Guest post by Adam Bessie.
鈥淚 support our teachers, but my daughter was traumatized by an unfirable 1st grade teacher,鈥� so read a tweet I received after expressing concern that Vergara v. California decision - which declared K-12 teacher tenure unconstitutional for violating the civil rights of students - had nothing to do with civil rights, little to do with students, and everything to do with the continued efforts to privatize public education. If you publically critiqued the Vergara verdict, you no doubt received a similar reply, which I鈥檝e described by the following equation, dubbed VAM [Vergara Attack Method]:
Compliment of teachers in general [鈥淚 love teachers鈥漖
- [BUT] there are 鈥渂ad teachers鈥�
+ vague and/or extreme personal anecdote about 鈥渂ad teacher鈥�
= you must be a 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� and hate children if you support tenure or any other rights for teachers. Also, you are against civil rights, likely a socialist, and most definitely are destroying the economy.
Rhetorically, it鈥檚 almost impossible to respond to VAM - Who can disagree that there are 鈥渂ad teachers?鈥� Who wants a child to be subjected to such a horrible person? Who wants a child to be traumatized?
VAM works especially well when coupled with civil rights rhetoric, as I wrote about in my last essay 鈥�. Who could be against civil rights? And so, in a masterful rhetorical twist, if you鈥檙e for tenure, you鈥檙e also against helping impoverished minority children - you鈥檙e standing in the way of equality. In more advanced versions of VAM, civil rights rhetoric is seamlessly connected with fixing the sagging economy as we see in an op-ed in USA Today claiming The author assures us that there is 鈥渘o such war,鈥� and that if anything, the focus is on firing just a 鈥渧ery small minority of teachers鈥� who are not just harming children, but according to his calculations, would actually fix our current financial crisis:
The gains according to historical economic patterns would be measured in and would be sufficient to as well as the issues currently being debated.
Yes, that鈥檚 right - firing this 鈥渟mall minority of bad teachers鈥� will ultimately create trillions of dollars for the economy, along with solving civil rights. It鈥檚 a magic bullet - one that just needs be fired in right direction, towards 鈥渂ad teachers.鈥�
In short, VAM rhetorically checkmates those who are critical of the Vergara decision. This pervasive linguistic trick pins all of the nations problems not on teachers (who are wonderful), but on those 鈥渂ad teachers,鈥� who are destroying lives, destroying civil rights, and destroying the economy. No wonder, in the exact same issue of , a shocking ad illustrates a teacher throwing a child into a garbage can - and this doesn鈥檛 seem an act of war, given the current zeitgeist. After all, it鈥檚 only about 鈥渂ad teachers鈥� - not you. You鈥檙e a good teacher - that is, unless you think tenure is acceptable. In which case, what do you have to hide? Who are you protecting?
Outside of the outlandish, ill-supported leaps in logic which are now in the realm of 鈥渃ommon sense鈥�, the biggest problem VAM, though, is the impossibly vague term 鈥渂ad teacher,鈥� or the slightly more technical sounding, but equally meaningless 鈥済rossly ineffective teacher,鈥� which Judge Treu used in his decision. Since the propaganda documentary Waiting for Superman, the 鈥渂ad teacher boogeyman鈥� has been in heavy linguistic circulation, which I noted in my 2010 essay
The Bad Teacher is no one specific, but rather, a sort of free-floating, ill-defined stereotype: he is an inept, uncaring, self-interested bureaucrat waiting for his pension, not only disinterested in students, but actively engaged in standing in the way of student achievement, rather than encouraging it. I imagine the Bad Teacher as slovenly dressed, with stains on his shirt, showing up to class late, and once there, reading the newspaper while his students throw paper airplanes at each other. He looks up at the clock occasionally, waiting for his time to be up in order get out of school as fast as possible, so he can get home and watch 鈥淕lee鈥� on his plump, faux-leather couch. Or he could be a really 鈥淏ad Teacher,鈥� such as the one soon to be depicted in a of the same name, which is focused on a 鈥渇oul-mouthed, junior high teacher who, after being dumped by her sugar daddy, begins to woo a colleague - a move that pits her against a well-loved teacher.鈥�
In essence, the 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� is a not just a basic strawman, but a hologram, an insubstantial projection of whoever you want him to be, whatever you - or your child - perceives him to be. He could be lazy; he could only lecture (or only use group work); he could be physically abusive; he could not know his content; he could take controversial positions; he could be a hard grader (or too easy of a grader). Indeed, at the college level (where I teach), high teacher ratings are highly correlated with teachers that give less work and higher grades, according to a In some cases - such as assigning 鈥渢oo much homework鈥�, being called a 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� would be a compliment, in that the educator might actually being doing her job.
