Between the Chronicle of Higher Ed's farewell paean to the Invisible Adjunct, the current Crooked Timber thread attempting to theorize the unconcern and even contempt tenured academics display toward the adjunct labor that sustains their comfortable lifestyles, and yesterday's Village Voice piece on how you've got to be a hell of a sucker to go to grad school in the humanities or social sciences nowadays, I've been thinking a great deal not only about the politics of the academy, but about the politics of lamentation about the state of the academy.

There is something a bit, ummm, noisome in the spectacle of established, tenured academics clucking their virtual tongues and beating their virtual breasts about the terrible lot that has befallen the Invisible Adjunct and all those other adjuncts for whom she has so invisibly stood. What besides clucking are these folks doing to reform the abusive system that chewed IA up and spat her out? How many of them know the names--or even faces--of the adjuncts presently at work in their own departments? How many of them have taken a moment to calculate how that labor eases their own professional lives? How many have done something--anything--to ensure that they themselves are not the smug beneficiaries of underemployed academics' professional exploitation? How many of those have, in turn, risked alienating their colleagues by insisting that their department or school acknowledge the ethical problem of adjunct labor and take steps to address it responsibly? How many have taken any personal risks at all in the name of redressing the flagrant wrongs from which they cumulatively profit? Color me cynical, but my guess is "not many."

You can say that this is a fine case of the pot calling the kettle black. After all, what have I been doing on Critical Mass since March 2002 besides lamenting the state of academe, and devoting considerable space to the corruption of the academic humanities? I've clucked about the exploitation of adjunct labor more than once on this blog, and I've done it from a tenured position whose shape is structurally dependent on all the non-tenure-track lecturers, adjuncts, and grad students that my department regularly employs to round out its course offerings. So where do I get off?

I'll know the exact answer to that question next week, when I decide which of several job offers teaching high school English to accept. In the meantime, I'll simply note that what gives me license to point fingers in this moment is that I am leaving academe--in no small part because I cannot see a way to resolve the many interlinked crises facing the academic humanities, and I cannot reconcile my beliefs in institutional fairness, personal and professional integrity, and, much more basically, education, with a life lived from within a university English department. I'm not sure the problems can be resolved at this point. And, frankly, I'm not sure they should be. The self-discrediting behavior of the humanist "haves" during the past several decades of progressive deprofessionalization, combined with their confirmed collective refusal to take their own disciplinarity seriously (whether as scholars or as teachers), doesn't suggest there is a whole lot worth saving.

There is a saying: If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. There is another saying: Shit or get off the pot. Such sayings are worth careful contemplation by the cluckers and breastbeaters, and I hope at least some will be moved to find a way to move beyond the clucking assumption that to theorize a problem is to solve it. Such is the stuff of false consciousness.

Some disconnected and partial thoughts about this. It is agreed that there is a massive overproduction of Ph.D.'s, and that departments that are contributing to this massive overproduction of Ph.D.'s are grossly irresponsible toward grad students even as they serve their own needs very well (they get the cheap labor they need to get freshman comp taught, and they get a pool of smart, interesting students to whom faculty can administer narcissistically gratifying graduate courses). Usually, the solutions offered to this problem run along the lines of suggesting that fewer Ph.D.'s should be produced, that those that are produced should be better supported, and that "The Profession," as comprised of hundreds of discrete departments, should renew its commitment to the tenure track by, well, being very committed to it (this commitment in turn is organized around an ideal of hiring as many TT faculty as possible, cutting back on adjunct labor as much as possible, and placing as many newly minted Ph.D.'s as possible in TT jobs). It doesn't work, and it can't.

But one reason is that the problem of what to do with all these Ph.D.'s is too narrowly defined. It's true that a Ph.D. in English or history is not a terribly magnetic job qualification outside academe. Such degrees can, in fact, be positively detrimental to one's extra-academic job hunting, in large part because there exists beyond the academy a not entirely unwarranted belief that humanities Ph.D.-types are the prospective employees from hell--incapable of meeting deadlines, incapable of communicating clearly, contemptuous of taskwork and pragmatic problem-solving, incapable of working well with others. It's a stereotype, and an often unfair one. But it doesn't come out of nowhere, either.

