The Rude Pundit - A Tale of Two Nations and Their Future Teachers

[meegbear]

A few years ago, the Rude Pundit was an English professor at a not bad, not great Midwestern university. Many of his students wanted to go on to be elementary and high school English teachers. He remembers distinctly one student, call her "Jenny" because that's not her name. Jenny was not bright. Her papers in this lit course were filled with errors and sentences so incoherent that they made Sarah Palin seem like Judith Butler.

A senior, she was shocked that her writing was so bad. The Rude Pundit asked her how other professors had not brought this to her attention, and she said she had always done well enough, getting by with Bs and Cs. Instead of thinking that she needed help, she insisted that the Rude Pundit was grading her too harshly. You'll just have to take his word for it that he was not. When she revised her papers, she made as many errors. When she took tests, she wrote answers that were not in any way connected to the questions or a realistic notion of comprehension.

However, she was in her last semester of school before she went into student teaching, which was the last step before she achieved her dream of becoming a full-time elementary school teacher. When the Rude Pundit learned that, he was appalled. He had taught mediocre education students before, but this was beyond the pale. The idea that she would be teaching children how to write actually sickened him. He spoke to other professors about her, and they all said the same thing, which could be reduced to, "Yeah, but what are you gonna do?"

The Rude Pundit flunked her because that was the grade she earned. She angrily confronted him about how he was delaying her becoming a teacher because she would have to take the course again. He replied, "You have no business being a teacher until you learn how to write." She took the course again with another professor, who passed her. Right now she is teaching 5th graders. He knows many other excellent schoolteachers who would find her reprehensible.

Flash forward a year later. The Rude Pundit is overseas in Denmark. He's been brought there to teach interactive political theatre workshops at a couple of colleges or "seminariums." The seminariums he visited were devoted to teaching teachers how to teach. There are eighteen such schools in Denmark, and they train new teachers, who must already have degrees from colleges, and offer in-service additional training to established teachers. In other words, you better be good or you're not teaching the children of Denmark. And why do people do it? Because Denmark values teaching, paying the people who do it well, keeping schools in good shape, and more.

The students the Rude Pundit taught there were not special in terms of the seminariums. But they were incredible. They asked him questions about U.S. involvement in the wars. They developed and performed pieces about torture and sexual harassment and school policies without any prompting. They questioned, constantly, everything about power and authority. And they wrote English better than most of his students back home. He wanted these students to be teachers. Any one of them would have been excellent in the classroom.

This compare/contrast essay was prompted by an editorial in today's Washington Post by Matt Miller. In a thoughtful, ambitious piece, Miller avoids blanket condemnation of teachers' unions and instead focuses on a part of the puzzle that doesn't get as much attention: the actual way in which America gets teachers. Miller offers the shocking heresy that "The top performing school systems in the world have strong teachers unions at the heart of their education establishment." The difference is that &quot t)he chief educational strategy of top-performing nations such as Finland, Singapore and South Korea is to recruit talent from the top third of the academic cohort into the teaching profession and to train them in selective, prestigious institutions to succeed on the job."

What Miller proposes is a radical alteration in the way the United States approaches the profession of teaching, which he and Paul Kihn offered last year. And it has nothing to do with bullshit bandages like charter schools, school choice, and privatization. No, in fact, it's quite the opposite. It's to treat education like the foundation of a strong society that it actually is:

"What about starting salaries of $65,000 rising to $150,000 for teachers (and more for principals)? And federally funded 'West Points' of teaching and principal training to model for the nation how it can be done? And new federal cash for poor districts now doomed by our 19th-century system of local school finance, so they can compete in regional labor markets for the talent that today gravitates to higher-paying suburbs? And shrinking today’s 15,000 unwieldy, archaic local school districts (where we’re also an international outlier) to, say, a more manageable 60 — one in each state plus 10 big urban districts?"

Miller and Kihn put the cost at $30 billion a year. Or roughly 4.5% of the current military budget. Which means it'll never happen. And we will continue to try to cobble together our education system through bits and pieces and budget cuts and private companies instead of actually behaving as if it matters.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Wounded Bear]

1. Great read, as usual....

it stems from a basic belief of many in charge, and we say it all the time.

"Those that can, do. Those that don't, teach."

It sucks, because that is the mindset of far too many people who affect the education system in our country. The disrespect for teachers that seems to prevail in our country is astounding. We give out placebos like teacher of the year awards, but do we pay them a decent salary?

