Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
In a recent New York Times article titled At Charter Schools, Short Careers by Choice, Mitoko Rich wrote of how charter schools seem to be developing something of a “youth cult” in their teaching ranks. She reported that in the charter network “teaching for two to five years is seen as acceptable and, at times, even desirable.”
Teachers in the thirteen YES Prep Schools, which are located throughout Greater Houston, have a reported average of two and a half years of experience. The teachers who work for Achievement First—which has 25 schools in Connecticut, Brooklyn, and Providence, R.I.— “spend an average of 2.3 years in the classroom.” And the individuals who teach in the KIPP schools and the Success Academy Charter Schools stay in the classroom for an average of four years. This youth culture—or culture in which most classroom practitioners have little teaching experience— differs from that of our country’s traditional public schools where teachers average nearly fourteen years of experience…and where public school leaders have made it “a priority to reduce teacher turnover.”
In the NYT article, Jennifer Hines, senior vice president of people and programs at YES Prep, was quoted as saying, “We have this highly motivated, highly driven work force who are now wondering, ‘O.K., I’ve got this, what’s the next thing?’ There is a certain comfort level that we have with people who are perhaps going to come into YES Prep and not stay forever.” (Note: New teachers at the YES Prep schools receive just two and a half weeks of training over the summer before arriving in the classroom.)
Rich says it was Teach for America (TFA) that was mostly responsible for introducing the idea of a “foreshortened teaching career.” TFA is an organization that recruits “high-achieving” college graduates and places them in some of our neediest schools. In a piece for Policymic, Benjamin Cosman wrote about TFA recruits. He said that after just five weeks of training, “Teach for America participants lead a classroom for two years, slap it on their resume, and leave the school with a bevy of opportunities.”
Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America, contends that “strong schools can withstand the turnover of their teachers. The strongest schools develop their teachers tremendously so they become great in the classroom even in their first and second years.” (Question for Wendy Kopp: Are you sending your teaching recruits into the “strongest” schools?)
Mark Naison, a professor of African American Studies and History at Fordham University and a man who once viewed Teach for America as a positive program, has a difference of opinion regarding teacher turnover. He has been disappointed that TFA doesn’t instill a commitment to teaching in its program participants. In fact, Naison no longer allows TFA to recruit his college students.
Naison said the following about Kopp’s organization:
Until Teach For America becomes committed to training lifetime educators and raises the length of service to five years rather than two, I will not allow TFA to recruit in my classes. The idea of sending talented students into schools in impoverished areas, and then after two years encouraging them to pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity really rubs me the wrong way.
He added:
Never, in its recruiting literature, has Teach For America described teaching as the most valuable professional choice that an idealistic, socially conscious person can make. Nor do they encourage the brightest students to make teaching their permanent career; indeed, the organization goes out of its way to make joining TFA seem a like a great pathway to success in other, higher-paying professions.
Several years ago, a TFA recruiter plastered the Fordham campus with flyers that said “Learn how joining TFA can help you gain admission to Stanford Business School.” The message of that flyer was: “use teaching in high-poverty areas as a stepping stone to a career in business.” It was not only disrespectful to every person who chooses to commit their life to the teaching profession, it effectively advocated using students in high-poverty areas as guinea pigs for an experiment in “resume-padding” for ambitious young people.
After reading Rich’s article about the high turnover rate of teachers in charter schools, Catherine M. Ionata responded in a letter to the editor. She wrote:
The charter school representatives in your article defend the rapid turnover of teachers. Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America, even says that teachers can become great in one or two years! Would we expand this idea to other professions? Do we think the best lawyers are those fresh out of law school? Should we choose a rookie physician for complex surgery, because this surgeon is more “enthusiastic” than veteran surgeons?
Ronald Thorpe, president of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, said, “To become a master plumber you have to work for five years. Shouldn’t we have some kind of analog to that with the people we are entrusting our children to?”
Education expert Diane Ravitch also weighed in on the subject after reading Rich’s article:
Can you imagine that a “teacher” who graduated college in June is already “a great teacher” by September?
