Big article this week by Carlo Rotella in The New York Times. Definitely think it’s worth your time. (And no, I don’t like tablets in the classroom. Chromebooks, yes, but tablets, not so much.)
Blurb: Sally Hurd Smith, a veteran teacher, held up her brand-new tablet computer and shook it as she said, “I don’t want this thing to take over my classroom.” It was late June, a month before the first day of school. In a sixth-grade classroom in Greensboro, N.C.
The school year has just begun, and already, things are getting hot.
Since Motoko Rich’s excellent article, “At Charter Schools, Short Careers By Choice,” appeared last week in The New York Times, the backlash against charter schools has intensified.
According to these traditional public school-only proponents, everything bad in education — flat test scores, the existence of standardized testing, the new Common Core State Standards, the short careers of beginning teachers — is the result of charter schools.
Mr. Alcorn refers to Ms. Rich’s article, excoriates a young teacher who may seek a leadership position after just a few years teaching, and argues that the rise of charter schools has led directly to the trend of inexperienced teachers. To be sure, many charter schools do, in fact, employ young teachers who don’t spend their entire careers in the classroom. His statistic — that a charter school teacher averages just four years in the classroom vs. a traditional public school teacher’s 14 — is accurate. But just because two things exist (charter schools, short teacher careers), that doesn’t mean the first causes the second. For many years, teachers in urban schools have faced challenging conditions, and most lifers spend the majority of their careers in suburban schools. By no means am I a diehard proponent of charter schools. But I don’t appreciate it when non-educators dismiss, in four scornful paragraphs, the hard work of teachers trying to make things right among kids of color in urban schools.
On the flipside is this long, well-researched, well-written article that unfortunately also places blame in the wrong place. Ms. Weil tells the story of her nonconformist second-grade daughter who does not like to sit still in class. Instead of praising her creativity, her teacher suggests occupational therapy, and Ms. Weil and her partner are not pleased. That’s fine, but instead of finding fault at the classroom or school level, the author challenges several current trends in education, including socio-emotional learning and character development. Both, she argues, restrain children who don’t easily stay in their seats and raise their hands. Both limit students’ natural curiosity. And both, she points out, are taught in charter schools.
The problem with Ms. Weil’s piece is that it’s written well. It’s compelling. Even though charter schools are as diverse as public schools, she can make a universal claim and get away with it. She can casually mention KIPP in just one sentence and gain nods of approval by charter opponents. Just in case you might not think Ms. Weil is blaming charter schools, she quotes Prof. Ravitch and writes, “The motto of the so-called school-reform movement is: No Excuses.” “No Excuses,” of course, is code for charter schools.
Both of these articles — and much of the discourse this week — have been difficult to read. On the one hand, I agree with the authors that something is wrong with American education. It’s problematic, for example, that high-stakes standardized testing, ever since No Child Left Behind, has resulted in teacher bashing, drill-and-kill curriculum, and the demise of project-based learning. And certainly, I do not argue for privatizing education.
But on the other hand, charter schools themselves are not the cause of the problem. Whereas Mr. Alcorn and Ms. Weil — both non-educators — spend their time slamming charter schools, charter school educators are doing their best, after decades of abject inequity, to meet the needs of urban kids of color. And they do all that alongside efforts by similarly hard-working, well-intentioned people in traditional public schools.
Please, I welcome your comments, especially from those who disagree with me!
One of my favorite things is receiving an email from a stranger across the country who is interested in donating a Kindle to the Kindle Classroom Project.
It’s heartwarming that people care deeply about young people and their reading lives. It’s wonderful that they’re willing to ship their Kindle to someone they don’t know. It’s fantastic that they have faith that I’ll put their Kindle to good use.
Those feelings are even stronger when someone says she’s going to donate TWO Kindles!
I would like to thank Mary from Princeton Junction, New Jersey, for donating a Kindle 2 and a Kindle Touch to the Kindle Classroom Project collection.
Here they are! (Mary also included a kind note.)
Mary’s generous donation puts us at 71 Kindles in all. That also means that the Kindle Classroom Project will expand to its THIRD classroom in a few weeks!