RWers like to bash unions, but never ask what conditions led to the teachers feeling they had to unionize in the first place.

We're losing generations of schoolkids, and it can be traced directly to that bullshit colloquialism above. The true fact is: Those that can are the best teachers.

[tularetom]

2. I don't know of any statistics that would prove this but

I'm guessing that every dollar spent on public education saves three or four dollars spent on prisons.

Most industrial nations have grasped this concept. Hopefully we will too.

[malthaussen]

3. None of this is necessary

Respect is what is needed. It is perhaps inevitable that Americans should equate respect with money.

PA used to have an extensive system of institutions which were called "State Teacher's Colleges." Their avowed purpose: to turn out good teachers for the Commonwealth. But that was when the profession of teaching was respected. It had to be, because there sure-enough wasn't any money in it.

Flash forward to today, or actually a few decades ago. The "State Teacher's Colleges" are still active, but they eschew that name. They all proudly strut their stuff as "Universities." I wonder if their pride in their former mission has also gone the way of their name? Somewhere along the line from A to B, the image of "Teacher" as a dedicated, hardworking, grey-haired no-nonsense old lady with an apple on her desk has shifted to that of a greedy, lazy, inefficient drone plundering the public treasury. And children, if that is the image we have of our teachers, then throwing money at the problem ain't gonna fix it. I imagine, in fact, it would exacerbate it.

-- Mal

[MadHound]

5. Actually it is necessary

If you want to get the best teachers around, you have to pay for it, same as with any other profession. How many miracles do you think doctors in this country would perform if they were getting the same pay as teachers? How many athletes would go into football so that they can make that one handed, tip toe down the sideline catch if they were getting paid low five figures instead of seven figure salaries.

You get what you pay for. Sure, we had great teachers, lots of them at one time. That was because we had a captive work force. Teaching was the intellectual woman's job, as opposed to the other two women's jobs, nursing and secretary. Thus, you could hire lots and lots of brilliant, great women to be teachers, and pay them shit.

Fast forward to the seventies and eighties, and with the profession after better paying profession opening up to women, why are they going to stick around teaching, when they could get better pay elsewhere?

If you believe that teaching is one of the most important professions around, then you have to pay teachers like you mean it.

[malthaussen]

6. Try selling that to a Wal-mart worker making minimum wage

... whose only interaction with a teacher was probably to be disciplined. I was in high school in the first years of the 70's, and about half of my teachers were male. Several of them were very good teachers, too, although inevitably there was one moronic football coach who taught social studies. (Nice guy, though) Were they part of the "captive work force?" Or did they take up teaching despite the crummy pay because they wanted to teach? And if so, why? Agreed, anectdote is not evidence, but I think statistics will bear out that at the high school level, there was and is a fair number of male teachers.

It's really a difference of emphasis we have, Hound. I think it is far more necessary to reverse the tide of disrespect that has overcome teachers than it is to pay them more -- especially since paying them more will inevitably draw fire from those who think they are greedy, useless drones to begin with. I also think we need to get away from this idea that teaching is a business, and that teachers can be graded on "productivity" like someone who makes widgets for Megacorp International. You draw a comparison to professional athletes. But before the Messersmith case, pro athletes made salaries that were not so great, comparatively, as they are now. As late as 1970, many athletes worked at a straight job in the off-season because they didn't make enough money to spend that time training and perfecting their craft. Yet they still played the game, because they wanted to play the game. (I'm not claiming the money was bad, or not a consideration -- but I do think it wasn't the primary motivation) I guess I want teachers who choose teaching because they want to teach, not because it's a "good career." Do you want a doctor whose interest is your health, or his bottom line?

If we treat teaching as a business, will we not get business people for teachers? Is that not, in fact, the direction in which we have been going for a generation?

-- Mal

[MadHound]

8. How about we do both, pay them well and give them respect?

Would that be too much to ask?

[malthaussen]

9. I dunno, can we afford that?

Seriously, I do wonder if we could afford to pay teachers six-figure salaries as a regular incentive. Smaller countries can do it, but smaller countries have less people to educate; OTOH they have less people from whom to draw tax income.

But under current conditions in this country, where our President makes mouth-noises about rich people paying their "fair" share -- which translates into an increase of less than 5% -- where our legislatures are privatizing and slashing everything in sight to continue their military adventurism while not having to pay for it, and where any money for "public workers" is demonized as the cause of Harry's truck being repossessed, just how exactly do we go about it?

