My wife teaches public school in Montgomery County, Md., where more and more teachers can’t afford to buy homes near the schools where they teach, and now have long, dirty commutes from distant suburbs. One of the smartest stimulus moves we could make would be to eliminate federal income taxes on all public schoolteachers so more talented people would choose these careers. I’d also double the salaries of all highly qualified math and science teachers, staple green cards to the diplomas of foreign students who graduate from any U.S. university in math or science — instead of subsidizing their educations and then sending them home — and offer full scholarships to needy students who want to go to a public university or community college for the next four years.
So writes Thomas Friedman in his NY Times op ed entitled Tax Cuts for Teachers.
I am a teacher. This is a truly stupid idea. That Friedman has a stupid idea is not surprising. Perhaps it takes a classroom teacher to explain why.
What Friedman is seeing in parts of Montgomery County is not a new phenomenon. Many wealthy suburbs have encountered this problem for years, especially given the inflated cost of housing. Arlington County Virginia, where I live, is not quite so wealthy as Montgomery (although it spend far more than per student) and it began exploring this issue quite some time ago.
Friedman seems to think everyone is motivated primarily by money. And given that he apparently thinks money is the best measure, you will also note his proposal, on top of those tax cuts, to double the salaries of science and math teachers, which implies a belief that those subjects are more important than others. This falls into the trap of thinking that some subjects are more important than others, even at the high school level.
Let's back up. The fundamental flaw in Friedman's approach, at least as I see it, is that he thinks the primary reason for educating students is for economic benefit: theirs, their future employers, and thus the nation. And this is of the mindset that thinks we are falling behind other nations in the production of scientists, engineers, and technicians. Perhaps he is being shaped by the misleading screeds about international comparisons.
So let's back up for another moment. First, people like at least one those he sees as a model, Bill Gates, are contributing to the off-shoring of American jobs and the elimination of jobs here by H1B visas which allow a new indentured servitude, since those arriving here (A) get paid less than would an American for such jobs, and (B) cannot transfer to work for another company. And yet, increasing numbers of skilled Americans are not able to find or maintain skilled jobs because of off-shoring and H1B visas.
Second, much of the kinds of technology that could create green jobs is already being developed in this country. The problem has never been the ingenuity of those doing the developing, but the obstinance of some in government and industry, leading to policies which favor aging technologies and place barriers in the way of transforming that ingenuity into large-scale production. If one is interested in adjusting tax policies for stimulative purposes, I would strongly suggest that one might find better targets in this part of our economy rather than in schools.
Since I am neither economist nor scientist, perhaps my insights may not be considered worthwhile by the deep thinkers who drive policy debates. But let me offer some observations from more than a decade in the classroom.
Most good teachers are not motivated primarily by money. But they would like to make a decent living. Rather than the kinds of gimmicks like tax cuts, perhaps increasing the base compensation should be considered. And if housing is too expensive, it might make more sense to explore partial subsidization of housing in those areas which need such assistance (in much of the country that is not a problem) rather than creating another hole in the Federal budget to address a problem that is not universal in nature.
Doubling the pay of science and math teachers might draw more people to consider teaching. But that does not mean they would be good teachers. I am sure many of us experienced at higher levels of education, post-secondary, brilliant scholars and researchers whose classes were excruciating to take because they could not communicate effectively with their students. For the vast majority of K-12 students, the issue is less having superior knowledge of the subject matter than it is being able to help students understand it. Of my four student teachers, the most brilliant by far was the least effective because he was too impatient with students who did not share his passion for the subject. He blamed them, when had he looked in the mirror he might have realized that he thought more about the subject and his expertise than he did the prior knowledge and skill of the students before, nor did he consider how to connect the subject with them and their lives.
We are coming to the end of 7 years of No Child Left Behind, a piece of legislation that has caused great damage to our schools and even more to our students, even though its emphasis on basic math and reading is far more sensible than Friedman's proposal to double the pay of teachers of math and science while presumably not changing the salaries of the rest of us. Yes, I have a vested interested because of teaching Social Studies, but I am not seeking to raise my own pay - I already make more than 90% of the teachers in my building and probably more than 95% of the teachers in the nation. I won't turn down a raise, but that misses the point. Remember, money is not the primary motivation for those who become teachers, and certainly so long as the money is sufficient (a separate issue) other things are far more important to those who are the teachers most effective with the students.
I said that NCLB has greatly damaged our schools and our students. For far too many we have been reducing their education to what can be easily tested, and to prepping for those tests. I point out that originally only math and reading were tested (you will note - no requirement for writing, to which I will return), science testing was to be added about halfway through the run-up to the drop-dead date of 2014 (when just as if we were in Lake Wobegon, all students would be 100% proficient) but science scores were not to be part of Adequate Yearly Progress. What was missing was he preparation for citizenship, Social Studies (history and government and other related subjects), the arts (music, art, dance), physical education and health (in a nation in which our young people are increasingly obese and juvenile health issues of all kinds are escalating), practical technology (a good preparation not only for engineering, but for the taks of maintaining cars and industrial equipment and home appliances), family and consumer science (which might be a useful requirement so that students could make a healthy meal other than by zapping packages with too much sodium, fat, and preservatives in the microwave).
