Paradoxical Educational Rhetoric: The Contradictory Thoughts of Nicholas D. Kristof and President Obama
Patrick Edmonds
Courtesy of Sean McEnteeRhetoric has become an ugly word, and rightly so. Its connotations of “spin”, “manipulation”, and “deceit” and its association to politicians has led many to lose what little trust they have left in their political leaders. The Greeks, Plato and Aristotle, saw the danger in this manipulative nature of language and warned of it frequently. At its purest, rhetoric is merely a means to an end, a skill of spoken and written language to deduce some type of purposeful resolution. A good rhetorician employs varying methods to lure his or her audience’s attention, and if noble, leads them to a greater sense of truth.
The truly eloquent will practice their craft for any number of reasons: sell a house, get elected, extend their curfew, save the environment, end war, etc. Issues of varying size and value for sure. Education though, amongst all these debatable interests, has become the most consistently written about, discussed, and speechified issue within our political, social, and communal landscapes- internationally, nationally, and locally. Writers, parents, teachers, students, unions, economists, and politicians alike seem borderline obsessed with the current ills of public education. And all have their solution. Recently, however, New York Times editorialist, Nicholas D. Kristof, and President Obama added to the educational fray in a few recent articles and the State of the Union address respectively.
Nicholas Kristof is an accomplished writer, one whose viewpoints on public schools, teachers, and students are respected in most educational circles. Kristof approaches the subject with a reasonable head, realizing the multi-faceted dimensions to the complex equation. Never one to draw simplistic conclusions, Kristof appeals to so many embroiled in the debate because he realizes that any true amelioration will in the end necessitate a collective effort. Two recent articles, however, have caused some to question Kristof because he now seems to be aligning himself to the simplistic calls of firing bad teachers.
In Kristof’s most recent article, “How Mrs. Grady Transformed Olly Neal”, he shares an inspiring story of one troubled young boy and one dedicated young teacher. Olly Neal, described as “incorrigible” by most of his teachers, had once tormented his English teacher, Mildred Grady. Olly’s senior year, he opted one day to cut English class and headed to the library instead and while there encountered a book by Frank Yerby, which he stole to avoid being made fun of. When he returned the book the following week, Olly found another book by Yerby. Again, the following week, another book stolen and returned and another Yerby book waiting. Eventually, Olly became an avid reader, which changed the direction of his entire life. Years later, after Olly Neal successfully became the first African American prosecutor in Arkansas, he attended a school reunion and ran into his former English teacher, Mrs. Grady, who revealed to him it was her who placed the different Yerby books in the library, driving 70 miles to Memphis each time to purchase them.
From Kristof’s perspective, this sweet anecdote only serves to validate the study by Columbia and Harvard researchers claiming a single teacher can raise a classes’ career earnings by $700,000. Logically, a teacher of Grady’s caliber needs to be retained, paid more, and held as an example of what other teachers should strive to become. If not, just as logically, the ineffective teachers must be removed and replaced by more valuable ones. Unfortunately though, the paradox of this tale, the one that seems to elude Kristof, is that for all of Grady’s compassion, she still could be fired by the desire for data driven assessments of teachers, which Kristof is a proponent of. If Grady’s students, all of them, even Olly, didn’t show improvement in their state assessments in reading and writing during their time with Grady, then rationally she should be fired, regardless of her unparalleled altruism.
Nicholas Kristof is not alone in his contradictory educational ideals though, as last evening’s State of the Union reveals. President Obama, too, seems unwilling to choose a clear stance on this issue, instead choosing to placate both sides of the table. Seemingly alluding to the same Columbia and Harvard study, stating, “A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance…Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies, just to make a difference”, President Obama didn’t shy away from the grandiose promises of education every advocate of the institution promotes. However, Obama comes to the same the conclusion as Kristof, reasoning that to reform education, society needs to “to stop teaching to the test and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn”.
Unfortunately though, the President’s way of thinking is contradictory to his education cabinet’s and secretary, Arne Duncan. As the President promises major reform, greater autonomy and creativity for teachers, and greater financial assistance, the reality is that more and more demands are being laid on teachers, more teaching to the test is occurring, and less aid is being provided to states from the federal government, causing more layoffs for teachers than ever before.
These paradoxical ideas, of inspiring stories of kindness and idealistic goals contradicted by misunderstood policies and unfulfilled promises, convey an extreme disconnect between the journalists and politicians covering and effecting education and the teachers and students participating in it. Education is important. Good teachers matter. And bad teachers need to be fired. All simplistic and true, but all equally untrue in their complexity, which makes them rhetoric to be questioned rather than simply accepted.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like, The Case for $1,000,000 Parents.
Reader Comments (3)
I remember the library from when I got out of college and I was working as an editor. Before work, I had the night shift, I use to stop off for books on tape. I loved them and they were new to me even after college and reading voraciously for years as an English major. This city neighborhood library was busy with almost every seat filled and taking out a book was like checking out at a super market. It was exciting and as a lover of words, one of my finest memories for sharing books in a public setting.
I am long from those streets and that job, but I have a feeling that library is quieter with computers, ereaders, and ipods replacing the stacks. We need a social place where reading is accepted and promoted. Where it is all right to read the day away and find things unexpected that will infuse our willingness to learn and change through intellect and imagination.
That is what learning is. The library is the real school and a great avenue for alternative learners. The teacher knew the power of reading but that power is not from teachers so much, as from the books and the innate motivation of the learner themselves. It is a long, complex process of learning that takes a supportive society of helpers including teachers, libraries, parents, government, communties, and most important, a willingness to learn and grow.
Great lunch.
I'm not sure if the "You" you're referring to is me, but I certainly don't mean to tell you anything beside what I wrote, which is it is very easy for people standing on the sidelines to wax on about the ills of public education and fancy themselves experts on the subject, but in reality they have little ground for such naive solutions of "fire the bad teachers!"
However, I agree that the teachers and students often do know, better than anyone, who's fit to teach and who isn't. Unfortunately, as in all professions, fellow colleagues don't determine who should be fired and who should be promoted. Also, although students may be seen as the customer and therefore their complaints should be recognized as such, the reality is that no one is willing to provide that much responsibility to a fickle, emotionally developing, immature 14-18 yr. old.
Finally, it is the administration's job and the district's managerial right to discharge teachers, but they must do so with just cause, a term not understood outside the union parameters, but one often envied. All the union wants to prevent is unjust dismissals on account of some arbitrary test score.
Thanks for your thoughts and please join us again!