EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
When Did Teachers Become Bums?
When did teachers become bums? When did it become okay to vilify an entire occupation — three million college educated professionals working as hard as anyone to make the world a better place?
It wasn’t that long ago that teachers occupied a quasi-secular-sainthood. It was the underpaid, overworked teachers who guided, inspired, succored, and cajoled every one of us to find in ourselves that bigger person we all long to be.
But lately it’s become acceptable, even sport, to blame teachers for all of the ills of American education.
The new documentary, “Waiting for Superman” is just the most recent salvo in a broad-spectrum campaign to demonize teachers, teachers’ unions, and public education in general. It is a blinkered caricature of life for five underprivileged students, with teachers cast as the villainous Simon Legree.
Indeed, it is amazing what a rapid turn-around the film represents in the public narrative about teachers: from near-adulation only a few years ago to ill-concealed contempt today.
In truth, it is teachers who have held education together in recent decades against a seemingly endless deluge of social pathologies. Consider just a few examples.
In the past thirty years:
- Most mothers have joined the workforce. No more Mrs. Cleaver at the door with warm cookies and milk and help with Beaver’s homework.
- We’ve surrendered our children’s socialization to television, video games, the Internet, and on-line social media.
- America jails more of its population than any country on earth — a sign of an almost psychotically violent society. One in thirty children has a parent in jail!
- We’ve absorbed the largest wave of immigrants in our history, many speaking no English and with little educational background.
- Many of the best teachers, especially women, have found opportunities in other fields that were not open to them before.
- Forty-five million Americans live in poverty; one of five American children are raised in poverty; one out of every eight Americans are on food stamps. The middle class is dying.
It’s pretty hard to teach a kid who has been raised by the television, when he hasn’t eaten breakfast, when the family has been kicked out of their home, when he has to work a job to help feed the siblings, when the parents have just gotten divorced or lost both of their jobs, when no-one at home speaks English, or when their most alluring role models are dope dealers, pimps, or gangsta rappers. Imagine, then, trying to teach a room full of such trauma cases.
Yet, for many of our lowest-performing schools, that is the world we actually live in. Trying to teach in that world is like trying to put up a tent in a hurricane. No sooner do you get it up than it comes right back down again. And the force factor is increasing. But teachers continue to do it.
Finally, let’s be honest about the motives of those behind the teacher-bashing.
We spend almost $750 billion each year on public education. Enterprising capitalists want to get a piece of it. A little known loophole enacted at the end of the Clinton administration allows wealthy investors to double their investment in only seven years by providing the funding for building charter schools.
That’s a 10 per cent annual return compared to less than 1 per cent available in conventional bank deposits. And the investment is essentially foolproof since it is public spending that assures the payback.
Now, making a profit isn’t a crime in a capitalist country but isn’t it funny how these “reformers” always cast their motives as altruistic? These “philanthropists” include the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and some of the wealthiest hedge fund managers in the world — yes, the same wizards who brought us The Greatest Economic Collapse Since the Great Depression.
It is they, fronted by President Obama, who are behind the charter school movement. Their goal is to make franchises of our schools, docile, low-cost industrial robots of our teachers, and McStudents of our children. This, despite the fact that the best academic studies of charter schools have shown that they perform no better than public schools and in many cases perform worse. Sometimes much worse.
A 2009 Stanford University study surveyed results for schools teaching more than 70% of the nation’s charter school students. It showed charter schools performed better than comparable public schools in 17% of the cases. But they were more than twice as likely to perform worse, in 37% of the cases.
That doesn’t matter. What matters is getting in on the big money.
In truth, the motive of the charter school boosters is the same profit motive that destroyed a once vibrant public health system, replacing it with the highest cost/lowest quality system in the industrialized world. Now they want to do the same for education. And the bonus add-in for them is that in the process they will destroy one of the most potent democratizing institutions in the history of America: public education.
But in order to make the sale, they have to demonize teachers first.