Why do we expect entrants to every other profession to spend years honing their craft but a brand-new teacher, with no experience, can be considered “great” in only one or two years, then leave to do something else?
This is a recipe to destroy the teaching profession.
How can anyone say they are education “reformers” if their goal is to destroy the profession?
What other nation is doing this?
This is not innovative. In fact, it returns us to the early nineteenth century, when the general belief was that “anyone can teach, no training needed.” Teaching then was a job for itinerants, widow ladies, young girls without a high school degree, and anyone who couldn’t do anything else. It took over a century to create a teaching profession, with qualifications and credentials needed before one could be certified to stand in front of a classroom of young children. We are rapidly going backwards.
Henry Seton, a humanities teacher at Community Charter School of Cambridge in Massachusetts, was another educator who responded to Rich’s article. He wrote:
The high teacher turnover at charter schools leaves these institutions fragile and ill equipped to support their most vulnerable students. It takes far more than a year or two in the classroom to develop that elusive set of skills needed to serve our nation’s neediest cohorts of students — young men of color, English language learners and so on. And I have seen some of the most well-regarded charters here in Massachusetts left reeling and in danger of closing after extensive teacher departures.
Benjamin Cosman (Policymic) wrote that young teachers in charter schools “are supposed to save education in the United States.” He thinks, however, that there is a “very real danger in valuing inexperience in the teaching field…” He believes this “supposed remedy” may possibly be hastening the “demise of public education.”
In his article titled It’s Harder for Charter Schools to Keep Teachers, Francisco Vara-Orta wrote about information provided in data collected by the Texas Education Agency. The data, taken from 47 local school districts from 2006 to 2011, showed that the “average teacher turnover rate for charter school districts was 46 percent, compared with 13 percent for traditional school districts.” Vara-Orta wrote that analysis of the data showed that teachers leave charter schools in Bexar County nearly three times more often than teachers in traditional public schools, “which generally pay more and perform better academically.” He continued, “Of the 10 districts rated academically unacceptable by the state in Bexar County last year, all were charters, with turnover ranging from 38 percent to 65 percent…”
Researchers from Vanderbilt University found that the teacher turnover rate in charter schools was nearly twice as high as that of traditional public schools. In addition, the researchers found that teachers in charter schools were also more likely to leave the profession.
Excerpt from the Vanderbilt report titled Teacher Turnover in Charter Schools:
Our analysis confirms that much of the explanation of this “turnover gap” lies in the differences in the types of teachers that charter schools and traditional public schools hire. The data lend minimal support to the claim that turnover is higher in charter schools because they are leveraging their flexibility in personnel policies to get rid of underperforming teachers. Rather, we found most of the turnover in charter schools is voluntary and dysfunctional as compared to that of traditional public schools.
A second reason is that attrition is highest among teachers that are new to the profession. Past research found teachers make important gains in effectiveness in their first three years and smaller gains over the next few years (McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood, and Hamilton, 2003; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2005). Given that almost 50% of teachers leave the profession within their first five years (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003), many teachers are leaving the classroom before they have developed into optimally effective practitioners. Moreover, exiting new teachers are often replaced by similarly inexperienced teachers and consequently students in schools with high turnover may rarely be exposed to experienced teachers.
Third, turnover affects many of the organizational conditions important to effective schooling, such as instructional cohesion and staff trust. Effective schools hold shared beliefs in similar instructional goals and practices (Fuller & Izu, 1986; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988). Schools with high turnover are challenged to develop a shared commitment towards the same goals, pedagogy, and curriculum. The constant churning of teaching staff makes it difficult to collaborate, develop standard norms of practice, and maintain progress towards common goals. This can lead to fragmented instructional programs and professional development plans that must be adapted each year to meet the needs of a teaching staff in constant flux (Guin, 2004). High turnover also makes it difficult for teachers to build relational trust, which is critical towards productive collaboration in schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Guin, 2004).