鈥淚n hundreds of classrooms, I have never seen a 鈥榞rossly ineffective鈥� teacher,鈥� Dr. David Berliner says in a , an expert whose testimony was primary evidence in Judge Treu鈥檚 decision. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know anybody who knows what that means.鈥�
And this is a professor who has spent his career exploring teacher quality, and was asked to testify on the other VAM - Value-Added-Measures, a statistical measure which uses standardized test scores to rate teachers. VAM gives the comforting illusion of objectivity so cherished by education reformers. But this method, also, has major limitations - the cautioned use of this measure. Further, even if these metrics work very well at showing growth in a particular area of learning in a particular subject, they don鈥檛 show a lot of the attributes that educators - and lay-people - would associate with 鈥済ood鈥� teacher. Berliner observes (as paraphrased by reporter Jordan Weissman) 鈥渓ow test scores [don鈥檛] qualify somebody as a bad teacher. They might do other things well in the classroom that don鈥檛 show up on an exam, like teach social skills, or inspire their students to love reading or math.鈥� Indeed, a teacher can have great test scores - but could have earned them through abusive methods, ones which make the student great at test taking, but not learn anything about the subject, and hate it to boot.
Thus, a 鈥済rossly ineffective teacher鈥� could be inspiring, could be challenging, could be wonderful. In short, this 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� could be any of us - especially those of us who believe that the current set of reforms that are focused on standardized testing and common curriculum are harmful to students. Indeed, our very best teachers - those who stand up to the intense pressure from parents and students to be 鈥渆asy,鈥� those who refuse to submit their students to the testing regime that kills the love of learning - could be labeled as our very worst. As a case in point: one of the teachers accused of being a 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� in the Vergara case was , and received numerous teaching awards.
What message is Vergara sending to committed, competent educators, those who love children, and who hate what NCLB and Race to the Top is doing to those children?
Now, don鈥檛 get it twisted: this is not a defense of child-molesters or otherwise horrible people; it鈥檚 not a defense of poor practices, such as giving worksheets to students every day (which is encouraged under the standardized testing regime). Nor is it a defense of the 鈥渟tatus quo鈥� - which, need I remind readers, is No Child Left Behind, which most teachers abhor. To defend tenure - - is not to defend whatever horrible projection of 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� the reader has conjured.
Please, don鈥檛 VAM this essay.
And please, as the post-Vergara dust settles, as we鈥檝e gotten our rants out of the system, let鈥檚 retire the 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� - in all its euphemistic forms. Rather, let鈥檚 work to foster constructive, explicit discussions about what it means to be an excellent educator - not just in terms of outcomes (which are framed in the most limited, unimaginative way under the current regime), but in terms of the actual practices that happen in the classroom, and as critically, the environment in which our teachers teach and students learn. Keep in mind, California is (and ) in the nation - and discussions of 鈥渂ad teachers鈥� allow us to avoid substantial conversations about the impact of inequality on our children.
In letting the 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� go, we鈥檒l find educators and the public - which are one in the same, remember - have shared interests and goals, despite the best efforts of corporate reformers to undermine public confidence, and put us in conflict with each other. In this fashion, we will repair the damage done by Vergara, and more broadly by the corporate reform movement, which has used VAM (both of them) to disrupt and destabilize the public commons to maintain the real status quo - of massive economic inequality and top-down elite control, which is the primary cause of the civil rights and economic emergency in our schools.
What do you think? Is it time to banish the 鈥渂ad teacher鈥� boogeyman for good?
is a professor of English at a San Francisco Bay Area community college and an essayist. He is a regular contributor, most recently writing a five-part series illustrating the privatization of public education in , including original interviews with Diane Ravitch, Bill Ayers, and Pasi Sahlberg. Follow him on Twitter: @adambessie