To the Editor of the New York Review of Books:

In the article “Why is American Teaching So Bad?” Jonathan Zimmerman makes the same mistake that so many school reformers make by equating bad schools with bad teaching. He errs in other ways, too. First, by claiming that the “jury is still very much out” on the effectiveness of Teach for America teachers, Zimmerman overlooks the fact that however effective they might be, 80% of TFA recruits leave the profession after three years of teaching.[1] This high turnover results in added costs to local districts; moreover, as Zimmerman must know, it is only after the third year of experience that teachers acquire the full complement of skills they need to do their jobs effectively. This is why the first three years of a public school teacher’s employment are typically probationary. Second, Zimmerman credits public charter schools with much more innovation than they have actually accomplished. If one counts hiring unlicensed teachers, paying them less and requiring them to spend more time in the classroom as innovations, then yes, charter schools can be said to more innovative. In other respects, however, there is little convincing evidence that charter schools are any more innovative than ordinary public schools.[2]

Certainly, Mr. Zimmerman is right to assign much responsibility for the failures of American schools to schools of education, and to acknowledge the role of poverty – and the failure of public programs to address it – among other issues that make teaching in poorer school districts the difficult (and undesirable) job that it is. And he is right, too, to note that “’accountability’ makes our best teachers do their jobs worse…” By framing his question primarily in terms of teachers and teaching, however, Mr. Zimmerman makes serious omissions, as do so many education reform advocates. He ignores the roles of administrators, school board members and the leadership within the departments of education of the states, and he ignores impersonal economic forces. Instead of asking why American teaching is so bad, Zimmerman might ask instead: Why is it that school principals, who can replace any teacher they hire within the first three years, cannot sort out the “disciplined thinkers” needed for the classroom from the less capable ones they continue to rehire? Why are state departments of education obsessed with using student test scores as the chief instrument to judge teacher performance? Now that the bar preventing the brightest and most highly-educated American women from entering other more lucrative professions can schools of education and local districts not attract more qualified candidates? Finally,  why are local school boards still unwilling to pay their first-year teachers less per annum than a flight attendant?

Respectfully,

Matthew R. Brown, M.Ed.

---

[1] Heilig, Teach for America: A Review of the Evidence; http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Heilig_TeachForAmerica.pdf

[2] See http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/briefs/brief_innovation_charter_goldring_preston_berends_cannata.pdf