Should Teachers Ignore Poverty's Impact?

The hypothetical question test about the applicant's belief system is the wrong question. My history as a high school social studies teacher for 16 years -- teaching history, government, sociology, psychology, Latin American history, African American history and economics -- in a socioeconomically diverse but highly functional educational environment, would lead me to give the TFA right answer that I believe that all kids can learn at high levels. I certainly insisted that all my students grapple with high-level thinking and forced myself to make learning relevant. A response that amounts to excuses exhibits faulty thinking, underestimating human potential, ignoring research on effort-based intelligence, etc.

That having been said, its the wrong question -- OR AT LEAST AN INSUFFICIENT CRITERIA -- because such a correct belief does not mean that a teacher will be successful with any, never mind all, students. Believing that all kids can learn does not make one good at helping kids succeed. It takes a high level of skill. Working with kids who do not have learning strategies themselves, who do not have organization or study habits, who have never done challenging work, and who have self image issues takes a much higher level of skill and a broader repertoire of strategies. None of these skills and strategies come with novice teachers. They're not instincts. They are learned and depend on a knowledge base about teaching. What I worry about is the magical thinking that "anyone can do it if you have the right attitude." I'm not saying that TFA, The New Teacher Project and D.C. Teaching Fellows suffer this kind of simplistic can-do-ism, because I don't know what their approach to teacher development is. But such magical thinking underestimates the complexity of the craft of teaching. It risks demoralizing a whole work force if such magical thinking becomes the foundation philosophy of a whole school system.

**

Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the D.C. public schools and founder of the New Teacher Project:

You have to know the challenges our kids come with, take them seriously, try to provide resources to address them but at the end of the day they CANNOT be an excuse for low achievement levels. That's the bottom line. If a teacher doesn't believe it's possible for a teacher or school to overcome those factors, that is actually okay. Those teachers should teach in Fairfax County or somewhere where the challenges are not as great. And they'll do good things for those kids. No issues with that. But we need people with a different mindset for our kids.

**

Caroline Grannan, San Francisco journalist, parent and blogger:

I think there's a sane middle ground between a flat-out "Blame the Teacher" philosophy (euphemistically called "No Excuses") and falling back entirely on excuses, throwing up your hands and giving up.

Your correspondent makes an excellent point when she asks why "a difference of opinion makes someone wrong and unhireable." I also have to wonder if the "No Excuses" attitude has something to do with the sky-high teacher turnover in schools like KIPP. Unrealistic expectations and pressure to achieve miracles are not the foundation for a fulfilling career.

In my observation, disruptive students are a frequent problem impeding other students' learning and at times driving teachers to seek employment elsewhere. I hope that some districts have found sensitive and compassionate yet effective ways to cope with disruptive students. In my ultra-politically correct district, if a disruptive student is African-American or Latino, there are many voices -- including some school board members -- who will blame the teacher for causing the problem by being racist. That's the lefty version of the "no excuses" attitude.

Here's the two and a half minute parody commentary on exactly this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVF-nirSq5s

**

Dan Domenech, executive director, American Association of School Administrators, Arlington:

I think that there is a significant difference between acknowledging a child's background and how it may influence that child's ability to learn and using the background as an excuse as to why the child won't learn. I can't understand how accepting full responsibility for a child learning is translated to "not accepting alternate viewpoints." I would only add here that the responsibility does not lie entirely with the teacher. It extends to the principal and to the superintendent of schools, and everyone has to do their best to help overcome the very background that we refuse to accept as an excuse to the child's ability to learn.

**

Jay Mathews:

Although none of these people saw one another's responses in advance, it seemed to me they were recognizing some truths on the other side. Owens did, too. Having spent nearly three decades reporting on both good and bad teaching in urban and suburban schools, I think attitude is very important. The prevailing view that impoverished children cannot be expected to learn as much as affluent children is poison in any classroom. The question Owens encountered in that interview exercise was designed to expose such feelings and give the interviewers a chance to hold them up to the light. That's good. The next step should be to show those prospective educators what teaching is like in schools that have made the essential attitudinal adjustment, and how far those students have gone.