Are there bad teachers out there? Of course there are! They should be fired. By sheltering incompetent teachers, the unions are only giving ammunition to those whose motives are far more base than mere incompetence: making a profit off of your children. That is the reality of the public debate about education and teachers today.
Teachers don’t teach in a vacuum. Education isn’t some Immaculate Conception that occurs in a classroom, untouched by the world around it. And fast-money billionaires don’t invest for the warm-and-fuzzies.
If you want better schools, work for more stable incomes, families and neighborhoods. Get involved in your schools. Fire the few bad teachers but support the overwhelming number of good ones. And don’t be suckered by those peddling venom in the guise of altruism. Your children are products to them, pieces of meat on an assembly line whose only purpose is to produce profits. We can be better than that.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


194 Comments so far
Show AllI was told recently that US schools are funded locally not by the States as we do in Australia. If this is the case no wonder poor municipalities can't provide proper education. But I suppose if it is supported by the states this is wealth redistribution and therefore communism.
Some states may fund at the district level. My state, Michigan, funds at the state level, but still allows wide discrepancies in funding among districts. For example, my district receives the state minimum of about 7100 dollars per student. Wealthy school districts elsewhere receive as much as 13,000 dollars per student. And the money is not directed to districts with the highest need; most of it goes to upper middle class districts with well-educated parents.
Here in Pennsylvania, schools are not only _not_ funded on the state level, but not even at the county level. They are funded at the school district level - funded entirely on real-estate taxes (tax on the assessed value of the house and land). My urban county - Allegheny County, has about 25 schools districts, ranging from wealthy McMansion suburbs on the uplands to desperately poor communities in the de-industrialized river valleys. In the latter area, real-estate values plummeted through the 1880's and 90s - slashing the tax base, and guaranteeing that the poor, black schools districts are desperately underfunded.
Jonathan Kozol's book "Savage Inequalities" written 10 years ago, exposes this perfectly, but the media ignored it of course, because it prescription, that the wealthy pay a bit more in taxes so that everyone in the county gets a chance at a quality education, is vehemently opposed by the white suburbanites. Because, as you stated, such a thing would be "socialism". I encounter people - sometimes with signs in their yard, who oppose having to to pay the real-estate tax, because they have no children in school. Public education itself is "socialism and therefore anti-freedom" in the minds of many USAns.
You describe the most common US pattern for funding education. Hopeless!
Jonathan Kozol's very first book "Death at an Early Age", a real indictment of the Boston Public School system, which came out in the late 1960's (if one can get hold of it). also gives excellent insight, not only on the state of the Boston Public schools as they were then, and even now, but the state of our (past and present) educational system, generally.
This evidence goes a long way to proving that the accademic success of students depends mainly on the economic health of their parents. That's been found to be true also in districts where economic status is more heterogeneous.
redballon,
There has been a high correlation between test scores and economic well-being of parents. Of course, it is hard to tease apart various factors such as the educational level of parents, values families hold about education, family wealth, the amount of money spent on schools in a district and many others. In some cases, it is not just about money: attitudes of parents towards education are extremely important. In Japan mothers prep their kids at home to get into the right kindergarten. We do not share that value here (thank God), but you can see how that can play into making a good school. There are outliers: good schools that serve lower middle class populations. Not many, but some. Some of the factors that influence their high achievement include a curriculum that connects with whatever outcomes are being measured, stability in families, a well-trained teaching staff, and a tradition of achievement. Education is complicated; I should have studied something easier--like physics!
I absolutely agree on all your points. It was not my intention to suggest that income was the only factor, but all the elements you include tend to be found together - more often than not.
Yeah, that business about competing for the best kindergarten started here in Canada, too, about the time all this corporate influence asserted itself.
Physics, indeed - eliminate the human factor and education's a walk in the park. ;-)
bingo.
In Indiana schools were supported by property taxes within each school district until a few years ago when the entire taxing system was overturned. Someone sued the state because businesses were being taxed at higher rates than homeowners, which seemed to violate the state's consitution. The state court system agreed and required the legislature to change the system.
