I'm all for snarky writing, which is why I, and most readers, enjoy Esquire. However, being married to a teacher, and having consulted for the NYC Dept. of Education, I was appalled by the magazine's recent article "Harry Potter and the Hatred of Teachers" by Stephen Marche. Instead of taking the opportunity to address a serious issue - the problems with our current public education system and the impending disaster facing it due to budget constraints - the author instead decided to grossly mischaracterize the issue and instead write a pithy article with the intent of leveling a few generalized and stereotypical shots.
Good teachers (read: well-compensated and motivated) are the answer to this country's education woes, and we need to provide them with the proper resources. I don't think any intelligent person would dispute this thesis. However, our leaders are not able to institute the changes necessary to make this a reality. Why is that? How about addressing the crux of the issue, which is how to counter the unions and alleviate the burden of poorly performing teachers, how to monitor and eliminate wasteful spending, how to address under-qualified administrators, and how to turn around Departments of Education across the country that are unable and/or too apathetic to enact change in a broken system.
There is a problem, and it must be fixed; otherwise, this country may well find itself on the decline. I am abhorred by the flagrant bashing of "Republican governors" in the Esquire article and the claim that they "hate teachers." Suffice it to say I do not claim to know the substance of the various proposals or comments made by governors and other politicians and therefore will not stand behind any specific groups or initiatives, so there may be several Republic governors with counterproductive platforms. But from my interaction with the education system, I can positively assert that a) not all teachers are good, and b) the good ones are severely undercompensated.
The solution to the problem is not Republican or Democrat, it's people coming together with ideas and actions to create change that betters the system for all. There's a reason that Obama's message of crossing aisles and creating change resonated last election; unfortunately, articles like this clearly explain exactly why the rhetoric hasn't become resolution in this country. Too often we grab hold of the author of an idea or whose lips impart the words and unnecessarily cast aspersions and muddy the issue.
So here's my idea: What if everyone submitted ideas on how to fix the education and budget crises on an anonymous basis; would we be able to objectively analyze the situation and make real change? Or would we instead demonize everyone for trying to implement change?
p.s. If you have not read Joel Klein's editorial from the Wall Street Journal, I suggest you give it a read here.
Exerpt:
As [former head of the UFT Albert] Shanker put it in a surprisingly candid speech in 1993: "We are at the point that the auto industry was at a few years ago. They could see they were losing market share every year and still not believe that it really had anything to do with the quality of the product. . . . I think we will get—and deserve—the end of public education through some sort of privatization scheme if we don't behave differently. Unfortunately, very few people really believe that yet. They talk about it, and they don't like it, but they're not ready to change and stop doing the things that brought us to this point."
