Lessons From Locke

The student, not the teacher, is the most important factor in student achievement.

The students, sometimes through fault of their own, but more often not, show up for class without the equipment to learn. As a volunteer for an inner-city after-school program, the most steadfast conviction I have acquired is that the deficiencies in many children's home lives (and those of all of the children in our program) leave them horrendously under-equipped to participate in the learning process. The rest of us take for granted just how much we already had when we showed up for our first day of Kindergarten. Kids show up for their first day of Kindergarten, at age 4 or 5, already 3 or 4 years behind! What prayer do they have?

And when I say behind, I don't mean in knowledge. That would be an easy fix, especially at that level. No, the far more fundamental needs of children (love, safety, and support) are not met by the home lives I'm contemplating.

How does a school, classroom, or teacher offer a substitute for the first 5 years of a life being spent in a loving, safe, and supportive environment? How can the public education system ever address such a question? Should it even try?

Or should we be looking for a more holistic approach? It's tempting to presume that the solution to a problem whose symptoms appear in your realm must also rest in your realm. Immersed in the world of teaching and primary education, she presumes that its failures must necessarily be fixable by better teaching.

What if they can't? Then what? I promise you that if you took the kids from our neighborhood and dropped them into the best prep schools in the country, they would fail miserably without the support we offer them. Likewise, if you took happy, healthy, well-adjusted middle-class kids and put them in our school system (among the worst in the country), they'd do fine and get into whatever college they wanted to.

A super-teacher could probably reach a few of our kids, and a super-parent could DEFINITELY make sure that his/her child could get a fine education in any school in this country (I know, the worst are right here). But so long as we devise plans that only address one side of this problem, we are REQUIRING super-teachers and super-parents to step forward? Then, we cite the rare examples where super-teachers do their thing as validation of the idea. But is it reasonable to think that you could apply that to the masses?

If a plan can guarantee success, if only it had 475,000 super-teachers, it's a terrible plan.

The educational failures we see before us are a final result of a long chain of failures. Any attempt, at a system level, to treat them directly amounts to merely treating the symptoms, not the disease, and is ultimately destined to fail.

The teacher is a very import part of what I like to refer to as the Three-Legged Stool. The Teacher (representing the school), the Parent representing the value system displayed at home, and the student (bringing a willingness to learn) form this stool. Without a competent teacher, not much will be possible. Without a parent showing their student to respect and value both teachers and education, very little learning may be accomplished. Without the student understanding the value and importance of learning to learn, the bulk of the work falls to his or her intrinsic motivation. If parents are active in the school, better results will be made manifest. Think of it like this "If I as a principal, have to face large groups angry parents everyday, the press, the school board, and the super, will have to act.

Oh my, what a piece this article is. "It's the teachers, stupid." Really? Could it possibly be the parents? How does having 70% of a certian demographic in this country born out of wedlock affect education? How does a single parent home affect the time a parent spends with the child/children affect education? How does teen pregnancy (kids raising kids) affect education? America spends more money per student than any other country on earth. I am sorry, but it is waaaay more than the teachers, stupid.

What the author fails to mention is the large percentage of TFA alums who leave teaching after their commitment ends, not to mention those who fail to complete their assignment.

This is only a bandaid on a crack in the Hoover Dam. Until we completely revamp public education, the problem will continue.

It seems my passion for the subject has been mistaken as hostility. Foote's article discusses the pitfalls of our education system, and very directly places blame on teachers. Regardless of the overall purpose of her article, it only perpetuates the ignorant belief that teachers are incompetent and the sole reason for the downfall of the educational system. Yes, teachers are the most important part of a student's success, but no, they are not the only reason students are failing. A simple reference to this fact would only make the article more fully informative, not derail its purpose.

blmyoung - The jist of your comment is correct, but your hostility towards the author seems misplaced. The 2nd half of the article notes how TFA alumns are working on systemic problems. Foote doesn't directly address the problems generated by NCLB, but that's not the purpose of her article. She is correct in noting that teachers are the single most important factor in a child's educational success.

Also, while I share your distain of standardized testing, there are ways for teachers to be creative within the constraints of NCLB. Standardized tests just add to the pile of (unfair) challenges to the teacher. And, yes, I am TFA alumn - fighting the good fight at the university level now.

