Early in the history of this blog, I wrote an extended critique
of the state of civics education in the US.
In sum, I reported that American students were low on certain
measures: political/governmental
knowledge, political participation, and disposition toward political
involvement. In addition, they were high
in levels of incivility and even criminality.
These conditions were qualified – e. g., American youth might be low in
political involvement and knowledge but in some studies, they fared well when
compared with the youth of other nations.
My overall claim was that there was a lot of room for improvement
assuming the American public wanted, in general, high levels of
political/governmental knowledge, political participation, civility, and law-abiding
behavior. While I reported these
shortcomings, I, on more than one occasion, made it clear that I was not
placing the blame for them on the doorstep of any one person or group of people. I believe good schooling, including efforts
in civics, is the responsibility of entire communities and that the complex
chore of improving our instruction in that field, as well as in all of education,
falls on the many. It is important to
state this today because one of the most maligned sectors of the American
workforce is our teacher corps.
In a recent book, Dana Goldstein[1] reviews
some of the most stated complaints of teachers and some of the proposed “reforms”
aimed at fixing the problem posed by deficient teachers, and gives us an
overall view that runs counter to what many of us hear from the mass media
outlets. I would like in this posting to
list some of these findings in hopes of providing some sobering insights on the
“teacher problem.”
Goldstein begins by giving credence to one critique of teachers: they do not represent the most successful
graduates from the most prestigious colleges and universities. They, as a group, have on their resumes lower
than average SAT scores. Also, most
engage in classroom activities that are primarily mechanical with a reliance on
lectures, worksheets, and short evaluative exercises such as spelling
tests. At least one review of elementary
teachers found these boring approaches as being typical instructional
fare. The aim seems to be mostly rote
memory instead of analysis, synthesis, and problem solving which tend to be
more engaging and more reflective of higher order thinking on the part of
students. Oh yes, and probably less
boring. But there are other research
studies that give a more promising impression.
For example, in a recent study, teachers fared very favorably
when compared to other American professionals in terms of a passion for their work. This finding was offset by another one that
found that the level of being “very satisfied” with their job was plummeting
among teachers. One wonders if some of
this decline has to do with the recent attempts by school administrators and
politicians to “fix” the teacher problem.
Of course, the nation of late has been going through some very
meaningful challenges; primarily, challenges caused by the Great Recession.
Some context: teachers
in this country, once held in high esteem, have been subject to an array of
criticism, much of it of a personal tone.
For example, Governor Chris Christie the other day described teachers as
having a “good gig” in that they are paid a yearly salary and have so much time
off as in the summer months. I always
thought of the summer break as two months of each year when I was unemployed
unless I was fortunate enough to land a summer school job. It’s all in how you see things, I guess, but there
I was at home not receiving a paycheck.
When such a thing happened to my folks when I was a kid, things were
tight and the future was doubtful. I, at
least, knew I had a job come September.
But the hidden message within the Governor’s comment is that teachers
are getting away with something unseemly.
Really?
But that’s Christie, known for his over-the-top histrionics. Is he the exception? Here’s Goldstein’s take on what is generally
out there in terms of public utterances:
Today the ineffective tenured teacher
has emerged as a feared character, a vampiric type who sucks tax dollars into
her bloated pension and health care plans, without much regard for the children
under her care. … According to sociologists who study these events, in a moral
panic, policy makers and the media focus on a single class of people (in our
case, veteran public school teachers) as emblems of a large, complex social
problem (socioeconomic inequality, as evidenced by educational achievement
gaps). Then the media repeats, ad
nauseam, anecdotes about the most despicable examples of this type of person
(such as “rubber room” teachers, who collect pay, sometimes for years, while
awaiting termination hearings on accusations of corporal punishment or alcoholism). This focus on the worst of the worst
misrepresents the true scale and character of what may be a genuine problem.[2]
Then Goldstein proceeds to add some real context to what is
being discussed.
For example, I believe most would be surprised to know that
even in the worst urban, low income, conditions, as those found in New York or
Los Angeles, those beleaguered teachers preside over some of the highest
achievement level increases, as measured by achievement tests, in their region. And the author makes a very telling
observation: these teachers are much
more effective than the alternative, an ongoing cast of rotating teachers as
would be the case if wholesale terminations were instituted or, as is often the
case, replacing disheartened teachers who retire after only a few years in the
classroom.
Goldstein runs through the list of “reforms” that have proven
ineffective and have made things even worse because of the said attrition rate
among teachers often caused by reforms.
Central to these efforts have been reforms to limit or do away with
tenure programs. I will address tenure
in a future posting. Let me preview that
posting by stating generally that there are no giveaways. Every practice instituted by the “system” has
a reason and it’s not altruism or concern for the plight of teachers.
These comments are not specifically geared toward civics
teachers. They share in the problems
that face the teacher corps. What I would
hope is that criticism of teaching in America not be personal or
overgeneralized. There are problems with
teaching, but they are not of the type usually depicted or of the extreme
nature described by the vocal critiques who now, in many cases, make a career
of such efforts. Oh, I guess the last
statement has a personal edge to it – sorry!
