Matt Hopper, the only other dude among the Elite Eight, has a great post I think y’all should read. The following is a response to his post.
It’s a tough dilemma to sort. The most at-risk, poor, unattended students should have the best, most experienced, most innovative teachers. But they don’t, as Dan Brown states at the end of the videa. (This confirms Ben’s advisement to the Elite Eight to remove the word should from our vocabularies if we want to be successful in this crumbling education system. He did not mean to destroy any moral imperative, but only to prepare us for the frustration that awaits any idealistic, “should-based” mindset.) What should happen doesn’t happen, in this case. So I hear with full understanding Matt’s closing sentiment: “Please don’t tell me that because I don’t have 20 years experience in a successful Connecticut public school district, that I don’t belong in a classroom that desperately needs me”; there are classrooms that desperately need teachers, any teachers, and it’s unacceptable to dissuade any program or individual from meeting desperation head on.
And I simultaneously have another note to make this chord a little less stable in my mind. I keep thinking about time. Some of my favorite teachers were those who had been at it for years. They had been in that school for as long as anyone of my older peers could remember. They were veterans who had stayed in one place. I wonder if that steadfastness, that constancy in a single academic community, is what makes the best teachers really the best. And if that’s true, or if at least it heavily factors into their teacherly excellence, then the Should in the previous paragraph is not even true, let alone overly ambitious. If all the best teachers go to the high-needs schools, then what happens to the schools that once had the best teachers? We must send our inexperienced workers there. If we’re on the defensive (as Ben seems to assert—“this may well be a failed system”), then we only have so many soldiers to place at the fortifications, and if we move the veterans from one place, then we shall have to fill their slots with the weaker troops. Would the benefit accrued in one sector be worth the loss felt in another? What if moving our teachers to new posts doesn’t let them perform at their best? What if consistency, being a long-time member of a single community, is more important than, or is a multiplier of, individual talent?
(As a side note, the MTC doesn’t seem to me like it generates a lot of consistency. I have my suspicions that a lot of people have come through this program from wealthy, private, liberal arts colleges to inflate their résumé or to kill time after college and before going on to do “bigger” and “better,” and especially higher-paying, jobs. I can see the temptation myself. I have x dollars in loans to pay off, I’m not ready to pay them yet, I’ll get a loan deferment by enrolling in this program, and by the time my two years are up I can get myself a hot ticket somewhere with the big bucks. It’s not the MTC’s fault that this happens, but I mean to say that the people coming into the system aren’t helping anything if they come, under-qualified, to teach for two years and then scram when they only just begin to get the experience and technique that’s called for by people like Amy Wilkins.)
Back on topic, I’m not sure that there’s an easy solution to the good-teacher-in-bad-schools shortage. In a recent meeting I put forth the idea, purely for the sake of pondering, of mandatory job placement for services like teaching. Should we force the best teachers into these undesirable positions? The general consensus is Nay, but not undisputedly. Think Switzerland, think mandatory military service, for a likable example; think Soviet-controlled Ukraine, think nationalized agricultural slavery, for a less pretty picture.
Another possible solution is money. Ben is a proponent of increasing the economic incentive to come to these schools, but then you might have borderline schools cheating to appear as under-achievers to receive Federal or State funding to hire better teachers. And sometimes there’s no reasonable amount of money that will make a white, veteran teacher in New England charter school move to the Deep South to teach in an all-black, historically poorly performing public school.
Alternatively, I very subtly implied, unnoticed, a propagandist’s approach to the starving public/community/social service market. Right now, I generalize, “service” is largely regarded as a résumé-booster in high schools and colleges. I mean both unpaid and underpaid service. Students do it because scholarships and companies, especially political ones, like the look of it. “It shows you care,” or something. Various organizations like the National Honor Society perpetuate this thinking. But what if service wasn’t promoted as a means to an end, but an end in itself? We Interns recently were talking about financial, social, and moral incentives: What if we engendered in the youth of the nation a strong moral incentive to serve, to go into low-paying jobs like teaching? Right now there is financial incentive only inasmuch as it could lead to a better job, but there is no financial incentive for long-term service (few people really “move up” in the teaching world in the same way as in the corporate one). There is little social incentive anyway, because (as I have experienced strongly in my life) many are pressuring young people away from service, because it would be a “waste” of their house-buying, car-insuring, mortgage-paying, college debt-relieving talents. “Those talents need to be invested,” some say. Invested in a résumé, or in the lives of other people?
