Andy Anderson wants employment teaching math. He taught math earlier. Now he will graduate from one of the top law schools in the country.
Though I love law school, I’m not convinced that I’ll love lawyering as much as I loved teaching. I’m therefore in the job market for math teaching positions … I’m looking for a district that makes smart use of technology and that will be committed to making me a more effective teacher. The district should also have friendly educators who are involved in education issues beyond their immediate jobs.
Given his credentials, I’d expect Hinsdale or a similar school district to make a place for him.
I don’t know Andy beyond an exchange of emails and reviewing each other’s websites. He seems reasonable, bright, and informed. That’s a good start for a noteworthy career.
Yet, I’ve known many people at the same decision point in their careers. They may choose whether to follow one career path or others. And, they may choose whether to compete at the highest levels of influence or to work at other levels. (I know that sounds elitist. It’s just fact, not a political statement.)
For many people, none of the available discrete employment choices satisfy completely. Many of my colleagues use “the green light” theory and choose the path with the highest level of competition for which they can qualify, rationalizing that they can return to their “first love” of teaching, technology, etc. later. With respect, let me argue these points about career choices and ways two options may affect education.
If Andy chooses to teach math, he will be in good company figuring out how to use new technologies in classrooms and backrooms. With other educators, he may wrestle with lesson plans, budgets, Annual Yearly Progress reports, diverse student abilities and skills, and mathematics. There’s something about the “Ah ha, I get it” twinkle in a student’s eye that makes these wrestling matches worthwhile. For teachers, few things in life can trump that twinkle.
On the other hand, an attorney with experience in the grit of schooling may have profound impact on the lives of many more people than one teacher faces in a career. A new attorney may follow the paths of Gunnar Dybwad, Tom Gilhool, Floyd Dennis, Stan Herr and others who gave focus to the spirit that lead to legal precedents for the rights of people with disabilities in schools and other human service settings. Educators who passed through Illinois, such as Ray Graham, Bob Henderson, Sam Kirk, Jim Gallagher, Sam Ashcroft, Lloyd Dunn, Carl Bereiter, Siegfried Engelmann, Barbara Bateman, Marc Gold, and Joe Cunningham, demonstrated ways to implement this spirit in public programs. These demonstrations in part showed how the federal program No Child Left Behind may succeed. That’s a profound legacy to leave.
I think that emerging advanced technologies may allow increased learning of children and youth beyond current school practices. As evidence of ways to create increased learning accumulates, it seems possible that legal challenges can arise about which teaching methods result in appropriate levels of learning for a given student. With this evidence, an attorney with teaching experience could probably respectfully pose cases that objectively clarifies two practical issues addressed indirectly now.
One, given that advanced technologies (such as WiFi, Tablet PCs, self-guided software, education ASPs, etc.) exist in the mainstream of daily life, what are appropriate operational definitions of good teaching? And the opposite: When under these conditions does administrative or classroom teacher malpractice occur for not using the most efficient and effective instruction available? What are remedies for such malpractice?
Two, given the availability of advanced technologies, what role does a teacher have in student learning? Does the teacher serve as a repository of information about mathematics or of technologies, a guide to direct learning, a record keeper, or some other constellation of rights and responsibilities?
These are tough, sometimes provocative, questions to address. Educators know these questions, as do many software vendors and developers. Yet, agreed up standards do not exist within either the business or schooling sectors to guide anyone toward agreed upon answers or responses.
I think a teacher with a legal background, or an attorney with a teaching background can help generate these standards. In doing so, more children will benefit than without such agreements.
I’m looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.