There is one market, though, that is WIDE OPEN for humanities M.A.'s and Ph.D.'s, and that is the independent school market. "Independent" is mostly a contemporary code word for "private," though it can also mean "charter." Your Ph.D.--or, if you are ABD, your M.A.--is a very attractive qualification in this market. In contrast to the public school system, it counts as a teaching qualification (thus preventing you from going back to school to get a highly redundant ed school teaching certificate). Independent schools are eager to add people with advanced degrees to their faculty--in part, this raises the profile of the school and looks good to parents and donors, but far more importantly, these schools recognize that refugees from academe can make marvelous high school teachers. They know this to be true because their faculties are already full of them.

The Village Voice piece linked above tells the story of one such refugee, who is happily earning twice what he would have made as an adjunct teaching at a private high school in New Jersey. I've met a number of such refugees from a number of schools this year. The schools themselves have been as different from one another as people are--but at all of them, the refugees say, entirely independent of one another, that the work they have found in the world of independent school teaching far surpasses the academic life. All say they are able to do the sort of intensive, personalized teaching they dreamed of doing as college teachers, but could not do in a higher ed setting; all say they feel more intellectually alive than they did in academe; and all say, too, that they have a much greater sense of purpose and of professional satisfaction than they did in academe. They are palpably happy, and the differences they are making in kids' lives are real and meaningful. They also have summers off and, having jumped the assembly-line production schedule of the academic track, can follow the far more ethical and constructive course of pursuing their own research and writing projects when and as the spirit moves them. The pay ain't bad, either.

Locating and applying for such jobs could not be easier. There are agencies whose entire mission is to match you with schools that are looking for candidates like you. The agencies are entirely free to the candidates. They are not gimmicks. They work.

Why do you hear absolutely nothing about this career option from within academe? Why do academic departments pretend this entirely dignified and deeply meaningful career path does not exist--even though it could be just what many of their otherwise unemployable Ph.D.'s, not to mention their dissatisfied faculty, are looking for? Why do they treat as beneath their notice a type of work that they ought to be embracing as a seriously significant alternative to the dead-end academic career of the adjunct? Do I really have to ask?

I read the VV piece and here's a quote: "He refers to the 2001 book The Invisible Heart by feminist economist Nancy Folbre, which describes how the work that is most important to a society tends to be the most undervalued. "Teachers, nurses, people who do things they really care about, get shafted."

Nurses have sweet deals everywhere. Mobility, great shifts, good pay. This person knows nothing.

Alas, I don't think teaching deconstruction is such a valuable service.

Way to go, Erin! Glad you're getting out--and you're doing a great service by spreading the news about independent schools.

Rose (the formerly Naive Humanist)

Best wishes to you. I shall continue to give the blighters hell.

Dear Erin,

Bravo to you for leaping into the K-12 system. Professors in higher ed have cut themselves off from that world, and no longer see themselves as educators. Meanwhile, the subjects they are responsible for are fraying. In the last NAEP test of US history, a whopping 57% of high school seniors scored "Below basic." Reading scores are flat, despite billions in investment, while the percentage of 18-24 year olds who read literature has declined by 10% in the last 20 years. Tell that to profs and their eyes glaze in boredom. I know because I've left my English Department to work on K-12 education for the government. For the last 8 months I've sat in classrooms around the country and observed how low the bar is set and how little students are learning in history and literature. It is gratifying to hear that someone like you has committed to reversing the slide.

Mark Bauerlein

I also add my congratulations. I hope we'll continue to hear your thoughts & arguments even after you've made the leap (perhaps the topics might change somewhat [?], but I hope the blog continues in some form).