But my half-hearted socialist and propagandist suggestions wouldn’t really change the current system. What do you think? Is there a simple answer to the education crisis? Or are programs like the MTC only delaying the inevitable fall of poor public education systems? Is the answer found in socialistic education schemes, in indoctrination, in big government spending? Please shoot a response my way.
It’s a tough dilemma to sort. The most at-risk, poor, unattended students should have the best, most experienced, most innovative teachers. But they don’t, as Dan Brown states at the end of the videa. (This confirms Ben’s advisement to the Elite Eight to remove the word should from our vocabularies if we want to be successful in this crumbling education system. He did not mean to destroy any moral imperative, but only to prepare us for the frustration that awaits any idealistic, “should-based” mindset.) What should happen doesn’t happen, in this case. So I hear with full understanding Matt’s closing sentiment: “Please don’t tell me that because I don’t have 20 years experience in a successful Connecticut public school district, that I don’t belong in a classroom that desperately needs me”; there are classrooms that desperately need teachers, any teachers, and it’s unacceptable to dissuade any program or individual from meeting desperation head on.
And I simultaneously have another note to make this chord a little less stable in my mind. I keep thinking about time. Some of my favorite teachers were those who had been at it for years. They had been in that school for as long as anyone of my older peers could remember. They were veterans who had stayed in one place. I wonder if that steadfastness, that constancy in a single academic community, is what makes the best teachers really the best. And if that’s true, or if at least it heavily factors into their teacherly excellence, then the Should in the previous paragraph is not even true, let alone overly ambitious. If all the best teachers go to the high-needs schools, then what happens to the schools that once had the best teachers? We must send our inexperienced workers there. If we’re on the defensive (as Ben seems to assert—“this may well be a failed system”), then we only have so many soldiers to place at the fortifications, and if we move the veterans from one place, then we shall have to fill their slots with the weaker troops. Would the benefit accrued in one sector be worth the loss felt in another? What if moving our teachers to new posts doesn’t let them perform at their best? What if consistency, being a long-time member of a single community, is more important than, or is a multiplier of, individual talent?
(As a side note, the MTC doesn’t seem to me like it generates a lot of consistency. I have my suspicions that a lot of people have come through this program from wealthy, private, liberal arts colleges to inflate their résumé or to kill time after college and before going on to do “bigger” and “better,” and especially higher-paying, jobs. I can see the temptation myself. I have x dollars in loans to pay off, I’m not ready to pay them yet, I’ll get a loan deferment by enrolling in this program, and by the time my two years are up I can get myself a hot ticket somewhere with the big bucks. It’s not the MTC’s fault that this happens, but I mean to say that the people coming into the system aren’t helping anything if they come, under-qualified, to teach for two years and then scram when they only just begin to get the experience and technique that’s called for by people like Amy Wilkins.)
Back on topic, I’m not sure that there’s an easy solution to the good-teacher-in-bad-schools shortage. In a recent meeting I put forth the idea, purely for the sake of pondering, of mandatory job placement for services like teaching. Should we force the best teachers into these undesirable positions? The general consensus is Nay, but not undisputedly. Think Switzerland, think mandatory military service, for a likable example; think Soviet-controlled Ukraine, think nationalized agricultural slavery, for a less pretty picture.
Another possible solution is money. Ben is a proponent of increasing the economic incentive to come to these schools, but then you might have borderline schools cheating to appear as under-achievers to receive Federal or State funding to hire better teachers. And sometimes there’s no reasonable amount of money that will make a white, veteran teacher in New England charter school move to the Deep South to teach in an all-black, historically poorly performing public school.