The problem was that tax assessors used a variety of methods to make sure that homeowners taxes did not rise too much, so businesses paid for most of the necessary increases. The solution was to install a market value system for property taxes, which outraged people in older neighborhoods whose assessments had not changed in decades.
The outcry due to their tax increases was so large that the legislature did two things. First, they taook school funding away from the counties and installed it in the state's general funding. Then they put tax caps onto property taxes, in a manner similar to what was done by proposition 13 in California in the past.
The result was that this year, in a year of low sales and income tax collections, the state has cut school budgets drastically. In addition, the yahoos in the state (call them Libertarians, Tea Party members, Republicans, whatever) managed to get a referendum on this year's election ballot to make the tax caps part of the constitution. Homeonwers will have one cap on their taxes, farms another, and businesses another.
In other words, the system the courts found unconstitutional will be made constitutional because the idiots in this state will fall over themselves voting for the change.
So now, school systems will have to compete with every other lobbying group in the state for funding. How successful will they be when they go up against the highway lobby, the energy industry, etc.?
Most funds for most schools are state funds. But here in California, that is not necessarily good news.
deleted by commenter because it was stupid
A statement you'll never hear from a TeaBagger...
it all heppened when the entire occupation, such as teaching or medicine or law or ministry were enshrined as "holy cows" while the members of occupation were entitled to serve themselves financially and legally first and foremost.
individualist capitalism leaves no one behind.
Not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that teachers put their financial welfare ahead of their mission to educate? Would need proof of that.
just look at the state of education. what better proof do you need?
So, first you accept that all public schools are bad. You've got show me proof on that one. Then you blame the shortcomings of education on the teachers. So....poverty, non-English speaking families, families without fathers, absence of decent facilities and supplies, large class sizes, no professional development programs for teachers, no special programs for special needs populations--all of these things play no part in the failure of US schools? Come on! Guess your schooling left out the critical thinking component.
"So....poverty, non-English speaking families, families without fathers, absence of decent facilities and supplies, large class sizes, no professional development programs..."
You forgot the savage inequalities in funding between poor and rich school districts.
the teachers are no better or worse than the society in which they operate.
individualist capitalism pits everyone against everyone else. the teachers are no exception.
how can a teacher in public school teach lessons against the ethos of the society?
how does a teacher prepare his or her students to condamn what their parents do everyday?
how does a teacher with a sincere disagreement with the society even get hired to teach in public school?
Lots of education is not political. Mathematics, science, basic reading, art, music, PE, voc ed, for example. A teacher can present a non-capitalistic view on the world in a variety of ways, most quite subtle: how language is used, what problems are considered, emphasizing non-monetized activity, occasional mild put-downs of the perpetrators of greed. That is one thing non-educators may not understand: within the four walls of your classroom you can shape the learning environment in subtle ways. That was how I furthered the communist agenda... :-)
why do you suppose doctors make many times of what nurses make?
why do you think laywers charge many times more than teachers?
why do you think chemical engineers fetch 10 times of what an artist earn?
why do you think the curriculum and the education system is structured the way it is?
a society educates its members so that they fit in the society.
and the members of a society decided what kind of society they want to have.
either you are in, or you are out.
you complain about others only when you are losing in the game you've willingly and knowingly participated in.
In what game do you see yourself as willingly and knowingly participating, to make such complaints?
Teachers serve themselves financially first? ? That is patently untrue. I'm a NYC teacher. Two years ago, my friend, who is in advertising, was making the same salary as me. In those two years, my pay has gone up by a couple thousand dollars a year.
Hers has gone up $15,000 in that same span of time. There is no conceivable way I will get a raise like that ever in my professional career. In order to get any kind of substantial raise, I have to invest serious money into more courses when I already owe tens of thousands in student loan debt.
Now I'm not complaining, but I find it a bit galling when people say I'm in this for the money.
"individualist capitalism pits everyone against everyone else. the teachers are no exception."
Teachers routinely share materials, handouts and lessons. We work together to create curricula. I could think of a dozen examples from last week alone which speak of collaboration rather than competition.
