Respect

I taught theatre for eight years. My mother has been a Montessori teacher for over 25 years. My father, absent though he was, was an undergraduate architecture professor. My grandmother worked as a secretary at a public elementary school, and students from the school sent their regards decades later when she passed away. I was raised with a constant awareness of what educators can do. The impact they can have.

We've all seen the "what I make" video. We've all seen Matt Damon stand up for his mother. We've all heard somebody, at some point, stand up for teachers as though they are linking arms with a martyr at their execution. Don't get me wrong, I'm right there with them, but I see a fundamental flaw in the mindset. There's a saying that " those that can do, and those that can't teach." I think, as cliched as it is, a lot of the American attitude toward teachers stems from this axiom. And it is bullshit.

Only the worst teachers in my life were "fallback" teachers, as in they could not make a career out of what they enjoyed, so they taught instead. I was blessed to have a plethora of good teachers, and a handful of amazing teachers in my academic life. But I don't think my education needs to be, if at all it is, an anomaly.

I went to Montessori School on my mother's benefits until I was in the third grade, and I will sing it's praises until the day I die. From then until I graduated high school, I went to public school. When I went to a private college, I found that most of my friends had attended private school, and thought of public school as a bit of a joke. I thought it was a bit strange, seeing as how the public school system in Wake County, NC, where I came from, was one of the leaders in public education at the time. Only when I traveled the States a bit more, and when the policies that made Wake County so high-ranked were reversed, did I fully understand how lucky I had been.

For those who don't know, Wake County Public Schools operated under a policy, since before I attended them, that no school could have a student body wherein more than 40% of the population received subsidized lunches. In effect, it was an integration of economic classes, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. And it solved one of the largest problems with public education: those with money support the schools their children attend, and only a select few will expand that generosity outward. Thus, the public schools in Wake County were all well-funded, were all cared for by the constituency, were all attended by lower-, middle-, and upper- income kids. So, the pitfalls of the system were felt by all, and the successes were shared by all. And somehow, through this "socialist" policy, our county became one of the best in the nation.

And the thing is, it makes sense. Rich kids don't have a monopoly on intelligence. Poor kids aren't poor because they're dumb. So, if the same quality of education is available to both ends, it makes sense that you will see a rise in the growth of poorer kids, and a (not decrease, because we can never underestimate the power of money) plateau of the success of wealthier children. In other words, students will be evaluated based on their academic merits. It is not foolproof, obviously, but it certainly evens the playing field a bit.

So, this is where I came from. And, as I said, I was lucky.

Knowing how fortunate I was only increases my respect for the myriad public school teachers and students who weren't so fortunate. Who aren't so fortunate. Which brings me back to the failed axiom that "those who can't do teach." I dare Rahm Emanuel to teach in a Chicago Public School. He may have to, if things don't shape up. Teaching is not a fallback, it is a calling. There exists in great teachers an innate ability to not only communicate what they know, but to take cues from their students as to how best to communicate it. What methods work with which students, and how do you maintain control of the classroom while trying to reach out to the student who isn't getting it? There are prescribed methodologies and gimmicks, to be sure, but that level of balance between singular and plural focus is a gift. It is a talent. And those who have experienced the rewards of that talent aren't likely to forget it or disparage it. To a student, it is the teacher that reached out to you and assured you that you weren't worthless, you just learned differently. To a teacher, it is the face of a student who understands something they thought they never could. These things are intangible. They are unquantifiable. So forgive me for scoffing at political attempts to recruit teachers with the draw of paying off student loans.

Incentives don't make great teachers. But disincentives will push them away. A great teacher will take on the task even if it doesn't pay all that well, as long as he or she can still get by. But lower that bar just enough, make it unmanageable, and they will choose another path. Question their competency, based on standardized testing alone, giving no credence to the legitimate claims of disproportionate funding and support, and they will rightly feel disrespected. Dispirited. Deject. And angry.

Angry because they assumed the role despite the axiom. Because they felt compelled by those indescribable moments of realization on their students' faces. Compelled to continue in their work, because those moments were worth more than their salary. And to have some entity who never once stepped foot in their classroom decide they weren't worth the pittance they were paid, decide they didn't deserve a livable wage, decide they were as valuable as fast food workers, you bet your ass they're angry.

