Recently, Teresa Ghilarducci wrote an interesting article concerning teacher bashing in which she made the cogent observation that “Attacking your workforce is not an effective way to improve quality, produce a better product, and attract top talent—a bright young replacement would notice the disrespect.  So why do people think attacking teachers is a route to education reform” (http://chronicle.com/blogAuthor/Brainstorm/3/Teresa-Ghilarducci/85/)?

She was responding to Stephen Brill’s article attacking teacher unions and the tenure system for ruining America’s public education system while glorifying the virtues of charter schools and claiming, in essence, that the only thing that matters in education is good teachers. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html)

After reading Ms Ghilarducci’s article, I realized that while she attained her goal of very effectively demolishing Brill’s argument concerning the effectiveness of charter schools, there was much more that should be noted.

Like Ms Ghilarducci, I, too, agree that teacher quality matters.  That is axiomatic. The real problems lie with attracting and retaining high quality teachers.  Charter schools have not succeeded any better than have the public schools in attracting and retaining high quality teachers as demonstrated by their failure to out perform the public schools in significantly improved student achievements as compared to those obtained by the traditional public schools.

I tried to add to Ms Ghilarducci’s analysis when I discussed this with my correspondents on e-mail.
This is what I wrote. I am adding a few extra comments and some editorial changes.

For more years than I care to remember, the far right developed a mantra that seems to have permeated our society which refuses to take responsibility for its actions. The mantra: our public education system stinks because of poor teachers who are protected by unions.  Break the powerful teacher’s union and we will have a great public education system.  Teacher and union bashing became “revealed knowledge.”  Rush Limbaugh led the parade in attacking teachers, teacher unions and the public educational system.

Of course, what was not being told was the effort to destroy the public school system a means for trying to divert money to the church-based schools.  What also wasn’t being told was the history of many of these church-based schools, especially the Protestant schools.  The Catholic schools system has been around almost for ever as was much of the Jewish educational system – unlike the Catholic system which is part of the Church hierarchy, the Jewish educational systems (Yeshivas and Hebrew Day Schools, “after school” Hebrew Schools) are all independent entities.  The majority of Protestant church-based schools, especially in the South, came into existence with integration.  They were the unstated means of avoiding integration and the equally unstated means of avoiding the teaching of evolution: although they were required to follow the state educational guide for their secular courses – as private, non-state funded schools they could introduce doctrinal ideology in their science courses.  (When teaching non-majors introductory biology at a southern university, I encountered too many students who were products of such a faulty education.)  At first these church affiliated schools  were self-funded.  Then they became exceedingly expensive.  Then the parents began demanding that they not pay taxes for the public school system – the Catholics had been demanding tax relief for years – at one point – I think it was in the 1970s – even threatening to close all their schools and dumping all their students on the public school system which they claimed was not equipped to take them in and could not afford to educate them.

To the end of breaking the teacher’s union(s) – there is more than one, with the NEA being the largest – the concept of charter schools was invented and good public money went into supporting them.  And it did not take too long before all the hype began to flow about how great these schools were compared to the public school system.  Then the research started to demonstrate conclusively that the charter schools were not living up to their hype and at best they were equally effective as the public schools; many were worse.  All the charter schools were doing -  and still doing – is diverting precious money away from the public school system.

Also avoided in these discussions  especially by Rush et al. -  except when raised by the teachers or their union representatives – were the economic and sociological factors that are required for a successful education.  At one time teachers were among the most educated people in the community.  With the advent of the relatively inexpensive public higher educational institutions, society became better educated and many parents now thought that they knew as much about subject matter, if not more, than the teachers.  Teachers and teaching as a profession were degraded.  The curricula for preparing teachers in colleges and universities across the country were belittled by colleagues in the arts and sciences and the professional programs.  Further, when states began demanding that teachers obtain advanced degrees , the graduate programs in education proliferated and they became the equivalent of degree mills.  And, in society there was  the degrading comment “those who can do those who can’t teach.”

I had a neighbor, a salesman, accuse me of being a parasite on society.  Yet he knew nothing of the impact of my teaching and of my research, some of which was and is being used to save lives.  In his mind and in the mind of too many other people, teachers are parasites or worse.  A lot of this ideology stems from the early history of the way teachers were viewed as the country expanded and developed.  When schools were built and teachers hired, they were viewed as parasites, not primary producers.  Instead of paying teachers what they were worth, society denigrated their value by underpaying them while making great demands of them.  People were expected to invite teachers in for a meal.  This is not unlike Representative Sue Lowden’s (Republican candidate for the Senate in Nevada) health care barter plan: “Bring a chicken to the doctor…I’m not backing down” or the pro-barter idea being promulgated by Republican, state Rep. Mike Bell (R-TN) which endorses the practices of Mennonites who pay doctors with vegetables.