Critics of charter schools argue that students and schools need stability. “When you stay in a school or community, you build relationships,” said Andrea Giunta, a senior policy analyst for teacher recruitment, retention and diversity at the National Education Association.
As might be expected, studies have shown that teacher turnover often “diminishes student achievement” and has a negative impact on “the overall school environment because it creates instability and a loss of institutional knowledge.”
Matthew Ronfeldt, an assistant professor of educational studies at the University of Michigan—along with colleagues Susanna Loeb and James Wyckoff—conducted a study on teacher turnover. Their report was titled How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. Loeb, a professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, said that the problem of teacher turnover had been well-documented. She noted, “One in three teachers leaves the profession within five years.” In their study, the three researchers sought to find out if students “do worse in the year after there is high turnover.” They discovered that high teacher turnover hurt student achievement in English and math—and that the negative impact was as “significant as the effect of free lunch eligibility (a standard measure of poverty) on test scores.” They also found the negative impact to be strongest “among schools with more low-performing and black students. “
In a Texas Tribune article dated January 27, 2010, Brian Temple wrote that at some charter schools in the state “it’s the teachers who can’t wait to clear out at the end of the school year.”
Temple reported that according to data that had been released at the time, 79 percent of the faculty of Accelerated Intermediate Academy in Houston turned over before the 2008-09 school year. At Peak Preparatory in Dallas, 71 percent of teachers did not return…and at Harmony Science Academy in College Station, “69 percent of teachers split.”
Temple continued:
In all, more than 40 of nearly 200 charter operators the state tracked — some which oversee multiple schools — had to replace more than half their teaching staffs before the last school year. Even more established and successful operators, including KIPP and YES Prep in Houston, lose nearly a third of their teachers annually. In contrast, just six of more than 1,000 non-charter school districts statewide had more than half their teachers leave, and none of the 20 largest school districts had a turnover rate higher than 16 percent.
The financial cost of teacher turnover is high. According to a study conducted by the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, teacher attrition costs approximately $7.3 billion per year. Since teacher attrition is so costly and has been shown to have a negative effect on student performance, Benjamin Cosman wonders why TFA and charter organizations like the Yes Prep schools encourage teachers to have a “get out while you can” mentality.
Cosman argued:
We should be cultivating teachers who are in it for the long haul, who build steady careers based on longevity, who become the wizened old stalwarts who’ve been around the block a few times. Yes, there are problems with tenure and bad teachers sticking around too long, and those issues need to be addressed. But the exact opposite — getting teachers in and out as fast as we can — is certainly not the solution.
Excerpt from Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States, an issue brief released by the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF) in August 2005:
There is a growing consensus among researchers and educators that the single most important factor in determining student performance is the quality of his or her teachers. Therefore, if the national goal of providing an equitable education to children across the nation is to be met, it is critical that efforts be concentrated on developing and retaining high-quality teachers in every community and at every grade level…
According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ 1999–2000 “Public School Teacher Survey,” 47 percent of public school teachers worked with a mentor teacher in the same subject area.12 Sixty-six percent of teachers who were formally mentored by another teacher reported that it “improved their classroom teaching a lot.”13
Mentors are an important factor in providing support for new teachers as they enter the real world of the classroom, but mentoring alone is not enough. Comprehensive induction proves most effective at keeping good teachers in the classroom. Studies demonstrate that new teacher turnover rates can be cut in half through comprehensive induction—a combination of high-quality mentoring, professional development and support, scheduled interaction with other teachers in the school and in the larger community, and formal assessments for new teachers during at least their first two years of teaching.14
I can speak from experience. Mentor teachers can prove invaluable in helping young and inexperienced teachers by providing them with advice, insight, educational ideas and materials that have proved successful in the classroom, and by being a sounding board for them when they feel a need to express their frustrations, insecurities, and fears. Experienced teachers helped me when I was a teaching “ingénue.” Later, when I was a seasoned professional, I helped guide and advise young teachers. I shared books and teaching materials with them. I also listened to their new ideas. Other experienced educators at my school and I found that mentoring new teachers helped us to bond with them and to become a close-knit educational community.