We don't need to privatize education. We don't need a voucher system that makes it easier for children to attend private schools. Both of these systems operate on the idea that money buys education. It doesn't. Intelligence doesn't discriminate. A thirst for knowledge doesn't care how much money your parents make. What is true is that more "qualified" teachers will seek out higher paying positions. But qualifications don't make great teachers, either. Many of the private school teachers are blessed with a student body who are taught that academic achievement is important. Throw them into the lion's den of lower-income public school, and see how well they do.

Finland currently has one of the highest ranking education systems in the world. And when they came to tour the US, they made a statement that barely anyone paid attention to: there are no private schools in Finland. Not only that, but they don't have standardized testing. The Finnish system was developed, not as a means to excel in world standings, but as a means to equalize the access to quality education in the country. Their increase in world standings was a by-product. This is not to say that we should adopt their model. There are too many long-standing variables in play for that to be feasible. However, their model does share something in common with the Wake County model. Focusing on equality increases proficiency. Money may not buy education, but evening out the economic playing field in terms of access to education increases the benefits for all.

Also, standardized testing doesn't work. "Teaching to the test," and standardizing curriculum assumes that everything a teacher has to offer can be found in a textbook. Who they are, what their passions are, where they come from, are completely irrelevant. Again, this is bullshit. The most valuable thing a teacher has to offer is his or her passion for learning. An English teacher who has a penchant for Shelley is no better or worse than one with a penchant for Wordsworth. But if they are both forced to teach Keats, everyone suffers. A teacher teaches best that which they love best. Because the goal is to inspire, in at least one student, the same fervor, the same vitriol, the same thirst, that they experience when they encounter their favorite subjects. If the goal is to teach students to decipher texts, does it matter what text it is (of course assuming a certain degree of difficulty appropriate to age)? As long as the maturity of the student's  analysis is a priority, the subject matter can differ.

But what about college applications, you may say? Here's the thing: if all the public education systems in the country were equally funded, supported, and respected, a report card or a final exam set by the individual teacher would mean the same thing, whether you're from Compton or Manhattan.

What about teacher accountability? Leave that to the administrators. They know the teachers in their school better than Laura Bush. They know the difference between a parent blaming a teacher for a student's low grade, and a teacher who is known for being an easy "A." Let them manage their schools.

But doesn't competition breed excellence? In the marketplace, yes. But public education is not a marketplace. What happens with competition in the marketplace is that only a select few will reach the top tier of success. If you apply that logic to the education system, there will only be a handful of excellent schools, or districts, in the nation. Guess what? Most kids in the country can't go to those schools! So, the majority of students are attending "generic" schools, while a lucky few get to experience "brand name" education. Again, intelligence and a love of learning don't discriminate, whether the issue is money or location. A kid in West Virginia deserves the same quality of education as a kid in Connecticut, if for no other reason than the fact that you cannot tell me which kid is more likely to succeed in academics.

Right now, we have a system where the wealthier school districts get the good schools, and the poorer districts get the shaft. We have a system where the onus of school failings is placed entirely on the shoulders of the teachers, the ones who come into a classroom in 2012 with nothing but a chalkboard, the ones who are expected to somehow breach the thick layers of emotional scar tissue built up around each and every one of their 30+ students just to get a word in edgewise. But they do it, anyway. They do it even though they are disrespected at every turn. They do it even though politicians don't think they deserve a raise for sticking it out and returning the next year, as though they had no other option. For all the "likes" the Matt Damon video and the "what I make" video got on Facebook, we still treat teachers like the nobility of their profession lies in their vow of poverty. If a surgeon makes over $300,000 a year, is his or her profession somehow less admirable? No. The nobility of the work lies in the fact that it is a hard job that not everyone can do, and that it is a service provided for the betterment of our society at large. Fair compensation does not lessen the virtue of the work.

So that's the thing that makes me the angriest. That's the thing that each of us can do right now for teachers. Stop treating them like martyrs, and start respecting the job they do, regardless of their salary.

Good luck, Rahm. You're gonna need it.