I'm interested in the points about alternatives to tenure-track employment, as my own department has trouble placing its Ph.Ds. Right now, few graduate students have access to this information, and few want to hear about it -- at least from me (maybe I should try harder). We as TT faculty sometimes feel awkward promoting alternate careers, since we have 'succeeded'. Some attempts have been made to start conversations, but they have remained half-hearted, as our primary goal has been the training of more professors. Another problem is that faculty generally have very little or no knowledge of how to pursue other careers. (Maybe it's time for me to educate myself on this.)

In the short run, I'll be encouraging my own students would be to start reading blogs like these. There are many interesting stories out there, from Erin's, to Invisible Adjunct's, to the person on CT who quit academia for a job in advertising (not all of them are happy stories). In the long run, we will probably have to reevaluate the efficacy of our training methods, and begin a major program to prepare students for other possible career destinations -- so they only end up adjuncting at community college if they really want to.

Congratulations and good luck, Erin. Give 'em hell. Hell, give 'em an education! Keep us posted, though, OK?

It seems to me that changes in the makeup of the college student population is a factor rarely mentioned in the whole TA v adjunct v tenured professor discussion. Although the proportion of Americans attending college has exploded in the past 50 years, and the baby boom has added even more students into the mix, academics hold onto the dream of lifetime tenure. It's way past time to begin the wholesale reorganization of college instruction to realistically perform the functions for which it's funded. I don't think that we can afford tenure and 3/3 schedules for much longer in a system that no longer limits its services to a select few.

Have fun teaching high school! My seven years as a Latin teacher at a private school were wonderful.

Erin,

First, the problem of exploiting grad students can be solved by the simple expediant of applying the Fair Labor Standards Act to colleges. Since all the professors are Progessive they will presumably be in favor of this.......

Second, don't sweat the hypocrisy. It is a fact of life. Anyone who comes up through a corupt system and then tries to reform it will be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy may be THE cardinal sin on campus, but that merely forbids individuls to reform and to change.

Any "Reformed Sinner" is going to be a "Hypocrite." GO FOR IT!

#1 Hypocrite,

AB

Erin, Like other loyal readers, I wish you well. I'm not sure that I understand or agree with the logic of choices you and Mark Bauerlein have made. English departments vacated by people like you and Mark are unlikely to be improved by your having left. If your leaving is to a more satisfying life, of course, it is best for you both. Alas, I'm afraid that you are correct, however, that those who remain seem unlikely to come to grips with the wretched conditions in American education. I do hope you'll continue to post at Critical Mass! Best wishes.

Erin,

Wow. I had no idea you were looking to get out, let alone actually making the move. I understand why you kept it quiet, though.

Good luck to you. Your blog has become my most frequent visiting site now that IA has moved on. I hope you continue in some form, but if you don't, best wishes for a successful transition. I'm sure you'll find it more rewarding.

Kevin

Hi Erin,

I have been following your blog off and on over the last year. I finished my PhD coursework in Classics last year, and decided to say to hell with academe for all of the reasons that you have so eloquently placed before your readers. I now teach Latin, History, and Anthropology at an independent school in NY, and could not be happier with my choice. I left the lofty position of my chosen field after 9 years dedication, both as an undergrad and a grad student.

I would like to add another point of view to why these types of jobs are not heralded by the academic communities. In my field, as in others, I presume, teaching at an institution that is not either a college or community is a sign that the person who left "can't cut it" and his or her work never was and could never be up to the rigorous standards of XXXXX University. From the discussions I had with various members of the faculty at my graduate institution, teaching middle and upper school is really a reflection of the limitations of the person who leaves; there is no personal glory to be earned if it isn't higher ed! Leaving is perceived as admitting that one is weak/unintelligent/not dedicated/insert other adjective here.