Older teachers provide wisdom. Young teachers bring in a “breath of fresh air.” I think the healthiest school communities have teachers with different perspectives and levels of classroom experience—new teachers, teachers in mid career, and the old sages who have been around the block more than a few times.
One has to wonder how difficult it must be for young and inexperienced teachers to find mentors in their schools if most of the classroom practitioners have little more experience than they. One has to wonder how schools where teachers stay for just two or three years can develop their own culture and institutional memory—as well as a sense of stability and community. One has to wonder how children feel when their teachers come and go so frequently and rarely show evidence of a commitment to their schools and the student population.
It saddens me to think that there are “school reformers” in our country who encourage “foreshortened careers” in education…who think that youth trumps experience…who don’t instill a commitment to education in the young people they recruit for their teaching programs.
SOURCES
At Charter Schools, Short Careers by Choice (New York Times)
The High Turnover at Charter Schools (New York Times)
Charter schools are developing teachers with short tenure (Examiner)
Teacher Attrition in Charter vs. District Schools (CRPE–Center on Reinventing Public Education)
High teacher turnover in charters: Does student achievement suffer? (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
A Revolving Door (Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff)
Teacher Turnover in Charter Schools (Vanderbilt University)
It’s harder for charter schools to keep teachers (My San Antonio)
Teacher Attrition in Charter Schools 2007 (NEPC–National Education Policy Center)
Professor: Why Teach For America can’t recruit in my classroom (Washington Post)
Teacher Turnover Negatively Impacts Student Achievement in Math and English (The Journal)
Teacher turnover harms student learning (University of Michigan)
Teacher turnover affects all students’ achievement, study indicates (Stanford University)
Churn, Churn, Churn, Is Not Good for Kids or the Teaching Profession (Diane Ravitch)
LA students more true to their charter schools than teachers, studies say (UC Berkeley)
Charter Schools Battle High Teacher Turnover (Texas Tribune)
Teach For America: Let’s Stop Encouraging Teachers to Leave After Two Years, Maybe? (Policymic)
Guest Post: Teacher turnover – who stays and who leaves (Stanford University)
High Teacher Turnover Rates are a Big Problem for America’s Public Schools (Forbes)
Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States (NCTAF-National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future)
NCTAF Study: Teacher Attrition Costs U.S. Over $7 Billion Annually (American Association of Colleges for Teacher education)
LJM,
What is “face to fact”?
Yeah, I’m a jerk, even my dogs hate me in real life.
Sorry to pop your bubble of soothing prose; of superfluous words expended in compensation of content; of ambiguity of writing only the author could love.
Don’t beat around the bush, LJM; tell us what you really think given your posts in the last hour.
LJM,
“None of my quotes where against learning or education as a concept. They were against the model of education that treats all students the same.”
*****
I would say the quotes you selected imply a negative view of education. You didn’t specify that “they were against a certain model of education.” I thought I’d post some quotes with a more positive view of teacing/education.
Not all educators and not all schools treat all children as if they are the same. Many teachers do their best to meet the individual needs of their students.
Gene,
I wouldn’t say you’re a “bad liberal,” because I don’t know you. I’m simply describing the act of telling a poor family that they must wait several more generations to have the public education they deserve. That act is not liberal. It’s not compassionate. It’s as simple as that.
Anyway, I think we’re done. If, in every exchange, you’re going to say I’m not being intellectually honest, then there’s no point in responding, really.
It’s a shame because you make some very good points, among those I think are very, very bad.
Also, I’m weary of people here suspecting my motives for merely advocating for change in a system that has been in need of fundamental change for over a century. I’m not going to accuse anyone of spewing NEA talking points, because that wouldn’t be constructive (or nice, really). I know for a fact that everyone I’m disagreeing with here cares as much about kids and education as I do.
