Us vs. Them in Education

I taught sixth grade for two years in the Teach for America program in a military town in the South. My situation was a little unusual. My class was about 2/3 military brats, and while a good chunk of the remaining third were desperately poor--I made a few home visits to dilapidated trailers because the family didn't have a phone--on the whole, there was quite an economic mix. There were sizable percentages on free lunch, sizable on reduced, and sizable without. So the reason the school needed TFA teachers wasn't because it was struggling with economic or even educational issues, but because most of their teachers were military spouses who might have to pack up and leave on a moment's notice. They were, quite simply, thrilled that anybody was planning to stick around for two years.

Out of the five sixth grade teachers in my school, exactly one was certified in the state--Kathy, a 14-year veteran teacher, well-respected in the community. A second was not yet certified in the state, but was certified out of state. The remaining three were emergency certified (two of us through TFA, the third not). All were teaching for the first time in our lives. The TFA teachers had a couple of weeks of classroom experience from our summer institute. The non-TFA, to my knowledge, had nothing.

The school had a policy where parents could choose which teachers their kids had--but it did not publicize the policy. It's pretty easy to see why. Not every student would get what they wanted. What parent in their right mind wouldn't pick Kathy? She's the known quantity, she's good, and the rest of us are unknown quantities and, for the most part, neophytes. When only those parents who are (a) super-duper in the know and (b) care enough to make a few phone calls get to pick their children's teachers, their kids (who, due to the positive aspects of this kind of parenting, are almost invariably very strong students) are going to wind up in Kathy's class. Kathy's class won the math facts award nearly every year. Some of that was her skills as a teacher, yes...but some of it was that she always got the kids whose parents valued education. Kathy's kids got a doubly-good education (a better teacher and sharper classmates). And, since those kids' parents got to choose every year, that impact was exponentially compounded over time.

Now, let's take a look at the impact of this policy on the rest of the sixth-grade classrooms...in other words, the doubly-bad education that was an inevitable side-effect of the doubly-good education happening next door. These kids were already at some disadvantage for having untrained teachers. On top of that, the tip-top students were already scooped out of their classrooms--so we were left with a combination of (1) the kids whose parents didn't know or care enough to make a choice, and (2) military kids, new in town, whose parents no doubt wanted their students to have as good an education as possible, but who would instead get an untrained teacher and no contact with many of the other really sharp kids. We did our best--we even did some very good work--but still, it seems obvious to me that these children were the victims of an injustice. Yes, all teachers should be quality, trained teachers. But if they aren't, it's not fair to reward a kid because her parents care--because that means penalizing a kid whose parents don't. And we can't penalize any children for things they have no control over.

I'll never forget a conversation I had with a parent who was also a fellow teacher at the school. She got very angry--I could practically see smoke coming out of her ears--because I told her I was against the policy of parent choice. She said "But I have the right to choose what's best for my child!" My response: I respected her choice to do that as a parent, but as teachers, we have the responsibility to look out for what's best for all children. I could have put it another way: we can't be valuing "us" (parents who care, or non-military local kids) over "them" (everyone else).

Another example: A friend of a friend is really angry because of a situation involving her high-school aged daughter. The daughter is taking a high-level math course. There was one especially strong teacher at the school who the high-level math students' parents wanted to teach their students. The principal decided the school and its students were better served by this teacher's teaching low level math. The parents were livid. Their response was along the lines of "Why should this teacher's efforts be wasted on a bunch of kids who aren't ever going to amount to anything?" This statement is based on the assumption that "us" (high-achieving students) are more important than "them" (low-achieving students). That's utter bullshit. It comes very close to dehumanizing the lower-achievers...it justifies giving "them" less of an education than "us," as though 16-year-olds have done anything to deserve that. How many of us, our friends, and our children struggle in math? Are they less worthy of the best teacher than the superstars are? I can tell you that it is far more difficult to teach lower-achievers than higher-achievers--so in that sense, the principal's decision to put her better teacher with the tougher class was absolutely logical. But these parents refuse to value the education of all kids--just "ours."

So let's expand the pool back to national issues. Similar to the above two situations, we have differences in quality of education--some of them dramatic. Given that there is some "choice" for the advantaged, it's easy for those of us with racial and/or socioeconomic advantages to ignore the problem by just making sure our kids get the best. (Keep in mind that I put myself in that group--when my wife and I move, I'll be looking for the best possible school we can afford.) We may feel guilty about it, but for the most part we'll have to shrug it off and say: "I'm just looking out for my kid. Anyone else can do the same." Well, first of all, not everyone else can do the same. If everyone could, it (1) wouldn't be an advantage and (2) the system wouldn't work. (Given a chance, all parents would demand Kathy or demand the talented math teacher.) But as it is, parents with the means, the energy, and the desire can find their way through the system.

The problem here is that, unfortunately, this is at other kids' expense. Saying "I demand my kid have the best education available" is inextricably interwoven with saying "I demand that my neighbors have educations not as good as my kid." It is impossible to say the first statement without simultaneously saying the second. And I don't want to live with a system that forces me to either say "to hell with my fellow citizens' kids" or to throw my kid into substandard schools.

One way to "solve" this is to emphasize the "us" vs. "them" divisions in our society. "Well, those kids aren't good at math, they don't deserve the good teachers." "Well, rich kids are ultimately going to lead this country anyway--therefore, they're the msot important, and deserve the best education." "What about parenting? Obviously, their parenting skills are for crap--our kids is succeeding because of our superior love and support of our children." That's the route we're taking now, and although it's good for the children of the advantaged (like me), it's not worthy of what we as a nation are supposed to stand for.

The alternative is to demand the best possible education for all children. And, as I see it, the only way to do that is to throw us all into the same educational pot. At that moment, we'll be required to actually care about all of our children. With the system set up as it is, it acually helps the advantaged not to care...you can't have an advantaged education without a disadvantaged education. But when all of our kids and all of our money are together, suddenly the advantaged and disadvantaged will have to work together for the common good of their children.

Then, maybe we can get something done for all kids.