I still struggle with my decision--even though I don't regret a moment of it. Nevertheless, the stigma of teaching somewhere else besides a university or college is very strong. Am I happier? Yes. Am I doing what I wanted to do all along, namely teach Classical literature, culture adn archaeology? Yes. Do my peers understand? Many of them do not. To them, I am washed up, a disgrace--good riddance! Despite the fact that I received a fellowship at the graduate level that was university-wide and only open through nomination by department, my presence there in that instituion was clearly a mistake made on the part of the administration; my choice to leave proved that.

Good for you, to follow what is a hard path! The satisfaction that comes with following it, though, more than outweighs the difficulty. Best wishes, and let me know if you ever want to talk ;)

A question to you taking this private high school teaching route: how do you negotiate the NEA driven entry barriers to getting certified to teach? Or have your particular states managed to hold back the tide at least this long?

Congratulations, Erin! Good luck!

Partial answer to 'm' - private schools that demand certification for people with advanced degrees in field (and they're not all that common) often make great accomodations. The Atlanta elite schools club together and run classes on one of THEIR campuses, taught by professors from area universities (adjuncts! hah!), and handle the paperwork. Westminster, Lovett, Marist, and St. Pius (at least) are in on this deal.

I taught high school Latin part time for 8 years during the 13 year time-to-degree. The one reason I kept looking for college jobs is temperamental -- I do better with people over 18. On the other hand, if I don't get tenure I'll survive teaching high school cheerfully enough.

M,

Even the NEA would want to teach you to read the entry before commenting upon it.

The adbanner on the VV jeremiad came up: Find Education Job (Monster) Professor Job (UPhoenix) ...

Congratulations, Erin!

We were blessed in the late 1950s to have a PhD teaching high school mathematics. The advanced algebra, solid geometry and trigonometry we had illuminated by this guy have sufficed to deal with almost every quantitative problem I've encountered in a long engineering career, despite the many semesters of college math that followed. If you can so inspire your K-12 students in similar fashion, my highest hopes and compliments go with you.

Erin,

You and Douglass Bass have been a great source of strength for me during a very troubling year. You analysis, teach, and challenge, while you blog. I hope you continue.

Erin -

As my Hublet might say: brace yourself! You're in for quite a ride. Of course, he teaches public school in a tiny rural town, so obviously the calibre of student will be different from that in a competetive private school.

But he is a much happier person for the career change that led him back to teaching.

Congrats! And as for really having to ask about academe's contempt for high school teaching--no, you don't have to ask. Those who have been there (and quite a few who haven't) know the answers all too well.

*nod* I'm with Ralph -- sorry for academia that you are leaving, but happy for you that you've found a situation which will suit you better.

And thanks for reminding me that our emerging departmental "here's how to get a job with a Ph.D" panels could use some representatives from secondary education. A lot of our undergrad majors teach -- either temporarily or permanently -- but we don't think to advise our doctoral students to explore those options, and in some cases we no doubt should.

"I'll know the exact answer to that question next week, when I decide which of several job offers teaching high school English to accept. In the meantime, I'll simply note that what gives me license to point fingers in this moment is that I am leaving academe"

We're a two-PhD family. Husband is a professor. I'm an ex-adjunct. Deciding to leave academia was the best move I ever made. I still write, and I still use my brains, but I do it in the world of private industry. And we don't have to solve the "two body problem", which is good for us and good for our kids.

Congrats on your new adventure. Go get 'em. Those high school students will be very lucky to have you.

You're going to be happier with HS students.

It's not just humanities PhD's; scientists have employment problems too, just not quite as bad. I know a couple of my former colleagues who have gone to teach at private schools; they make more money than a post-doc (and certainly an adjunct), in fact, they make almost as much as a scientist in industry. Of course, industrial jobs even in science are going to India, so in terms of long-term security...

