I came across an
article at Edweek called, “Teachers: Must We Be Saints or Sinners?” written by
Anthony Cody. The article starts out by commenting on the way Americans define
an “effective” teacher. Then, the article describes the “saint” and the “sinner”
teacher as Americans seem to view them. I think that he has some valid points (tinged
with perhaps a little bitterness), but I have a beef with the article.
Cody
starts by saying that the view of an effective teacher sounds something like
this: she makes herself available to students any time of day, spends lunches
and free time with students, stays at school 10 hours a day, brings up test
scores, uses her own money from a poor salary to purchase supplies and food for
students, and brings students who are performing at low levels up to grade
level. These are the saints, the “effective or good” teachers.
The “sinners” or
ineffective teachers he describes as those teachers who arrive on time for work
and leave at 4 or 5 p.m. They do not spend their evening hours with students
but at home with their own families. They take home papers to grade and call
parents when they need to, and they do not give students their cell numbers.
Instead of spending endless hours tutoring students, they send them to the
school’s tutoring programs. He states that these teachers’ students gain about
a year’s academic growth per year, but this is not good enough because the
students are below their grade level. These teachers spend their money on their
own families instead of on school supplies and student needs.
Cody goes on to
say that he has done some of the things that saints have done. But he states
that if he chooses not to do them, he does not want to lose status as a good
teacher. He talks about the expectations for teachers to sacrifice money and
family to schools. Cody states that teachers should be planning powerful
lessons to teach and attending professional development that will stimulate
powerful teaching, but are instead spending hours paid and unpaid tutoring
students who are behind. He also says that it is not the schools’ or the
teachers’ responsibility to get students and communities out of poverty but
that seems to be one of America’s expectations for teachers.
I agree that the
public seems to be of the opinion that teachers aren’t doing enough. It is a real problem because of these reasons: there isn’t enough money to afford tutors in many schools; there isn’t
enough money or time in the day to allow teachers the time they need produce effective
lessons; there isn’t enough time or emphasis put on professional development. The problem lies in expectations, certainly,
but also in funding and in politics. Without the almighty dollar, and without
effective political policies, there is no way to fix the problems. Everyone
complains about the problem, but no one has any viable solutions to offer. I’m tired
of the media and politicians attacking the teaching profession, but until we
come up with some actionable solutions we are just complaining and whining.
What we need is
an educational leader in politics who has actually spent time, years, teaching. We need someone who knows the joys and the hardships, and who understands
what it means to be an effective teacher directing the education programs for our country. What we need are politicians who are
less concerned about money and reelection and more concerned about students and
real learning. What we need are administrators who understand what true
professional development is and provide it to teachers consistently and
effectively. What we need are philanthropists who are interested in investing
in our students, teachers, and schools for the sake of learning and not for the
bottom line, the money, or the publicity. What we need is to quit looking at education
for the laborers it can produce. As a country we need to learn to value
education for the sake of education, for the sake of learning.