The word is getting out that if we tell students that we care about them, and if we show them that we care by letting them borrow a Kindle, and if we challenge them to read more, and if we give them interesting books, then really good things will happen.
I look forward to seeing where the KCP goes this year. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and feel free to tell your family and friends!
A few folks are asking how my recent article in The New York Times came to be. They want to know: Um, Mark, exactly how is it possible that the NYT deemed you a “knowledgeable outside contributor” qualified “to discuss news events and other timely issues?”
Well, I was definitely very, very lucky. Here is how it happened.
1. New York Times reporter Motoko Rich wrote “At Charter Schools, Short Careers by Choice,” in which she concluded that some charter networks are now comfortable hiring young teachers who plan to leave the profession for “bigger and better things” after just a few years in the classroom.
2. I was deeply disturbed by the article and wrote this post, “Are Charter Schools Youth Cults?” in Iserotope. It’s one thing to hire young teachers, work them senseless, churn them out, and know full well that they’ll leave quickly. It’s another thing — quite a pretentious, icky thing — to admit this publicly.
Up until now, everything was normal. After all, it’s not a strange thing for me to read something, have a reaction to it, and write about it (or put it up on Iserotope Extras). But then, a few hours later, things got interesting.
This might be silly to say, but that tweet made my day. A New York Times reporter thanked me for something I wrote and called my thoughts “nuanced?” Did that really happen? Yes, this was a Surreal Moment.
5. Loyal Iserotope readers offered excellent responses to the Iserotope post. Laura, Heidi, Angela, and Geoff pushed my thinking. In fact, some of their language appears in my article. (I am very grateful. They will receive royalties, for sure. 🙂 )
6. The New York Times’ Room for Debate editor Nick Fox emailed me, said he had read the post on Iserotope, and wondered if I would contribute a piece to an upcoming forum on whether teachers need experience to be effective. This was Surreal Moment No. 2.
I had to read the email three times to make sure I was understanding correctly. After I returned to my senses, I realized that this wasn’t just a general call for submissions. This was an editor asking me directly to write something for publication. It was to be 300-400 words, and it was due at 1 p.m. the next day.
7. I wrote a draft. As I wrote, there was joy, adrenaline, fear, and giddiness. The looming deadline got me a tad feverish. It reminded me of my time working on The Epitaph, my high school newspaper — an experience I’ll never forget. (Thanks, Nick!)
8. Not wanting to be fired by my new (and old — more about that in a later post) employer, I ran the article by the director of development to ensure I wasn’t saying anything inappropriate. Kate gave me the OK and even spent time tightening the piece, just minutes before deadline, via Google Docs.
9. I filed the article…and waited. And passed the time. And crossed my fingers. Until, that night, my article was published in Room for Debate. This was Surreal Moment No. 3. Jubilation ensued.
It’s a great feeling, to be sure, and it makes me want to write more — not just for my own personal goals, but also to make sure that teachers have a voice in this conversation. I might not be in the classroom anymore, but I hope that my perspective is one that respects and honors teachers and the work they do. It’s crucial that teachers get their words out there. I hope you enjoy the article!
It’s really my name, and it’s really my words, and it’s all in The New York Times.
Ever since third grade, when my best friend and I founded the Mark Isero and Robbie Greene’s Chronicle, which covered, among other things, playground races and the annual school checkers tournament, I’ve always wanted to be published in a real newspaper.
Now it’s happened — and in The New York Times, no less, the newspaper I’ve admired since signing up for a subscription on my first day of college.
Can you tell I’m excited?
My piece is in The New York Times’ online forum, Room for Debate, which “invites knowledgeable outside contributors to discuss news events and other timely issues.”
Today’s topic was, “Do teachers need to have experience?” I suppose I’m a “knowledgeable outside contributor,” because here’s my article!
I’m extremely grateful for this opportunity, and particularly appreciative of Laura, Heidi, Angela, and Geoff, whose comments to my recent post helped shape my thoughts.
It’s all a dream come true.
Please let me know what you think — whether that’s here in the comments or on the Iserotope Facebook page. Stay posted for more info coming soon.
Big article this week by Carlo Rotella in The New York Times. Definitely think it’s worth your time. (And no, I don’t like tablets in the classroom. Chromebooks, yes, but tablets, not so much.)