David

wow. you have tons of comments here (quite a testiment to your pull and interest in the topic), and I'm a first-time reader, but I am glad to see people pondering the same issues I am about grad work, teaching, the university environment, etc.

and I think you are validating a choice I have made to divide my teaching, should I be so lucky as to make it through grad school alive and sane. I've taught private art to 8- through 18-year olds, and enjoyed having a mixed group; I home-schooled my sons through highschool, and wish I had started sooner; teaching the salespeople at the magazine I edited how to polish their communications (and bone up on grammar and spelling!) was a great challenge -- taking successful people and helping them break through the perceived barrier to writing and language; and I love working with students of all ages at university, though it's been my experience that they are by far the most narrow group, ideologically.

but I am getting the feeling that I won't be encouraged to sell this philosophy of an inter-age, interdisciplinary approach to the English disciplines. I'll get to test this somewhat, either at UW Milwaukee or UW Madison, by taking a few grad courses while I wait to get into a grad program. in the meantime, the future looks bright for working at a local tech college teaching college prep and college level communications courses.

and I hope to check in from time to time to see what's on the slate for discussion. slante!

On the recent exodus of so many from academia, I say "great minds think alike." I wish you every success and have enjoyed reading your blog over this past year. Perhaps you will consider transforming it into something post-academic, as I will be doing with academicgame, which is now academicgame: post-game show.

Good luck. Those young high school students are in for a real treat and deserve to have someone as dedicated and sharp-minded as you teaching them.

Erin-

For God's sake, please run, don't walk, to the nearest exit before you are tempted to use "disciplinarity" again. If it is not too late, wouldn't "discipline" serve adequately?

As a charter member of your fan club, long-time Critical Mass reader, and otherwise obsequious admirer of your work, let me offer my sincerest congratulations, Erin. I'm genuinely happy for you. It also makes me smile to know you'll be doing some actual, constructive, rewarding work.

I have been tossing around the idea of private school teaching myself. I was educated in a Catholic high school, and the advantage I've had has been my academic salvation. I have no desire to spend my life thrashing around in that hell-hole called academia, but I really want to teach, to return the favor I so contemptuously dismissed as a teen.

Your story is an inspiration to me. Thanks for that.

Erin,
I am very sorry to see you leave. It is a loss for all of us in academia when a supporter of reasoned scholarship comes to the inescapable conclusion that personal happiness and professional satisfaction are incompatible with faculty life. I wish you the best.

Erin,
Can you post the name of the agencies that people use to make the leap into independent schools? I've been thinking about making this leap all academic year... Thanks and good luck...!

It's interesting that such a number of blogs discuss the transition out of at least the "higher education" version of academe. As someone who made that transition a long time ago, I certainly agree with those who've done it. I think it's an important step in growth for many people, and those who stay in an academic environment without at least closely examining the life are missing a great deal. Congratulations and very best wishes.

I'm in the middle of getting my masters and being a GTA. I desperately want to teach, but I don't necessarily want to stay in academia. Please, please, PLEASE let us know where to find the jobs in private high schools.

For Catherine:

This site has a useful-looking list of agencies: http://privateschool.about.com/cs/agencies/

I've heard that two big companies control (maybe not the right word) most of the national market. One is Carney-Sandoe, whom I have worked with and found very professional. I think the other may be ERG, but I'm not sure. I've also heard good things about Southern Teachers Agency, and you'll see that there are other regional companies. See the URL above for links to them all. For Latin jobs, there's an ACL job listing site at Troy State: http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~acl/jobs3.htm. Wish I'd known this in grad school

Congratulations, Erin! I've been thinking about the possibility of teaching in secondary school for a while now, given family constraints on the moving required for regular academic jobs. Since I'm a grad student in philosophy though, I might need to also get an M.A. in something more standard like history. In any case, I posted some comments on the whole subject on NoodleFood

Good for you! I'm only sorry that Penn has to lose you.

Let me add my well-wishes to the others - Erin, your future students are damned lucky, and I hope they'll realize it. The best English teacher I ever had was the inimitable Mr. Wilson, who taught seven and eight at my (private) elementary school. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of literature and art, was fluent in half a dozen languages, and changed his curriculum every year so that he would get to study a variety of different sources. My elementary school gave him free reign (though they do threaten to fire him every year, largely because he was phenomenally eccentric and didn't get along too well with the other teachers - I think he's been at the school for 30 years now). People wondered why he wasn't working at a university instead of an elementary school, but I think I may now have an idea.