Teachers had to conform to a certain standard of behavior that the local society laid down.  Teachers began to be viewed as a model for behavior which the rest of society was beginning to exempt themselves.  Do we not see remnants of this same attitude today.  Teachers are supposed to be dedicated.  They should be thankful that they could teach our children.  Rush et al. fed off this BS.  The fact that teachers are deserving of dignity and respect was disregarded.  Everyone expected and still expects  teachers to do their parenting for them

Schools evolved into baby sitting institutions and helped to feed into the developing litigious attitude.  If any parent though that their child was not treated the way they wanted the child treated immediately sued.  Schools were expected to do that which they were not designed to do.  But politics being what it is, there was no way to change the public’s attitude, especially with the media promulgating an outmoded and unrealistic view of what education is.

Even today, the public, even the college educated public, has no clue as to what the aims of education are.  Certainly Rush et al. haven’t a clue except perhaps that it should turn out non-thinking right wing robots.

To attract top quality teachers, salaries have to be competitive with the rest of the professional community, else the best minds are diverted elsewhere.  That was never the case.  Except for one brief moment in history, teachers were always underpaid.  One could see this during the great depression of the 1930s.  Teaching was considered a good profession. Many men went into teaching and made careers of it.  NYC had one of the top public educational systems in the world.

After WW II, the social, political and especially the economic situations changed.  Better paying opportunities arose and the men began leaving teaching to go into “industry.”  Teaching became primarily a female oriented occupation and many of them were doing it just to supplement the family income.  There was a decrease in real commitment to the field.  Also, the demographics changed.  The suburbs opened.  Middle class families moved.  Even the nature of the populations and the local culture of these neighborhoods changed.

Unfortunately, I haven’t the time to discuss this subject in the depth that it deserves.  Further, almost any discussion of this subject means that one has to be prepared to confront the inevitable charge of racism.

The TV culture and the drug culture came into being.
Children were coming to school in unsafe environments.  Children were coming to school hungry.  Children were coming to school from families in which English was not spoken and families that did not insist that homework be done or who did not consider teacher parent meetings sufficiently important to attend.  Those who wanted to attend did not have the transportation to get them there.  And, children came to school who were up all night and who fell asleep in class.

Yes, as Ms Ghilarducci’s article states, teacher bashing is simpleminded.  But then again so are our politicians and so are our talking heads, pundits and talk show hosts, especially those on the far right.  And, I really do not want to get started on those on the left.

If society wants excellent teachers then society is going to have to be willing to pay competitive wages to attract and retain qualified personnel.  Paying appropriate competitive wages will also help drive improvements in the entire educational training curriculum at the college/university levels.

Since education in the US is such a political issue, teachers must be protected by tenure, else the system will break down as teachers are harassed, threatened and fired because of their political, religious or pro science views or other changes in the prevailing local culture.  One just has to see the idiocy that is now occurring in Texas, as well as other states, to understand exactly what I mean.

I can go on but to what avail.
When I started out I wasn’t thinking of going into the detail I did
But, Ms Ghilarducci’s interesting article omitted so much that I felt it important to embellish on it.

Teachers have been and still are getting the shaft from society.

One of my correspondents commented on what I had to say and led to a couple of exchanges.
She wrote:
“Also, stop with the Rush bashing…
I agree with a lot of your essay-
I, personally, look back to the ACLU suit against the NYC school Board. I don’t remember the dates, but Howard was teaching at the time. They sued for a student who wanted to come to school wearing anything he wanted to.The courts agreed and did away with the dress code. Then the teachers started abandoning their jackets and ties, and started the “jeans look”. It was hard for Howard at first, but he succumbed— eventually no jacket– and finally no tie. We noticed that after that ACLU debacle,  the decorum and discipline in the classroom deteriorated and teachers no longer could enforce anything much. They even stopped trying in many cases…

It was a TURNING POINT in the schools. Loss of control of student dress and behavior lead to learning standards being lowered again and again. The children must not fail! They will lose their “self esteem”..

Now you have teachers who actually grew up in this atmosphere, and often  lack true learning, even in their subject. You no longer need to uplift a child to Shakespeare(Maya is good enough), but must go down to their level to keep their interest???////

So, you had music teachers giving the kids rock, gospel, rap…instead of the classics which required some elevation in thought and practice.”

I responded:
“As I said, I didn’t want to even get started on the left.
But the right and Rush bashing will go on as long as they promote anti science, anti-evolution, religion and segregation

After all, back in the early 1990s, Rush did cut me off when I backed him in to a corner on evolution.

By now you should be well aware that I will not tolerate anti science or anti intellectualism which RUSH IS NOTED FOR.  Nor will I tolerate the O’Reilly made up war on Christianity every Christmas with its very strong anti-Jewish undertone.

Let us also not forget that I was threatened by a student and her fundamentalist minister father, if I taught evolution.  I was threatened more than once, always by the right never by the left.

I am all too familiar with the evils that the left did
I just was getting tired of writing.

As for the dress code, teachers did not have to succumb to the idiocy of the day.  They did it for a variety of reasons, amongst which as to identify with the young and many of them were young themselves.  They had no idea how to command respect for themselves and their profession

However, let us not forget that there was an economic factor that also drove the dress code.  Too many students, in the changing demographic of society could not afford the clothes.  Also clothes were the basis of gang formation, separation of groups and the creation of violent hostilities that had to be dealt with.   Unfortunately, a lot of this took place in the public schools were not the venue to change.  It was part and parcel of the symptomatology of the times.