"Its the teachers, stupid." Interesting how solving the educational system in America is seemly so easy. Just throw some more money at the teachers, make it a little more competitive, problem solved. While these things would definitely help, they are far from the entire solution. How can a teacher be responsible in a school system which tells him or her what to teach, how to teach and when to teach it, down to the minute? There is no room for the teacher to prove competence, let alone the fact that creativity along, with the students' excitement of discovery in learning, is completely taken away. How can the teacher be solely responsible for a failing student in an educational system based on standardized testing alone? Classrooms are devoted to learning the tests, not to learning for life. That kind of learning creates stress and pressures not only for the teacher but the students as well. On top of that, the standardized test used to measure students' knowledge is based on percentiles, meaning that students' scores are compared in such a way that a certain percent MUST FAIL. So while President Bush totes his No Child Left Behind propoganda, saying that no child should be failing after a certain number of years, the standardized test is scored in these percentiles which require failure. Donna Foote, consider looking into the subject more thoroughly before pointing the finger.

Note to Obama and McCain: do the math!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Note to Obama and McCain: do the math!!!!!!!!!!!

It says something about a society's priorities when 19-year-olds who can't read and write get $100 million to put a ball in a basket, but our teachers generally make under $100,000 a year. Ultimately, who adds more value? And anything that's established by a government - be it federal or state - is bound to fail. Look at how private school thrive in this country. Vouchers, not a handful of do-gooders who are looking for another line on their resumes, go further toward solving this problem. You want to fix public education? If you've received scholarships or grants to attend college, give out the money with strings attached: Two years in an inner-city or down-in-the-mouth school. After that, offer $125,000-$250,000 a head, and you'll get the best teachers to show up, even if it's in a school in the middle of gangland hell. We have many dedicated teachers in this country, but also too many who keep their jobs because they don't know what else to do, have nowhere else to go and are protected by unions. Make teaching a primo job and you'll attract primo talent.

How could I possibly disagree more with the statement that it's the teacher's fault!? If you will track the decline, it began when teachers were no longer allowed to discipline students. Excuse me, before that, it was when prayer was taken out of the schools. Now we have a generation of parents that were not disciplined themselves raising children with even less disciplne.

Teachers are regarded as targets, not role models. We must reclaim our children and their respect before any positive changes wil take place.

"It's the teachers, stupid"? Are you kidding me? Blaming the teachers, as usual, is not helping but hurting the cause. Saying that teachers are low scoring, low achieving and that it's their fault that the students are not doing well really hurts the people who are teaching. I am a former Ph. D. student (biology) who went to work in South Los Angeles after grad school (not with TFA). I have been teaching ever since, but am so tired of being blamed for all of society's ills. Teachers can't be retained because they BURN OUT. Charter schools aren't helping retain good teachers. Teachers need things like job security, and the ability to say NO when they are being asked to do too much. When I try to talk up teaching to my students or to my kids, they say they can't imagine working so much and dealing with all of the stress of the classroom. Anyone who knows a good teacher can attest to the fact that they work a lot and have to put up with a lot.
But it's easy to exploit young idealists that don't have families to raise. Once you have kids and a family to take care of, you can't work constantly any more. Are you then a "bad teacher"? Or do you just recruit more youngsters to do the job for a couple of years to be replaced by the next cohort.
Why would anyone choose this as a career?

It is not only the teachers, it is the school system, the community, the parents, and the child. Basically it is everyone! The teachers are responsible for how they teacher, some are bad, most are Ok, and then there is those of us that are great. THe school system is responsible for who it hires and the assistance it gives the teachers that it teach. The community needs to step and value education for what it is, the key to the future and the only profession that influences the lives of everyone. The parents have to support the school and the teachers. The child is responsible for their own learning at any age. If everyone else does their job then why shouldn't the child do his or hers, learn? Teachers can teach but if the child doesn't want to learn than no learning will take place. There is no one reason why the education system is failing. Teach for America is good as in it puts future business people, doctors, lawyers, etc. in the classroom for them to experience what it is like in the real world (verus the privledged world of Harvard, Yale, etc.). Maybe some will stay and most will go, but they have been there and those lessons that they learn in the classroom will stay with them forever. As a teacher I am offended but the phrase "It's the teachers, stupid!". The author needs to look at the other parts of the picture.