"how can a teacher in public school teach lessons against the ethos of the society?"
Literature, history, even science--education itself is about rebellion and independent thought. We don't teach Horatio Alger in literature classes. We teach Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Orwell--authors who condemn the 'ethos of the society.' Through that teaching, we (or I should say, I and nearly all the colleagues I've encountered) hope to teach students that they can think for themselves.
Teachers are intellectuals, dissenters, in larger numbers than you would think. I teach firstly because I love it, but secondly because there was no place for me in corporate America. That's why we need a union--to protect our dissenting voices and allow for a broader spectrum in education rather than creating "Another Brick in the Wall."
trade unionism is only an expression of collective selfishness.
you're missing the big picture. but you think you know it all. that's the crux of the problem.
Cheers Francienyc everyone remembers the teacher that inspired them, that saw things no one else did and could speak to that issue. I think you will be remembered well!
Excellent points, cs.
Actually, curiousteve, it is EXPECTED (here in Ontario, anyway) that the teacher will teach the multiple and conflicting sides to any argument without bias despite personally held beliefs. It's called teaching critical literacy. Attempting to inculcate or indoctrinate only your personal opinion/version as a teacher, will indeed get you fired (despite the popular belief that teachers "can't be fired.")
I was taught in "follow the rules" Catholic schools, but enough of my Catholic high school & college teachers taught me to think critically, so that, by 19, I questioned many of the assumptions the system was trying to indoctrinate me with.
As a public high school teacher myself for 32 years, I tried to help my students develop their critical thinking capabilities, and some of them, just as I had decades before, began to question much about "the system" we live in.
Such teaching of critical thinking is possible in many subject areas (I taught English, not social studies), but the current standardized testing mania (Bush's "No Child left behind" morphed into Obama's "Race to the Top") precludes such necessary teaching of critical thinking skills, by design, I believe.
Democracies need critically-thinking citizens.
Corporatocracies depend on propagandized consumers.
Steve, I need proof that is based on an unbiased and all emcompassing study.
Let's look at all the factors that effect education and teacher and student performance rather than your option, which is look at nothing.
"Are you saying that teachers put their financial welfare ahead of their mission to educate?"
If they did that, they wouldn't be teachers.
'...such as teaching or medicine or law or ministry were enshrined as "holy cows"...'
Wish it were true that education, medicine, and (ethical) religion were somehow holy (I think you mean 'sacred') cows! As it is, doctors who believe in single-payer, scientists who believe in global warming, teachers who believe in investing in a public school system, along with public workers of every stripe, are currently being trashed, as was stated, simply for the money.
The well-propagandized reason given is the failure and 'greed' of the workers and their dastardly unions. Indeed, how dare a public servant strive for a living wage when that money should rightly go into the pocket of a financier!
Be true to your name--dig behind the propaganda.
the absolute majority of physicans have always vehemently opposed a universal single payer public healthcare.
the progressive ones are about 5%.
Source, please. I don't buy it for a heartbeat. I have a family FULL of medical people, and they and ALL of their friends are 100% solidly behind single payer. They HATE dealing with insurance companies and their money grubbing BS, and would LOVE to see this system abolished for a single payer system.
You are spouting bullshit, and not giving a single source. Back it up, or DON'T say it.
He is spouting bullshit about physician support for single payer. The data consistently demonstrates that nearly 60% of U.S. physicians support single payer and that access to quality healthcare should not be rationed based on an individual's ability to pay.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN31432035
That is false. The majority of health care professionals and of physicians in particular both support universal single payer public health, and have consistently for several years now.
And it probably is true that progressive physicians run to about 5%. But close contact with a profession and its circumstances does have some value for informing choice, apparently.
"it all heppened when the entire occupation...were enshrined as "holy cows" while the members of occupation were entitled to serve themselves financially and legally first and foremost."
Oh, I see - you have the financial services industry in mind. And you're quite right - who on earth made Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan sacred cows?
When? About the time that the teachers unions began to look after pensions and bennies first and childrens' intellects last. Yep, right about then.