I always wore a long sleeved shirt, shoes, long pants  (not sandals or shorts or T shirts etc) and tie to class.  I had great respect for what I did and demanded the dignity of the position and dressed accordingly.  I had  many colleagues who wore no sock, who wore shorts and sandals and T-shirts who sat on the desk drinking coffee when lecturing.  Presumably that demonstrated to the students that they were hip and part of their culture.

Well I made it clear that I was not part of anything other than a committed scientist and teacher and that education was my goal.

Because the city in which I taught was very hot in spring and summer, I did not wear jackets to class.  I would also wear a short sleeve shirt but with a tie.   In the winter, I wore a sport jacket but took it off during lecture.  It got in my way.

In fact, at one university in which I taught, one student, on the end of  the term teacher evaluation, criticized me for  interfering with her learning because I wore wash and wear shirts.  Idiots abound.    As long as I was not wearing anything outlandish or revealing etc., why should my clothes interfere with her learning?  It is true. I did wear wash and wear clothes and continued to do so despite this negative reaction.  Wash and wear were a lot easier than having to wash, starch and iron and a lot less expensive than sending them out to be cleaned etc.

During the Viet Nam era I made abundantly clear, unlike too many of my idiot colleagues on the left, that no one was taking over my class to discuss the war.   Once my position was stated, the word got around very quickly and no one ever tried to disrupt any of my classes.  Irrespective of my political views, I was being paid by the state to provide education in a specific field.  I was legally and ethically bound to meet my contractual obligations.  The fact that others did not have the same values as I made no difference to me.

If a teacher commands and demands respect and behaves accordingly, it will be given.

No teacher had to succumb to anything.  If they did, it was on their own volition.”

There was a couple of further exchanges but they had to do with O’Reilly and his made up war on Christianity that would not be germane to this post.

The ongoing battle between science and religious faith was brought into sharp focus this past weekend.  On Sunday, May 2, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting the Shroud of Turin, knelt and prayed before what is perhaps Christianity’s most famous relic.  The shroud has been proclaimed to be Jesus’ burial cloth.  And, unfortunately, too many Christians accept this claim to be truth.   As a religious relic the Shroud apparently is supposed to remind people of the sufferings of  Jesus and how his death and resurrection absolves them of their  sins; the victory of good over evil.

Although the authenticity of the Shroud has more than been called into question, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it, is that the shroud, irrespective of its authenticity, is  important for reinforcing belief – the basis of religion.

What is religious belief if not the acceptance of something as being true (real) despite the absence of evidence and even in the face of evidence to the contrary?

In the case of the Shroud, radioactive measurements, done under the supervision of the Church. demonstrated that it is only about 500 years old. i.e., it dates from the Middle ages.  Granted that there are people for whom radioactive dating is suspect.  Yet, there is other data to support the contention that what is called the Shroud is not Jesus’ burial cloth.  Perhaps, one of the most damaging comments came from a local bishop who, at that time, called it a forgery.

But, people will believe whatever they want to believe irrespective of the evidence and there are always others who are only to eager to exploit the situation.

It should not be  surprising that children, indoctrinated from birth by authority figures some of whom speak in the name of god, that faith has as much truth, if not more, than scientifically derived evidence and even from data-derived conclusions  supplied by Church officials of the time, demonstrate an antipathy to science and critical thinking.  When children are taught that belief is truth, there is great difficulty in attempting to teach them science and analytical thinking.  After all, all they have to do is believe and they will have perfect knowledge.  Tinker Bell trumps modern education.

Similarly, such religiously derived thinking underlies the continuous battle between the science of  evolution and the unsubstantiated religious belief of Creationism.  Millions of tax dollars have been and, continually, are being forced to be wasted each year because religion demands that its beliefs be treated as coequal to scientific knowledge.  The situation with the Shroud of Turin provides powerful evidence of the deadly influence of religious belief in society, especially in the education of its young.

Real progress in science education will not speed up significantly – it will continue to make gains, albeit at a much slower pace than is required for economic, political and military survival of  the United States as a major power – until religious thinking is purged from the public sector, the churches stop indoctrinating their parishioners with nonsense, until the churches adapt their messages to be congruent with the scientific modernity in which they exist, until various organizations such as the Discovery Institute, theme parks and museums stop preying on the public’s scientific ignorance, incredulity and gullibility to raise money to support their erroneous biblical based endeavors to enhance religious belief and undermine modern science, and until politicians stop pandering to the religious elements in society.  Further, there has to be an end to federal,  state and local support – financial and otherwise - for all faith-based activities.  The situation with the Shroud Of Turin. in the 21st century exemplifies the veracity of the aforementioned conclusions.

To end on a more positive note:  the recent polling data indicating a decreasing religiosity in the United States is most encouraging as it may be demonstrating a slowly growing maturity and sophistication of Americans despite exceedingly strong opposition.