mosle thought I should have been more “moderate” in describing the attacks on teachers and public education. Moderation is not always an appropriate response. When I think of guys making $500,000 complaining about “overpaid” teachers who make $40,000 a year, I don’t feel moderate.
Yes, in the face of the Billionaire juggernaut, I think the words of Barry Goldwater ring true:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
She characterizes Diane Ravitch as strident in her new book. I imagine the same criticism was leveled against Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring:
“Ravitch presents Reign of Error as an overture to dialogue with opponents, but her subtitle suggests otherwise: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Her tour of the research is littered with bumper-sticker slogans—she indicts, for example, the “Walmartization of American education”—likely to put off the unconverted.”
The Walmartization of American education: for-profit schools and chain schools. A nice summary for an awful phenomena
Diane has described her (for profit) publisher in glowing terms. There are a vast array of companies, some very ethical, some not. Schools have purchased books, paper, and a vast array of items from (for profit) companies for many years.
For some of us, the question is not whether a publisher or the organizer of a school is “for profit.” The question is the quality of what they create.
Joe, all trade publishers operate for profit. What are you insinuating? You have a bad habit of being snide. All of my books are bought by individuals who want to buy them. There are no government mandates telling them they must buy them. There are no foundations underwriting their purchase or production. No government funds pay for the books. What is your point?
My point was and is, “For some of us, the question is not whether a publisher or the organizer of a school is “for profit.” The question is the quality of what they create.”
As to the accusation that I “have a bad habit of being snide…”, I’m sorry you feel that way. Sometimes it feels like any statement not shared by some people here produces name calling. I’ll pass on the name calling.
Some people have written that they read but don’t post because of the way they see some of us are treated.
Here, for example, is part of a post directed to me yesterday: “Please go to hell while your at it!!! Soon other parents will find out how charter’s really work and they won’t want you either. Drop Dead!!!!”
Diane, as you have noted, this is your living room and you can set the rules.
I’d respectfully suggest that it should be ok to ask questions or raise points of disagreement and not be accused of being “snide” or be told to “go to hell” or “drop dead.”
But again, this is your space and you get to decide. Hope that does not sound snide. It is a fact. I do appreciate the opportunity to learn from and share with people here.
I don’t find Joe snide – I am snarky and snide far more often than he – but he frequently attempts to deflect the discussion in ways that are disingenuous. i
It’s that disingenuousness, a chronic affliction among so-called reformers, that is so exasperating to deal with all the time.
This post is a perfect example: in response to a point made by Diane, that public education is being Walmartized by profiteers, Joe attempts to misdirect by pointing out that Diane’s publisher is a for-profit company, and that schools have long bought supplies from for-profit companies. He then tries to step back and detach himself from the very point he has just made, and appear to be above the fray.
Slippery.
Left out of Joe’s failed attempt at misdirection, however, is the fact that, unlike the past, the privateers are rapidly insinuating themselves into every facet of the schools, from curricula, to hyper-testing, to administration, and inside the classroom itself. Indeed, they now control the levers of education policy throughout the country.
Sorry, Joe, another Fail.
You gotta step up your game, or your funders may not see sufficient return on their investment, at least based on your arguments here.
What some describe as mis-direction, others see as relevant. As noted before (but sometimes ignored), no one pays me to post here.
Returning to what I think is one of central issues of this thread, I think a number of us are agreeing that many strong public schools (using various measures to define strong) employ people of a variety of ages and experiences.
The idea of hiring mostly young teachers came up in the late 1960’s and 70’s with alternative schools. Many of those schools found value in having a mix of faculty. *
Parenting and teaching are two completely different things. I am insulted that anybody thinks that by virtue of being a parent, that it makes him or her a better teacher.
I have seen some teachers who compare their students to their own children. Just because you have children does not mean all children are growing up in the the same circumstances and you family is typical.
Good points. Being a parent does not necessarily make you a better teacher than someone who does not have children. Being a parent gives you some insights than a non-parent would not have. But being a great teacher involves many different skills, talents and insights.
As far as I’m concerned, it isn’t healthy for anyone to spend 100+ hours a week on a job, unless it is something extra that they want to do. No one should be punished or passed over because they insist on maintaining a semblance of a personal life.
I’ve come across far too many apologists who turn working unsustainable hours as some kind of badge that shows that they care more than others. Self abuse doesn’t show caring for anyone. Instead it shows that a person is willingly submitting to abuse from a system that doesn’t even value them. Who’d have thought that part of the ’21st Century skill set’ is the ability to let your employer treat you like it was 1893.
I couldn’t resist pulling out the calculator. There are 168 hours in a week. If you subtract 100 hours of work, you are left with 68 hours “free time” for the week. Divide that 68 by 7 and you have about 9.7 hours per day for all the nonessential things we do, like sleep. Seriously?
What makes it even worse, Wilbert, is that employers, their HR departments and organizational psychology consultants, have become very skilled at having their workers internalize the “need” to work excessive hours, and cultivate an environment of peer pressure where the workers increasingly sweat themselves.
It’s far more effective, and far more insidious, than the 19th century command that, “If you don’t come in Sunday, don’t come in Monday.”