Alternatively, I very subtly implied, unnoticed, a propagandist’s approach to the starving public/community/social service market. Right now, I generalize, “service” is largely regarded as a résumé-booster in high schools and colleges. I mean both unpaid and underpaid service. Students do it because scholarships and companies, especially political ones, like the look of it. “It shows you care,” or something. Various organizations like the National Honor Society perpetuate this thinking. But what if service wasn’t promoted as a means to an end, but an end in itself? We Interns recently were talking about financial, social, and moral incentives: What if we engendered in the youth of the nation a strong moral incentive to serve, to go into low-paying jobs like teaching? Right now there is financial incentive only inasmuch as it could lead to a better job, but there is no financial incentive for long-term service (few people really “move up” in the teaching world in the same way as in the corporate one). There is little social incentive anyway, because (as I have experienced strongly in my life) many are pressuring young people away from service, because it would be a “waste” of their house-buying, car-insuring, mortgage-paying, college debt-relieving talents. “Those talents need to be invested,” some say. Invested in a résumé, or in the lives of other people?
But my half-hearted socialist and propagandist suggestions wouldn’t really change the current system. What do you think? Is there a simple answer to the education crisis? Or are programs like the MTC only delaying the inevitable fall of poor public education systems? Is the answer found in socialistic education schemes, in indoctrination, in big government spending? Please shoot a response my way.
5 comments:
It is very intriguing to see that you and I share very similar sentiments about MTC and some of its participants. People think they are doing MISSISSIPPI, black people, whoever/whatever a favor by coming here to teach our children. However, most of these students still end up with teachers who are incompetent, who leave in the middle of the year, or who can not get over being so full of that themselves that they can't see that they are being much more of a problem than a help. I appreciate the benefits that MTC brings to its group of young teachers, but I do not appreciate those participants who come here because they cannot find a job after college or because they just need something to do. I admit, I never thought that I would be a teacher, but I am grateful for the experience because I have become very passionate about education. And guess what, I will continue to pursue a career in education. The money is not much, but guess what, making an impact on someone's life is far more worth any other job. Philip, your words seem to have much more validity because you are an outsider like them, and for you to have this point of view is awesome! You basically said everything I wanted to say, but did not want to say. I really appreciate the openness that you have to this new experience.
Can't wait to take you to the Delta next week!!!!!
All through the year, as I would express my sense of failure, that I am not the teacher these students need, that I am the last person these students need, inexperienced, unfamiliar with the objectives and the process, ambivalent towards the profession, a fellow classmate would often console me,"Oh, but you're so much better than what they would have without you." Now, I had a uniquely privileged placement; maybe for some this would've been true, but not for me.
I may have become a better teacher this year, I may even have taught some of my students something by the end of the spring, but they always deserved better than me. No question. My biggest worry is that MTC-like programs are the life support system that keeps the disease alive with the victim.
I feel what you're saying, Philip. I often remark that programs like MTC/TFA/NYCTF work backwards not only by placing the least experienced teachers in the most difficult classroom environments/communities in the nation to teach in but by frequently burning out young, often idealistic people who may have actually stayed in the profession longer (or even permanently) had their introduction been less "trial by fire." I also agree with you that people who dabble in teaching before going on to do "bigger and better" things are terrible. I propose public castration for those with this mentality. Same goes for people who do service as resume boosters. Not cool.
However, I must defend MTC on the point of teachers remaining in the profession. I think that our stats (from p. 15 of the 2007 Annual Report) are that 68% of MTCers from the class of 2003-2005 are still K-12 teachers and 90% are still involved in education. Granted, I would guess that most teachers are not teaching in the toughest schools in the U.S. post-MTC but they're still teaching. That's much more than I could hope for for not only the majority of my peers at Harvard but for the majority of my friends that I grew up with and persevered through terrible public schools with.
Along these lines, I feel that MTC attracts people who are different from the TFA crowd in some respects. My girlfriend did TFA in Ruleville which is in Sunflower County (right north of Humphreys County in the Delta) and she often talks about how she can't stand people who come to Mississippi, like Crystal said, and feel like they're doing these kids an immense favor. Like they'd all be pregnant and dead, not knowing the difference between "is" and "was" or "y=mx + b" and "m=xy + by" if it weren't for them. LOL at the savior mentality. However hidden it may be.