AND NOTE: no where in No Child Left Behind or in most of the other proposals for "reform" floating around do we insist on having children learn how to communicate: to write, to speak. If our education is going to truly be meaningful, how can these skills not be an essential part of education? Does one truly understand if s/he cannot express in words, written or spoken? Why are these not included? Is it because we cannot easily test such skills with multiple choice test?
I admit I have my prejudices. I do not believe the sole purpose of American public schools is preparing compliant workers for our major corporations. I think it more important that we empower our students in learning how to learn. And I also know how many of the jobs of the future will not require higher math or science skills. The approach Friedman takes in doubling the salaries of some fields and not others places an emphasis equivalent to requiring all students to put on pads and play football to the exclusion of any other sport or lifetime physical activity, to ensure that we do not miss out on one running back or offensive lineman. That is, to put it mildly, not only idiotic, it also fails to inculcate a proper respect for physical health, which can be maintained by far less expensive and more inclusive forms of physical activity. Here I remember that when I was looking at colleges I briefly considered applying to a service academy, and noted that in the 1960s (and I presume today) each of the plebes/midshipmen/cadets was required to study a life sport - golf, tennis, etc. - so that he would be able to maintain physical vitality far after he could no longer play major team sports like football or basketball.
If we want teachers to inspire students, including in math and sciences, we might consider some approaches that Friedman either ignores or never has considered. We might consider asking the teachers whom students always remember positively what they think we should be doing about educational policy in this nation. Far too often our discussions and decisions about schools and students are made without the voices of those in the classrooms whose commitment is necessary for any success. Some on the Hill recognize this. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of NY has a proposal for a teacher advisory panel that was in the House Committee draft in the 110th Congress of the reauthorization of NCLB, and there was something similar in the Senate. I expect she will reintroduce it. She had proposed that the source of such teachers be the National Teacher of the Year program. I note that one can qualify as a state teacher of the year and lack the ability of being able to communicate clearly to non-education types (something I discovered during my now abandoned dissertation) and have proposed another source, The Teacher Leaders Network, which contains a number of national and state teachers of the year, people who have won awards from Disney and Milken, who are national board certified, and who have demonstrated an ability to communicate about teaching. I acknowledge that I am, as of December, a member of this organization. Whether it is TLN or NTOY, I think one should really consider involving teachers in such decision making.
Here's one reason why I look at TLN. There is no doubt that we are going to move in the direction of some sort of Merit pay for teachers. Right now far too many would approach such an issue on the basis of test scores, but even were it to be the improvement in test scores here is a problem: you would be excluding from merit pay some of the most important teachers in the lives of many students: music, art, phys ed, etc. These and other issues were thoroughly examined in This report by TLN on merit pay (about which I wrote in this diary not quite 2 years ago - one reason I decided I wanted to join TLN).
This diary is already too long. Perhaps I could have simplified things by merely saying that Friedman's ideas on this make about as much sense as many of the others he has offered in recent years, whether it was his analyses of the Iraqi situation that gave rise to the infamous Friedman Unit as a dismissal of his proposal for yet another 6 months or his erroneous assertion that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war with one another (forgetting how many burger places there are in nations that are not particularly democratic).
Most teachers recognize that we need to reexamine teacher compensation, just as many teachers will tell you that the structure of schools and the way we evaluate students, teachers, schools, and school systems could well use a thorough reexamination and redesign. I would hope that the voices and perspectives of those in schools might be more readily included in such examinations.
Feel free to take this diary apart. It was written in one burst, and could surely do with some editing.
Teachers are part of our communities. And waiving federal taxes is really stupid, given that the federal share of K-12 education is less than 10%. Hell, we do not give the military an exemption from Federal taxes, nor do we do so for policemen, or firemen, or social workers in the inner city, or many other critical occupations who provide important services to our society.
Provide a livable wage, certainly. Provide support for education for those already in the classroom to improve and maintain their skills. Help finance those who are transition from other careers to teaching, who have demonstrated the most important characteristic for success in teaching - that they care about their students and can connect with them, because teaching is not merely about content knowledge or expanding one's pedagogical toolbox, it is also about relationships.
Give real respect to the teaching profession by asking those of us who teach what we think should be done to improve education. Stop listening to the think tanks, or those who think everything is the fault/responsibility of teachers. We actually assume far more responsibility than we should.
Oh yes, and if you really want to improve teaching, change how teaching is evaluated, and include teachers in the process. Use teachers to help struggling teachers improve.
There is so much more I could add, but I would be repeating myself, if not from this diary, from the many others I have written about education, teaching, teachers, students, and school.
Have a nice day. Go ahead and tear this apart.
Peace.