Erin, many congratulations to you on your decision. Beyond any question, I know that many students in whatever school you choose will experience not only a first class education process, but also an honest and caring human being. Thanks for all your support over the past year.

Add me to the list of people feeling inspired.

One thought occurs to me, about why alternative teaching careers are not actively promoted in the graduate programs. Perhaps it is because there is a lingering prejudice in favor of research over teaching? This would also explain why the community college option is disparaged.

I note this because I seem to be one of the few post-academics around these days who is not missing teaching. A few students, yes, but teaching? Not really. Research was always where my interests lay while in school, and teaching was more something I worked on developing in order to "advance my career." Funny how that didn't work out.

Best of luck to you -- I had several PhDs teaching me in public high school, and I was inspired by them -- I'm sure you'll have a similar effect on your students.

The other very virtuous thing about this transition is that it directly adresses the "kids these days" lament. How many of us have stood in hallways or in conference rooms and said "What do these kids do in high school? We have to teach them everything all over again!" What do we do about it? Nothing, we just kvetch.

But I'm with Michael Tinkler: I have a lot of trouble seeing myself dealing well with truly adolescent minds. Maybe I'm stereotyping (them or myself, I'm not sure), but the thought kind of scares me.

Jonathan,
I was more than pleasantly surprised with the abilities of my students, in terms of critical analysis, writing, translating, etc. Their motivation and dedication often puts to shame the college-ege kids I have taught, and their work is innovative and engaging. While there is still quite a bit that needs to improve, more often than not, they are willing to take on the challenge.

As for adolescent minds, I deal primarily with 7th and 9th graders and have had to remind myself frequently of what it was like to go through puberty. (And I was at a Catholic all-girl school at that!) Sometimes, I just can't help but watch them in fascination as they work out all those issues. I can usually deal with the more exasperating moments if I approach it as if I were an anthropologist and they were a new tribe I was working with. The humor tends to soften the frustration, ha!

Erin,

I may not have always agreed with you politically, but I've always admired your spunk and honesty. I find it very sad that academia has driven you to this, but I entirely understand. It sounds like you have made the right decision. Best of luck to you.

I have more to say here.

Erin, I am sure your decision was not lightly made, but where ever you land, the faculty and staff will be lucky to have you.

I am now sitting on my second independent school board. A robust and vigorous independent school is one of the best places to teach, in my opinionated but experienced view. What follows is a brief overview of the varieties of American schools.

Most, if not all, independent schools are not unionized.

Most established schools belong to the National Association of Independent Schools

http://www.nais.org/careers/seekers/about.cfm

The above link is to the careers page, but do look around, especially here:

http://www.nais.org/resources/resources.cfm

which has brief monographs on various subjects, very well indexed and easy to navigate.

In case you think that private schools are just for rich white folks, look here:

http://www.nais.org/equity/call.cfm

Most regions also have a independent school association, such as the California Association of Independent Schools

http://www.caisca.org/

There are actually several "school systems" in the United states.

The public school system (traditional)
"Charter Schools"--in the public system, but somewhat independent:
more here:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/re/csabout.asp

The parochial school system (traditional Catholic education)

Independent schools (non sectarian and/or affiliated with a given religion, but open to all.) Independent schools are distinct from other schools in that they are primarily supported by tuition, charitable contributions, and endowment income, rather than by tax or church funds. To be eligible for NAIS membership, a school must be independently governed by a board of trustees, practice nondiscriminatory policies, be accredited by an approved state or regional association, and hold not-for-profit 501(c)(3) status.