"It's the teachers, stupid"? The single most important factor for student achievement is not the teacher, it is socioeconomic status. Not that the teacher isn't an integral part of the education system, but when students don't show up to school, don't have enough to eat, and belong to a gang and expect to be dead by the age of 25, a teacher can do little to motivate these students. Also, when parents value athletic achievement over academic achievement, that doesn't help. But it is much easier for media and politicians to rant about "improving teacher quality" because criticizing teachers is much easier than trying to tackle the problems of poverty, gang violence, and juvenile crime. Many teachers I know are highly qualified not only to be teachers, but to be professional writers, scientists, and even doctors, but chose to teach because they believe in what they are doing.

Teach for America teachers are certified by the state in which they teach. If they only had the courses in high school, it is the fault of the state for certifying them, not Teach for America. Or possibly the fault of the school for having the TFA teacher in a course they are not certified for. Certification requirements usually have to do with how many credits were taken in college, not necessarily what the final degree is.

What happened to the "Highly Qualified Teacher" requirement? Does a TFA "teacher" that has a degree in business or sociology that comes to a high school and gets to teach English or science to our students have any kind of qualification to teach these subjects? We have TFA teachers at our school that have no training in the subjects they are teaching other than what they learned in high school. It would make more sense if this organization put someone with at least a degree in the subject they were teaching in the classroom. Don't hold these people up as examples of a good teacher -most have no idea of how to teach a subject. They think if they open a book and read to the students or lecture them, the kids will learn. However, many of them do not understand that each child learns in a different way and you have to know if the child is a reader or needs hands on examples to understand the subject. Let's start finding out what success full teachers are doing in the classrooms and share that with the community at large so they can be emulated. Also, you have teachers who will never make a big income but choose to teach anyway. I know of a teacher who has 20 + years of Chemisty and Physics teaching experience but gets paid the same as a teacher with only 6 years experience because he chose to move to another state. He will never make up the $20,000 difference in income but he is still teaching in a lower income area and tries very hard to get each child to learn something by year end. He spends his vacation time attending classes and learning new methods in hopes of reaching each child. Money isn't the reason he teachs, but shouldn't we compensate someone who choose to dedicate their lives to teach better than we do?

Let's start a movement to recognize teachers who actually know the subjects they teach and care about their students - which is probably about 80% of the real teachers - not the TFA's.

So for those of you who think it is only the parents not the teachers... what do you make of a situation in which a child has extremely motivated and involved parents who are committed to education, but also has a teacher who has no content knowledge, no skills to manage a classroom, or has low expectations for students and "dumbs down" the course? Is this child set up to be successful in their future?
Or conversely, what about a child who has no parental involvement and a messed up home life, but has a teacher who is so motivating and inspiring and teaches at a rigorous so that the child not only wants to learn and succeed but makes so much progress in a year that the child is getting closer to being on par with his or her peers in the more affluent suburban disctricts?

How can you say it is only the parents? Teachers can make all the difference in the world by taking responsibility for their role as a teacher and no longer making excuses for the children.

As a dedicated teacher (with a Mensa-level IQ, FYI) in a low-income, high-risk high school, I resent the implication that TFA teachers are "better" just because they are Ivy League graduates. Being a talented teacher has nothing to do with IQ. Being a teacher requires understanding, patience, love, sweat, tears, and strength, not necessarily book smarts. To me, the TFA program paints the image of smug, know it all kids who come in and expect to "rescue" the educational system in two years. If ANYONE thinks that that is the solution--replacing solid, dedicated teachers who are "in the trenches" for years on end with hotshots who blow in and out like smarty-pants hurricanes--they truly are victims of an uneducated society. I love how these Ivy Leaguers are celebrated for "slumming it" in schools, and then patted on the back for hightailing it out as soon as their "tour of duty" is up (presumably to go get a "real job"), while teachers who devote their lives to the ins and outs of between 30 and (in my case) 200 kids a day are belittled and insulted by the insinuations that they teach because they can't do anything else. It's the teachers? Try "It's your attitude", Stupid.