——————————————————————————
So, I’m off, as of now. Don’t think I’ll be back, really. I’m actually feeling exhausted. It’s strange.
Disagreeing on the internet isn’t really doing it for me (especially with a few of the folks here). I’ll continue to disagree with good people like yourselves in person. That way, there will still be smiles and understanding. Probably some learning on all sides, as well.
So, Elaine and Mike and, (sigh) Gene, Pat, Nick, take care. Thanks for indulging me.
“I’m just saying that kids should be respected enough to guide their own learning experience. Like I said, it’s not really a radical idea.”
You aren’t talking about children guiding their education. You are talking about letting them choose between a public school and a public school run by a private for profit corporation. A choice in guiding their education would be the secondary/trades option . . . like they’ve used to great success in Australia.
Elaine,
I especially like Shaw’s. Graci
gbk,
When you disagree with people in person, face to fact, do you still act like a condescending jerk? I wonder… I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and imagine that you’re not like this in real life.
gbk,
So what’s your point? That society should accept the whims of adolescence and not worry about education?
Yeah…of course. (big sigh)
I’m just saying that kids should be respected enough to guide their own learning experience. Like I said, it’s not really a radical idea. But then again, so many folks act like it is. I guess that’s why school always has and will continue to be a negative experience for so many.
LJM,
“Well, kids don’t learn very well when they hate what they’re doing. They can memorize things temporarily, but they don’t really learn. We can pretend that hating school is a normal thing, and no big deal, or we can recognize it for the waste of time and resources that it is, and strive to improve the experience for future generations.”
Damn, I just spent three days pointing out the concept of recursive thought. I have to start again? I don’t think so.
But just for fun, what about the current generation?
And why do you recognize “it” — the damn proverbial “it” that we should all just agree upon (I’m assuming “it” is education) — as a waste of time and resources that “we” should recognize?
“We” don’t agree on “it.”
Got that?
‘”No. That implies that no one is going to enjoy every subject or even enjoy them equally.’
As long as they’re involuntary, that’s true. Not enjoying something isn’t equal to pain. Hating something is, and no normally functioning human should be forced to “learn” something they hate. A “well-rounded” education can and does occur without having to study something one hates.”
That’s not only a childish argument but an appeal to emotion which I remind you is a logical fallacy. Are you capable of advancing an argument without using logical fallacies? They are a common tool of propaganda trolls and the trap of the ignorant. You don’t strike me as ignorant, so I am going to assume that honest argument is right out from you based upon your performance to this point.
“’It does not address you are attempting to measure an objective quality with subjective evidence.’
We disagree then on the factual qualities of self-reporting on happiness. I think if you ask a normally functioning person if they’re happy, then their answer is objectively true.”
Truthfulness isn’t the problem. Using the subjective to measure objective success is the problem. It violates the scientific method and best evidence practice. Your agreement is not required for this to be fact. We are not discussing metaphysics.
“’So you don’t think elementary education should be compulsory? That hardly seems to comport to the Jeffersonian ideals vis a vis education and its importance to democracy.’
Absolutely, I don’t think elementary education should be compulsory. In my opinion, the coercive aspect of education is grotesque paternalism. As if, when given access to free elementary education, large groups of people will say, “No, we prefer our kids to be illiterate.” That just doesn’t happen. Pretending it might is to have a rather low opinion of lower-income people.”
One word: ridiculous.
“Any kid who isn’t being educated should have the opportunity to be educated if he or she wants to be, in the way he or she wants to be. The fact is that kids generally want to learn. They don’t always want to learn in the way that adults arrogantly think are the best ways for them, but they want to learn.”
Children lack capacity legally speaking. They don’t legally have the right to decide if they want an education or not.
“As far as Jefferson is concerned, I agree with him on some things and not on others. Of course, educated people make for better government (though one might not be able to tell), but unlike in Jefferson’s day, people are unlikely to keep kids from school so they can work on the farm.”
