The ‘Blame the Teacher’ Movement, and the Public-Sector Union Crisis

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6087/public_workers_blues_teachers_budgets_oh_my/

Friday June 11 12:51 pm By Richard Greenwald

Will government workers join the race to the bottom?

I was stopped dead in my tracks and felt a cold chill run down my spine while reading the current issue of The Atlantic. Its cover story is “The 14 3/4 Most Powerful Ideas of the Year,” which is a Top 10 list that makes fun of Top 10 lists (hence the 3/4).

Idea number 13 is the one that got me. It was written by The New York Times’ David Brooks and titled “Teachers are Fair Game.” As Brooks sees it, it is now open season for intellectually assaulting teachers. To be honest, Brooks aims mostly for the teachers unions. The result is yet one more mainstream media outlet joining the echo chamber claiming that teachers and their organizations are at fault for the poor state of education in America.

What I call the "blame the teacher" movement is smart politics for those on the right. It shifts public debate away from funding and economic equity issues to teachers on the frontline. In some ways it is like a Fordist speedup without the $5 day. Newly proposed policy would tie teacher salaries, merit pay, and even tenure to student test scores. The pressure is up, but, with diminished funding, resources are down.

Now, improving education is something everyone favors. It’s like democracy. But how one gets there is the million-dollar question. Can you improve education by putting increased pressure on teachers to raise classroom test scores in a time of declining public funding for education? We are about to see.

In my last Working ITT blog post, I bemoaned how we seem to hate “career” teachers as a culture. We love the young, idealistic missionary teachers. And we should: These recent college graduates are energized, smart and dedicated. But they have a short shelve-life, lasting a short time in the classroom before they are off to other careers. One could argue that even this is good, as the experience of a 2-3 years in a classroom changes them for the better.

Frankly, most teachers, it must be said, last only a short time in the classroom. The challenges are so great, the emotional costs as well as the salaries force many to rethink their career choices. Those that stay in education (I mean in the classroom) do not typically do so because they’re losers, or can’t find better jobs. They stay with it because they care and believe they can make a difference despite the hardships. It is precisely these teachers who have the nation’s eyes focused on them. I can almost hear the collective buzz in their ears from all this talk about them.

FULL story at link.

are going to get the same crap?
As far as I'm concerned, they do more teaching in this society than teachers.
And as for Mr. Brooks.
If he thinks teachers are making big demands on his pocket book --- let him and the rest of society try to get along without schools or teachers.
Within 3 generations, he'll have costs to pay that he never dreamed existed.

Thank you.

Could you please X-post this in the Education Forum? Thanks!

has his way? What magic potion is supposed to make teachers with alternative licenses create classrooms full of committed learners? It won't happen. Teaching is a craft that requires a commitment. Having a teacher that lasts only three or four years will probably limit about 100 or more students.

Teachers that know their curriculum and have developed classroom management skills are worth every dollar we pay them. These teachers didn't walk in the door with these skills. It took time and experience.

I just finished my teaching career. I can say that it took me about 5 to 6 years to master an elementary classroom and the curriculum. Every year I added more to my management skills.

Guys like David Brooks have no clue. The trouble is his words get more attention than they deserve. The media doesn't even try to balance the debate on this issue with an opposing view. So Brooks, Obama and Duncan get the opportunity to criticize education with limited knowledge, and offering little substance to explain how their new education world will improve the product.