Proprietary schools may look like independent schools, but are not non-profit, and typically have more than one campus, all following a prescribed curriculum. Examples are:

challenger
http://www.challengerschool.com/index.html

Carden Schools:
http://www.cardenschool.org/car.htm

I have the sense that proprietary schools tend to be k-8, but I could be wrong.

Private schools may be day schools or boarding schools. Here's a site that reviews boarding schools:

http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/

In the last few years, there has been an upswing in the number of Jewish day schools getting underway. Look around.

If you are in the San Francisco Bay area, you might find this site useful

http://www.baprivateschools.com/

If you or your readers have any questions, please e-mail and I will do my best to answer.

Wow. Please keep the blog going, and make sure that the kids know you don't have to be an English major to love good writing.

A friend of mine teaches at a middle school (PhD, but never wanted to teach at college) and has the kids set poems to music. We all know Emily Dickenson can be sung to a Congregational hymnal, but did you ever try singing "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" to the tune of "Hernando's Hideaway"? I wonder if Homer started out like that.

Congratulations!

Ms. Leins,

Then what happens? The motivated, dedicated, innovative, engaged middle-schoolers you teach turn into nearly catatonic collegians, usually capable of parroting rote material and hardly ever reaching for anything resembling insight or even meaning.

I've heard lots of primary/secondary educators talk about how rewarding it is, how good their students are, etc. I've got some good students, too, probably the same ones. But somewhere along the line, a large portion of the student population is not being well educated.

Mr. Dresner,

I am unclear as to what you are referring, unless it is to ask what "happens" to students and why some are more "educated" than others. Sorry if the rest of this response doesn't adequately answer your question, but the one you posed calls for an analysis of every student, their entire educational background, their family life, their personal life, their past and present state of mind, what college they are at, who their teachers are, in what department they are taking classes, and other innumerable variables.
I believe some of the students to whom you refer have decided they are unwilling to motivate or engage themselves, for whatever reason. Teaching at a university for 4 years illustrated to me, very clearly, that somewhere along the line (I am guessing right about when kids get to college and realize just how little there parents can do, short of pulling their tuition. Did you know that it is illegal for a university employee to talk about the kid who's at college and whose tuition they're paying if that kid is under 18?), a student can make his or her decision to be the student we all gush on about, or to be the student who, for whatever reason, doesn't work to be an active participant in their own education. I am not saying that there is no responsibility on the teacher's part to do whatever they can to open the door, but many times it is up to the student to walk through it. I am willing to push and pull them through whether they show interest or not, but there comes a time when they will have to motivate themselves enough to make the passage on their own. Is this a solution? Of course not, but I heard at least ten times a semester the phrase "This isn't necessary for my degree. What do I have to do to pass?"

Erin,

I've quite enjoyed reading your blog since I stumbled upon it a couple of months ago, and your decision to leave academia hits incredibly close to home for me. At the same time, however, I find some of the logic behind your choice problematic.

It's true that by leaving the University world, you will no longer be participating in academe's oppression of adjuncts. But by teaching at a private school, where (as you remark with uncharacteristic smugness) you won't be forced to get a "redundant" teaching qualification, won't you, in fact, be participating in another system of oppression--one which your own language conjures up echoes of?

Private schools' hiring of unqualified secondary school teachers is one of the primary reasons for the de-professionalization of teaching in contemporary America. While no 21st century American would ever question the notion that doctors need to go to med school, that lawyers need to go to law school, or even that professors need to go to grad school, nearly EVERYONE in America--including left-leaning academics like yourself--shares a belief that secondary school teaching does not require this type of training. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that the horrific situation in many American public high schools right now is a direct result of this notion. Until we start understanding secondary school teaching as a profession that requires good, long term training, public school teachers will continue to be underpaid and their voices unappreciated and ignored. By chosing to work at an institution that does not require you to have any secondary school-specific teacher training, you are participating in the undermining of teaching as a profession.

Don't get me wrong--I, too, would benefit from private schools' flexibility about teaching credentials. And I'm happy you've made a career decision that you're looking forward to. But please don't blind yourself to the political implications involved in the new institution you're involving yourself with.