The historian’s fallacy that predicates subsequent events would have changed Jefferson’s mind about the value and necessity of a public education for all citizens within a democracy. The shift from agrarian to industrial society does not in any way change the predicate of Jefferson as stated and indeed bolsters his contention as an industrial society requires a greater level of education to survive in than an agrarian society.
“’I believe you don’t know squat about evaluation of HPT factors or evidence in general if you think you measure the objective with the subjective. That’s not just an opinion, but a fact as it relates to the proper deployment of the scientific method. Empiricism is the realm of the objective.’
Doctors and psychologists measure self-reported happiness on a regular basis. They record that information and treat it as empirical evidence. They base their treatment of people on this empirical evidence. Maybe you should tell them that they don’t know squat about HPT factors or evidence in general.”
Again, the problem isn’t measuring happiness. The problem is you are attempting to measure the wrong metric of success in education. Also, that doctor’s rely upon the subjective reporting of patients does not negate their use of other tools to objectively confirm diagnosis. Patients can lie. See hypochondria and Munchhausen By Proxy Syndrome.
“’If you were truly interest in student choice, the only substantive choice would be provide either a compulsory traditional secondary education or trade schooling/apprenticeship programs . . . on a not for profit basis.’
So if I don’t believe in coercing kids to go to a school, whether they want to or not, then I’m not truly interested in school choice? Could you please explain this a little further because it makes no sense.”
Logic isn’t your strong point, is it? That was a rhetorical question. There is a difference between student choice in educational paths and choice in school. Choice in educational path is a valid choice. Choice in school is the illusion of choice predicated that private for profit organizations can run better schools than the state when the evidence (as Elaine has so amply provided) shows nothing of the sort. They do make money though. And that’s what’s really important, isn’t it?
“’Every dollar taken in profit is a dollar not spent on hiring good teachers and/or purchasing student resources.’
The U.S. spends more on teachers and education than all but two other countries in the world. Availability of funds isn’t the issue. We throw away plenty of money in the public school system.”
But not equally distributed. Details are important. That whole differential tax base problem makes a . . . wait for it . . . difference.
“’And you know what? We’ve already got private for profit schools in this country.’
And even the ones that cost less than public school are closed to poor people. That’s a shame.”
No. What’s a shame is that private for profit corporations think that their profits should come off the back of taxpayers.
“’They’re optional and at the discretion of whomever is willing and able to pay for that education with that profit margin instead of attending a public school.’
So, the people who are unable to pay for that education, with or without a profit margin, should be forced to attend a school that is either too violent or crowded or dirty or otherwise unsatisfactory. That doesn’t sound fair to me.”
The answer isn’t to pay for them to go to another school. The answer is to fix the one they have access to for no more investment than their taxes.
“’Charter schools or public schools is not a real choice at all. It is – however – a way to implement discriminatory practices back into public education while sucking away resources as profit.’
Resources aren’t really at issue.”
Tell that to the public school teachers who have to buy basic classroom supplies out of their own pocket because they teach in an impoverished district (there’s that pesky poverty problem again) while the wealthy district next door buys stuff they don’t need.
“They’ve been criminally mismanaged for so long, finding ways to make parents and students more satisfied is perfectly reasonable.”
Again, wrong metric.
“There are lots of poor and middle-class families who are very grateful for their local charter schools. If, that is, one accepts their gratefulness at face value, without dismissing it as subjective feeling.”
Again you appeal to emotion. You are starting to smell like you live under a bridge and eat children.
“They deserve whatever educational choices can be made available to them.”
No. They deserve top notch public schools with the option (if they can afford it and desire it) of private schooling.
“Denying them those choices based on ideology (private = bad/public = good) is neither compassionate nor liberal.”
I am the product of both public and private schools. They are all alike in this regard: some are good, some are bad. That’s not ideology. That’s reality. Some of the worst schools I attended were public schools. Some of the best schools I attended were public schools. Some of the worst schools I attended were private schools. Some of the best schools I attended were private schools.
To desire a high quality education for all without having to pay for a private education is the pinnacle of compassion.
