Teaching & Politics

A few points came out at me in reading this article on the NEA’s work with and reaction to No Child Left Behind.

--> “Deborah Torres-Gore, who teaches second- and third-graders in Fontana, Calif., said other factors must be considered when judging the effectiveness of teachers.”

This is clearly true. I am a parent, and given the choice between:

a.) wicked-smart future Harvard attendants with issues surrounding maturation, behavior, and social conduct, or
b.) Not-so-book-smart future janitors who are well-adapted and balanced,

I would take the latter in a landslide. It’s not necessarily the role of organized education to see to it that we have well-balanced graduates, but creating an environment that does the least damage to that end is not only appropriate, but essential.

--> “The teachers here are members of the NEA, the nation's largest teachers union. They say they worry that educators in struggling schools, where students might be poor or speak another language at home, would have trouble getting their student scores up enough to earn the "effective" label.”

File this under one more reason that the federal government ought to strongly consider leaving education in local control. Blanket, top-down expectations of educational standards for an area as culturally diverse as the United States will never be universally satisfactory. Perhaps requiring locally-owned standards to be put in place would be more appropriate. I dunno.

--> "In most professions people earn salaries based on merit, not based on formula schedules," she said, referring to the current way teachers are paid. But teachers say their profession is unlike others.

"They're looking at this as if we're manufacturing automobiles," said Sandy Hughes, who teaches high school English, French and Latin, also near Chattanooga. "With children, you're working with unique individuals, all of whom have unique qualities. Our variables are so extensive."

My fear is that the NEA’s concerns stem partly from a fear of transparency toward their profession, and not a true concern with what are clear weaknesses in NCLB legislation. It is not unfair for any wage earner – particularly those who are publicly employed and work with children – to face accountability in their work ethic, effectiveness, and decision-making.

Basing pay on a formula system where the variables are limited to education received and tenure rob legitimately superior teachers and reward output that – while valuable - is ultimately incorrect. We hire teachers to equip young people for adulthood; we do not hire teachers so that they stick around a while and get a Master’s (except where that serves the real mission of equipping).

I think what we have is a case of two opposing poles of thinking fighting for the legitimacy of their respective camp. Both have some merit, but a bit more moderate approach might be the way to go.