Teacher tired of the pity parties and hackneyed litanies
Published November 7, 2013
by William Tolbert, teacher Durham School of the Arts, published in News and Observer, November 7, 2013.
I’ve walked on Moral Mondays, I’ve worn red on Wednesdays and I walked in to school on Monday. My profession, school and classroom are underfunded, and although I’m ranked highly on all levels of evaluation, I am still being paid as a first-year teacher. My story is similar to thousands of others: I’m a public school teacher, and I’m frustrated.
However, as frustrated as I am with lawmakers, I’m more frustrated with the state of the teacher movement.
On Monday morning, I heard the same frustrations, the same speeches and the same rhetorical devices that have been used for the past year. Litanies of “Forward together, not one step back,” “That’s just wrong,” “This is our state” and others. All formulaic, repetitive and quickly becoming meaningless.
Similar to the Occupy movement of past years, the teachers’ movement has numbers but lacks clear goals and possible solutions. Monday morning’s Walk in 4 Education failed because it provided only more of the same. I get it, the public gets it, the lawmakers get it: We’re mad. Now is the time for real, direct, noticeable action, and Monday morning falls far short.
There is one silver lining: Moral Mondays, the walk-in and the rallies this week show that teachers can organize. That is something lawmakers should fear. Although right now our organization seems to be a self-glorifying pity party, with the right direction and focus on voting in the future, this could end up being a very powerful force for change.
But when it comes to direction and real solutions, few have them and fewer support them. The complaint that is constantly restated is low funding for teachers, technology, books. We need more money from our government.
The solution is simple. No one supports it, and none will campaign on it, but we need new taxes. If you want good teachers, you have to pay for them. Economic complaints deserve economic answers. Moralizing and politicizing this problem will lead us nowhere.
Until we stop relying on the same hackneyed litanies of the past year, nothing will change, schools will suffer and I will remain just like all the other teachers in the state: frustrated.
November 7, 2013 at 9:09 am
Richard Bunce says:
The solution is simple, give the resources to the parents and let them decide which education system is best for their children. The government education industrial complex decades of failure must come to an end.
November 7, 2013 at 9:28 am
TP Wohlford says:
Dude -- you're halfway there. That you and your fellow teachers have been used as pawns, "useful idiots", is well documented and well known to everyone but teachers. Congrats on the breakthru.
So let me ask you a question -- just how much money is "enough"? Give me a figure. Give me a figure that will allow me to fund you and never feel guilt ever again, or have someone from your side try another guilt trip. Give me a number that will eliminate that excuse of why Johnny can't read that you need more money/stuff.
Just give me a number. Not words, a NUMBER. As it, "$12,000 per student per year should do it." And then we'll discuss covering that expense.
Cause otherwise, all I'm hearing is "I want more pay"... and don't we all?
November 7, 2013 at 11:25 am
Norm Kelly says:
To a certain point I understand your frustration. Too a certain extent I also am sick & tired of the same old litany. But why is it teachers & other state employees only seem to rally, protest, complain about things like pay when Republicans are the ones making the decisions? Why is it that when Demoncrats controlled the legislature and the governor's mansion, teachers and other state employees were heard from so little?
The obvious answer is that the teachers' union is extremely partisan. The union officials only try to stir up things when the party in power is the opposite of who the union bosses want to deal with. Not too long ago, Demoncrats were in power and actually CUT education spending. When Demoncrats lied to citizens and actually DIDN'T spend MORE money on education because of the influx of lottery dollars, but instead replaced education dollars with lottery dollars, did we hear from educators or union members that the Demoncrats were playing games with education? I don't recall hearing it. But since I'm used to the same old, tired complaints from educators, I probably wouldn't remember anyway. When the same old garbage proceeds from someone's mouth, I stop listening. Which is why I have stopped listening to King Obama and Kay Hagan. Same old crap, why listen!
But let's get to the bottom line about this entire controversy. The only thing we ever, ever, ever hear from educators and their union is 'we need more money'. What is left unsaid is 'we can't prove that past increases in spending have actually paid off, test scores have not improved, reading & math skills have not improved, so we can't justify the money, but if you give us more money, we'll see what we can do about doing a better job'. Since teachers are so protective of their profession, refusing to allow true competition, we are not allowed to see if there is a different, perhaps better, way of educating kids. Is it possible that kids can actually be educated, taught how to read, taught how to write, but not happening in a government run school? Is it possible that this could be done at a better price by the private sector? Since educators and their unions are so protective of their profession, we may not get to find out in my lifetime. Why is it that every other area of life is improved when competition is introduced, but education is doomed to fail if/when competition is introduced? When parents are actually given control of their kids education, would parents make the best choice for their kids? The answer that educators give is usually, that yes, MOST parents would make the best choice for their kids. But those parents who wouldn't do the best for their kids would end up leaving their kids in the public schools or sending them to an inferior private school. The conclusion is that the public schools would be substandard because the parents who "don't care" would leave their kids in public schools? Or is it possible that educators are trying to say that substandard private schools would be allowed to continue to fail kids? As I recall, private businesses that don't succeed, that don't meet their goals, end up going out of business. The only institutions that continue to stay around when they fail to adequately serve their customers are government agencies. Witness the DMV. It's known that for decades (decades!!!) their service has been 'substandard' (read that as non-existent!) yet they continue to hang around and not improve. Their fees continue to rise, their employees become more belligerent, but their service continues to suck! If competition were allowed with DMV, if the entire organization were privatized and I was allowed to choose which private business I dealt with, wouldn't they be FORCED to improve? (so when parents are given the choice, educators complain that it's unfair to those parents who wouldn't do what's best for their kids, therefore no parent should be given the choice. the system must be protected so uninvolved parents are protected from themselves.)
Isn't is just possible that competition in education would also improve the system for everyone? Isn't is just possible that the price could be more competitive at the same time? Isn't it possible that schools that actually educated kids, engaged kids & parents in the process, would succeed and schools that continued to fail would go away, even bad public schools would go away?
(i know. every educator is now ready to threaten my life. they will continue to claim that public schools would be stuck with the underachievers, the physically or mentally challenged kids that would skew their statistics. but if the physically or mentally challenged kids were sent to a school designed to handle this type of kid, subsidized by public education dollars, wouldn't that be better for the kids? wouldn't teachers who are trained specifically to deal with physically and/or mentally challenged kids do a better/more effective job of educating the kids? wouldn't it be more cost effective for the school system/state/local budget to provide an education geared to the population of kids? the notion that integrating special needs kids into the public school system is good for all the kids involved is pure poppy-cock. these kids are not integrated, they are maintained in a separate and unequal room where babysitting is often the only result. but the cost of teachers and aid in the classroom is born by the public school system anyway.)
