I thought a lot about the 8-day Chiacgo Teachers’ Strike as it was going on. I never wrote anything about it, because I have many friends who are teachers, and my immediate reaction was that the strike was selfish and a near-perfect microcosm of what’s wrong with public education, where employment is of more concern than making sure children are well-educated.
Last week, Bill Maher had John Legend as a guest on Real Time, and John Legend made the point that if we can’t expect any particular performance from teachers, if we’re not going to hold them accountable for using the 6 or 7 hours they have with students to move the needle on that child’s development, we might as well just staff classrooms with babysitters. If you have a chance to go back and watch it (September 14), it’s a terrific couple of minutes.
And that brings me to new rules.
Rule #1: If teachers are so important (and I think they are), it shouldn’t be too hard to prove that with evaluations.
Rule #2: Poverty does not make a child incapable of learning.
—
My constant thought throughout the teacher’s strike was that the teachers I know (the teachers I was concerned about offending), would most certainly benefit from evaluation alone, and they’d benefit more so from merit pay - because they’re incredible teachers.
Not only are they incredible teachers, but they are incredible teachers who have been held back because of tenure restrictions - both at the beginning, middle, and end of their careers.
My art teacher in elementary school is a close friend of our family. She’s retiring this year - and she’s been thinking of retirement for a while, even though she doesn’t want to give up teaching, because each year she stays on after some magical point, she loses more money from her pension. She has so much more to offer kids, but she’s reached some arbitrary expiration date.
Another friend is just beginning as a teacher, and in order to get her foot in the door at schools, she was up early in the morning trying to grab substitute teaching spots, she taught at a school as a substitute while one teacher was on maternity leave, and the teachers and administrators loved her - but when a position opened up, they had to hire someone with tenure, though they wanted and tried to hire my friend.
In high school, I had a terrific English teacher. She took us from the Fountainhead, to Kate Chopin’s Awakening; she introduced me to one of my favorite poets, Richard Brautigan; she was a firebrand. I also took a creative writing class with one of the most dumpy, listless teachers I’ve ever had. She rarely came to class, and when she did her direction was uninspiring, to say the least. We let our English teacher know how bad it was, and said she should teach the class. She told she had tried to get the class, but the woman who taught it had seniority, and she was just going to have to wait until she retired to have a shot at teaching creative writing.
So I see tenure, LIFO, Seniority, and all of these other non-merit-based ways of evaluating teachers not just as shelter for truly terrible teaching. I also see them as holding back and diminishing the power of great teachers - and we know that the power of great teaching can be transformative for children.