I taught for 44 years. The bulk of that experience was in public high schools. I was fortunate that in all that time, I never taught in a truly bad school, such as are depicted in the media as being typical, if not universal. I think I was also fortunate that I never taught in a top-tier public high school such as seem to be found primarily in affluent suburbs. Nor did I ever teach in an exclusive private school of the sort that many of our Politicians seem to have attended, and such as virtually all Politicians’ children seem to attend. The two schools that I worked in the longest were a smallish high school in a small town (10 years) and a largish high school in a small city (28 years). Both of these schools served the majority of their students reasonably well; a few were served very well indeed; and a few were served not so well at all, alas.
In spite of my experience, or perhaps because of it, I recognize there is a wide range in the quality of American public schools. There are public high schools that rival the most exclusive private prep schools and “broken” schools that can most charitably be described as dysfunctional. I think I taught somewhere in the center; I think my experience is fairly typical.
I am disturbed that these days all public schools and the very concept of public education are being tarred with the worst-case brush. There is a veritable media machine pushing this agenda. Although I haven’t seen it yet, Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for Superman seems to be a case in point.
Likewise, there is a wide range in the quality of teachers within those public schools. Hollywood shows us brilliant, charismatic teachers who instantly and dramatically transform the lives of each and every one of their students in two hours. Although I have never seen such a “star” in action, I have worked with a surprising number who come close. The majority of teachers I have seen are qualified, well-meaning, hard-working professionals who do (subject to a bewildering degree of internal and external factors) more good than harm. There are also some who no doubt do more harm than good, usually by virtue of not doing much – whether because of not knowing what, or how, or simply not being so inclined. And at the far end of the continuum, there are Toxic Teachers whose classes are an overwhelmingly negative experience, often destructive for many of their students.
I am disturbed that all teachers these days, and especially those who belong to unions, are being tarred with the worst-case brush as incompetent if not outright malicious. I am not talking about the traditional Hollywood stereotype of non-stellar teachers as petty tyrants and/or clueless boobs. I am talking about such anti-teacher campaigns as the Los Angeles Times publishing teachers’ “value added” ratings based on district-provided test scores. New York City schools want to do much the same thing. This is being done in the name of “transparency,” but strikes me as being more of a mean-spirited “outing.” You know, like the recent incident at Rutgers, and with similar results, in L.A., anyhow.
The perennial problem with this good teacher/bad teacher business is telling the difference: what criteria, what instruments, what methods, what persons doing the evaluating and to what end. We all think that we know a good teacher or a bad teacher when we see one, and at the extremes of the spectrum, the difference is probably obvious enough, but in the great, gray middle, the difference can be very much in the eye of the beholder.