If you just want to say I’m a “bad liberal” though, quite simply that might be insulting if I took what someone spewing Libertarian talking points thinks about liberalism seriously.
It is manifest that you don’t bring intellectual honesty and good argumentation to the table and you do so on purpose. This leads me to one conclusion concerning your “presentation”. It doesn’t take a for-profit education to figure out what that is.
LJM,
“‘They’ are kids who hate school. Exceptional or unexceptional, whatever classification they fall under, there are always kids who hate school.”
So what’s your point? That society should accept the whims of adolescence and not worry about education?
Elaine,
None of my quotes where against learning or education as a concept. They were against the model of education that treats all students the same.
gbk,
If your argument is “regardless of race” (second sentence) then why should I find, and talk to black students?
Because you, for some reason, said, “Oh, sorry, this is the white exceptional list. And I didn’t know what race had to do with it.
I’ve never met a student, even in college, that doesn’t, “hate a good portion of what their school forces them to do.”
Well, kids don’t learn very well when they hate what they’re doing. They can memorize things temporarily, but they don’t really learn. We can pretend that hating school is a normal thing, and no big deal, or we can recognize it for the waste of time and resources that it is, and strive to improve the experience for future generations.
That’s not a terribly radical position.
gbk,
How about these quotes?
“Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.”
― Aristotle
*****
“Teaching is the highest form of understanding.”
― -Aristotle
*****
“Teaching is not a lost art, but the regard for it is a lost tradition.”
― Jacques Barzun
*****
“Learning without thinking is labor lost; thinking without learning is dangerous.”
~ Chinese proverb.
*****
“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
*****
“It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge.”
– Albert Einstein
*****
“To me the sole hope of human salvation lies in teaching.” – George – –
– Bernard Shaw
*****
“A teacher affects eternity: he can never tell where his influence stops.” ~ –
– Henry Adams
*****
“The art of teaching is the art of assisting discovery.
~ Mark van Doren
*****
“The dream begins with a teacher who believes in you, who tugs and pushes and leads you to the next plateau, sometimes poking you with a sharp stick called ‘truth.'”
~Dan Rather
*****
“Modern cynics and skeptics… see no harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the care of their plumbing.”
~John F. Kennedy
*****
“Most teachers have little control over school policy or curriculum or choice of texts or special placement of students, but most have a great deal of autonomy inside the classroom. To a degree shared by only a few other occupations, such as police work, public education rests precariously on the skill and virtue of the people at the bottom of the institutional pyramid”.
~Tracy Kidder
LJM,
“Also, Frederick Douglass never went to school.”
That was my point. To take it further, are you suggesting this should again be the norm?
LJM,
“If you want to talk to intelligent, curious black kids who hate school go to your local secondary school, find the black students, and talk to them about school. Regardless of race, there will always be a significant number of students who hate a good portion of what their school forces them to do.”
If your argument is “regardless of race” (second sentence) then why should I find, and talk to black students?
I’ve never met a student, even in college, that doesn’t, “hate a good portion of what their school forces them to do.”
gbk,
“They” are kids who hate school. Exceptional or unexceptional, whatever classification they fall under, there are always kids who hate school.
gbk,
Also, Frederick Douglass never went to school. He was briefly taught reading and writing, but when that stopped, he decided to teach himself and his fellow slaves.
I didn’t learn that in school, either.
LJM,
“I think the point is that they aren’t rare. Schools that are considered to be “successful” have lots and lots of kids who hate to be there.”
Who is “they”? Exceptional people, or “lots and lots of kids” who hate to be there [school, I assume].
I’m so sick of ambiguous writing.
Otteray Scribe,
Education is a wonderful thing. It stops being wonderful when we pretend that everybody learns in the same way.
None of the people I quoted were against learning. They were against the way schools treated students as if they were all the same.
gbk,
If you want to talk to intelligent, curious black kids who hate school go to your local secondary school, find the black students, and talk to them about school. Regardless of race, there will always be a significant number of students who hate a good portion of what their school forces them to do.