Still, I feel that White guilt has a lot to do with White people's participation in MTC and similar programs. Not necessarily overt White guilt but psychological, historically entrenched White guilt (kind of like the psychological, historically entrenched slave/colonial mentality of Blacks in the U.S. and abroad) that sometimes manifests itself awkwardly in these days and times. Quite honestly, I feel that MTC's ranks should be filled with Blacks FROM Mississippi. The rest of us should go back from whence we came and stop trying to force immediate, drastic change on a culture, people, and place that is not our own. White Man's Burden, Take 2. I feel that if White people are truly interested in ending (or decreasing the existence of) racism, educational inequality, and poverty in this nation then their quarrel should be with other Whites who are players in this system, big or small. People need to organize and educate folks in Ridgeland and Oxford just as much as Holly Springs or Rolling Fork.
If I'm lying wounded or dying on the side of the road and an inexperienced doctor comes along -- or a mediocre or borderline-incompetent doctor -- and he starts to help me not out of love or some pure motive but for personal glory, knowing he may be called a good samaritan in the newspapers, I don't think I'd turn him away, or denigrate the value of his service to me. Pure motives are nice, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient. (Also, almost nobody has them. I say "almost" out of principle, not because I'm sure I've met any exceptions.)
I attended a public high school with high turnover and had a lot of awful teachers. Some of the better ones were veterans, but there weren't a lot of veterans, and some of the better ones were new. Having taught for three years as and with MTC teachers, I know there are a lot of students who would quickly name MTC teachers among their favorite or "best" teachers. And some excellent teachers do burn out and leave, or decide that they'd be happier doing something else. I won't begrudge anyone for going where they'll be happy. These are affairs of the heart.
It is certainly true that experience tends to make us better at things, but I don't think there is any simple correlation between number of years on the job and competence or effectiveness at it, and think this opinion has been confirmed by the dozens of cases I've observed first-hand as a teacher in Mississippi. And I can conceive of excellent schools that are staffed entirely by young MTC-type teachers, rotating through in a few years. I can conceive of an excellent school system that is staffed like a military -- some career officers on top, and tons and tons of teachers on two or three or four years tours.
Bottom line: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
You will get young smart white idealistic people to work, but they know what they are worth in the marketplace.
Their parents did not invest all that money so they could give their lives away to charity.
They will invest some time in Mississippi to develop some skills, to give themselves an ideological pat on the back, to lay a foundation for a future career in a better-paying school district, or (in the case of Obama and his two years on the Chicago streets) to lay up political credits that he can cash in to get into Harvard or start a political career.
They are not going to work for free.
Nor are those little white girl teachers going to marry and raise family that will grow up hillbilly in rural Mississippi.
When the time comes for them to breed, they are going to leave.
And why shouldn't they? As the children of relatively wealthy families, they are not interested in coon hunting, cock fights, hymn sings or county-western music. Their culture is elsewhere, with other educated white people.
Further, and to the extent they are gifted teachers, prepred to discuss Shakespeare and Dickens, their talents are largely wasted.
Mao faced the same problem when it came to providing health care to the Chinese masses. He did not send out neurosurgeons on mandatory two year rural rotations.
Instead, he trained cadres of "barefoot doctors". These were rural people themselves for whom a medical education was never a possibility. They were not trained in neurosurgery, but in basic sanitation and wound care, where their talents would pay off best. His doctors came from the very people he was going to treat.
Read Jesse Stuart's book "The Thread That Runs So True". The teachers in that book are about as close to "barefoot teachers" as you can get. What you ought to be doing is bringing in the white kids to start training a cadre of black teachers --"barefoot teachers"-- who can teach the very basics (reading, writing and arithmetic) to the poor folks of rural Mississippi.
And the people they train ought to come from the very masses they teach, ones who are glad to live in a rural Mississippi town for the rest of their lives.
It may take some rejiggering of federal and state regulations to permit barefoot teachers. Many of the regulations are a thorough waste of time and money. The rural Mississippi educational level is so abysmal now that the ever more detailed requirements on the school systems by bureaucrats in Jackson and Washington merely pile Pelion upon Ossa.
If a huge percentage of regular everyday black kids cannot read and write upon graduation then the whole edifice is rotten to the core.
Bringing in a bunch of nice idealistic white girls to teach for free for a couple years will do nothing to change that.
Post a Comment