You're talking a major, major reconstruction of priorities and American political reality. I'd love to see such a restructuring. But we can't isolate education and say "we need to fix this!!!" while ignoring the fact that to fix this, we gotta fix that, too.

And I'm still leery of having teachers who are in it for the money. Put it this way: if we make teaching a business, and reward performance with higher salaries, how do we measure that performance? It's not the same thing as making widgets in piece-work, you know. And unions have always opposed piece-work rates to begin with.

-- Mal

[RC]

13. It is the getting there that weeds out those that are in it for the money.

And I'm still leery of having teachers who are in it for the money.

The extra education needed and the grades they have to maintain getting that extra education. It takes a special type of person to be a good teacher. For those in it for the money, there are easier and faster ways to get high paying jobs. We need to get away from the "Pay for Education" mind-set and get with the "Education Pays" philosophy.
Also you need to look at the economy needed to support an actual good education system. That economy needs to be a healthy economy, a thriving economy. And don't forget the spin offs from having well educated people. It rubs off on those around them, educated or not. The general level of knowledge everyone has goes up. Everyone wins. Propaganda sources like Fox News will die from lack of viewers and supporters. No embarrassing Mitt Romney types making it to the finales in running for President.

[LuckyLib]

10. You nailed it. Bright women and minorities subsidized

teaching for decades -- once the world of work began to open for the next generation, it was only natural that those days would end. Combined with the devaluing of teaching, lack of respect, and the belief that because they've been to school, "anyone can do it" what has resulted is a beleaguered profession that needs revamping beginning with recognition of the work and talent it takes to do the art and science of teaching. Some colleges and universities are trying, but it will take years.

[riderinthestorm]

4. Everytime I think the Rude Pundit can't get any better, he does. Great OP! K&R nt

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, meegbear.

[onlyadream]

11. Where I live

Teachers who are tenured make 110k+. The superintendents are at 275k. My taxes on a 1700 sq ft house is 10k, and that's cheap for my area since we don't live in the "better" districts. If we did, our taxes would easily be 15k or 16k. With all that money invested in our schools, I have to say that we are no better than those in other states that don't pay as well. Why is that? It's because EVERONE here wants to be a teacher. Who could blame them? The salaries are great and the benefits are even better. And who are the lucky ones to obtain thes great jobs? Those who have connections (regardless of their ability).

[Spike89]

12. We can't fix U.S. education with evolutionary steps

There really does need to be revolutionary change. Not only are our very systems outdated, (15,000 districts?!!) but our expectations and methods are mired in the 19th century. To be "educated" in the 1800s meant being able to read, do simple math, and be capable of being trained into a craft/career that you'd likely follow your entire life. The classic school house was optimised for just those things, regimented drill, memorize, and recite lessons in a structured environment produced students ready to become apprentices and factory workers. This system was revolutionary for its time and more than anything else contributed to the economic and cultural successes of the U.S. in the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries.
As the pace of innovation continued to accellerate, the needs of students changed. There are almost no career/lifetime jobs that a person can step into directly from high school. The apprenticeship system is virtually dead. It is increasingly rare for anyone to retire (gold watch or no) from the same job or job type they had as a young person.
The value of muscle, sweat, persistence, and other traditional physical hallmarks of a valued employee/productive member of society have been replaced by flexibility, teamwork, and other mental benchmarks. In many ways, no longer needing to be "as strong as a horse", or able to perform mindless tasks for hours and hours on end is a great thing for people.
Yet, we still educate students in essentially the same manner we did in the 1800s (which, really, aside from the innovation of mass-production, is the same model used since the dawn of recorded history).
There is no sane reason that teachers (or a single textbook) should be the main authority on a topic in the classroom. There really isn't a reason for so much that we value and reward in student behavior. For instance, a student that can regurgitate a large amount of memorized fact, or who excels at clearing individual academic challenges is likely to get A's, shine on standardized tests, and be heralded as an example that our schools still work.
Sadly, the very skills that are most needed/valued in the world today such as the ability to synthesize solutions, seek data as needed, and facilitate/cooperate with teams are likely to get a student detention and low grades. It is ironic and absurd that the skills that will best serve students in today's dominant work environments are actually considered "cheating" in our schools.