Guess you bought the line that teachers unions oppose reform and are only out to improve salary and benefits. As a former teacher and union member, I can't let that pass. We went out on strike in the early eighties for a week or two and you know what we got? We got class size limited to 33 students at the upper grades and fewer at the lower. And you know?--we forfeited a fair wage increase because of that settlement. We were always putting up ideas that connect directly to educational reform: mentoring for new teachers, professional development, school libraries, training for technology, programs for disaffected students and more. Instead of just imbibing the crap "Waiting for Superman" exudes, why not do some real research? Look at what your local and state teachers' unions are doing. You will be surprised.
Sometimes, they even get the courage to work to help elect third party candidates.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_c260382d-77f3-5aa5-8f7f-1a8a14483a5a.html
CB,
Are you a public school teacher or in any way affiliated with a public school? If not, then I believe you have absolutely no credibility and your statement is pure bullshit.
OYE
get back to me when the teachers, the doctors, the lawyers vote for a universal single payer public health care / education / housing / job for all.
otherwise, don't bother.
Relevance to the topic at hand?
absolutely. collective selfishness is only an extension of individual selfishness.
CURIOUS: I'm pretty sure you're a CD retread using a different screen name; and you sure paint with a broad brush. All teachers are just in it for the great pay, right? That's why English teachers (my own former training & experience) come home with endless hours of paperwork, tests, compositions, and reports to correct. There is almost no free time as a result.
You're using a right wing frame to blame society's problems on those with a track record for HELPING to correct them. Newt, Glenn, and Rush would be so proud of your efforts.
LOL. You weren't being asked IF what you said was relevant, but WHAT the relevance was to the discussion.
You're previous 'holy cow' (isn't that what Robin used to say to Batman?) gave you away as a simpleton; none of your subsequent comments has disabused me of this notion.
cs keeps moving the goal posts. He'll have them out in the parking lot soon.
Instead of their grudge, based on envy that teachers have wisely managed a fair wage and a stable social environment for children, and their complete ignorance about the history of the creation of unions for teachers, cs and cb ought to work to gain the same conditions for themselves and their colleagues. Funny how the grudgers never think of looking at their own faults.
The trouble is that people with no brain still have a mouth (or a keyb'd) that they feel compelled to operate.
The trouble for teachers started with the union-busting campaigns of decades earlier and got hiked up a few notches in the create-a-crisis 90's - thanks, Reagan, Bush-I, Slick Willy. That's when the hostility between teachers and public came to the fore. It serves the corporate vampires perfectly to have a public hostile to one of the few remaining holdouts of democratic processes.
A former teacher myself, I used to spend evenings and entire weekends at the school in addition to the classes I taught, engaged in extra-curricular activities. These activities were not paid - but they were expected. As well, when the choice arose to hire more staff and keep the classes smallish, my colleages and I happily accepted a *cut* in salary to make that possible (kind of wrecked my pension, too)(not complaining, just sayin'). And, I habitually reached into my own pocket to pay for supplies, when the school was too cheap to do so.
Of course, cs and cb were not around to see me grading papers at 3:00am. They'll probably have some hostile little comment on it, because they're determined to be ignorant.
Yale University has 600 Millions for upkeep of their physical appearance per year,
while the entire city of Hartford, CT, has 120 million to spend for the upkeep of the city infrastructure per year.
p.s. these numbers are about 5 years old. i bet the gap has grown much bigger by now.
Please unplug your keyboard.
Doesn't that tell you that Yale is better endowed by rich alumni, but local governments are constantly fought when they ask for the money they need via taxes?
It's not really about teachers or unions. As pointed out in the article, it is a pro-charter school movement and meanwhile walking away from public education.
The "qualified" children who win the lotteries will go to militaristic charter schools and the wealthy will continue to send their children to private schools. Who knows what will happen to public schools, that are now good, bad or in-between, when the system is even more underfunded.
Public education dollars are already going down the drain, with teachers and other services are being cut.
And what does it say about our education system when we don't even know how to save our own schools much less our sanity?