I encourage you not to abandon the critical and refreshing political perspective you have brought to bear on academia as you head into your new profession. If the American Secondary Education system is to be what most lefty academics out there would like it to be, we _must_ begin to understand teaching as a profession. And, just as it has been important to raise peoples' consciousnesses about the plight of adjuncts, so it is important to consider the situation currently facing so many committed, trained public school teachers.

-Loring Pfeiffer

To address Loring's comments: This country has a long tradition of people succeeding without benefit of formal education or training or guild membership or whatever. And quite frankly, what passes for 'training' these days in our education schools leaves a lot to be desired.

In fact, I think the education schools are doing more harm than good, with their philosophy that 'you don't have to know history to be able to teach history' attitudes, and our children are suffering for their ivory-tower arrogance.

Some people are natural teachers. Some people can learn to be teachers. Some people, including many graduates of education schools, are not and will never be teachers, in spite of having a piece of paper in hand that calls them teachers.

I think it's tremendously telling that the teaching 'profession' (and I use that term loosely) drives away a majority of new teachers in the first 2-3 years, after their spending 4-8 years and countless dollars in training. I don't know of any other profession that chews up its members quite this violently. Obviously, there's something really, really wrong here, and the ivory tower academicians are too busy contemplating their navels or trying to socially engineer their personal visions of utopia to be able to see it.

Loring: I simply could not disagree with you more.

I started to write a long entry, but it's not worth the time. I will just say this: I have realized, after reflecting upon my experience as a graduate of the Ontario public schools system, that public education was a colossal waste of time for me. I was a bright, engaged student hungry to learn. I got nothing out of the experience. I would venture a guess that my friends and peers' time was equally wasted (in some of their cases, it was wasted because nobody inspired that hunger and love of learning in them that was already in me).

My mother and sister are both teachers. To them, the ed-school experience was a pointless exercise which boiled down to acquiring an empty credential and enduring the process of being indoctrinated and then asked to regurgitate those bromides.

Loring, please don't dismiss this out of hand. You would be right to surmise that I'm not particularly friendly to the worst tendencies of PC and the teacher's unions and the ed schools. But this comment is about something far simpler than that: ed school, as it is now, is a colossal waste of the time, energy, and money of teachers. Furthermore, it does not produce better teachers. We would have been far better served if our teachers simply had masters' degrees in their subject areas. It is my belief that ed school failed to cultivate our teachers, and in turn they did not have the resources to cultivate us. In short, high school was a waste of time.

I understand that you are concerned about systemic oppression. Loring, in my experience public school was little better than an intellectual prison - I mean that our intellects were stifled, locked up, turned off. I happened to like many of the inmates and was liked in return, so I managed to have some fun. But I do not exaggerate when I say that I look back in disgust at the immense waste of so many talented peoples' (teachers and students) time. Public education failed to even attempt to cultivate my mind and those of the members of my class. While such a system may not be "oppressive", it was the most absurd, useless, and frustrating system I have ever experienced.

I am very happy that Erin has found something right for her personally. And I am thrilled that those kids will be lucky enough to have her as their teacher. All the best, Erin!

(Whoops, I didn't mean to write a long entry - I shouldn't let my buttons get pushed like that.)

I wholly agree with both Claire and Haystack that what qualifies as teacher training these days is less than quality education (see Britzman's _Practice Makes Practice_ for a great study of this). But I also think there's a space out there for really excellent teacher training--training that respects secondary teachers who are already doing their jobs well and works to develop a strong relationship between them and new secondary teachers (see www.parker.org/ntc for a program doing just this). A good teacher training program _does_ encourage its teachers to be experts in their fields, Claire and Haystack. But it should also recognize that teaching itself can and should be studied and learned. Many, many current teacher training programs do not do this, which is probably one reason that your Mother and Sister were so miserable at their respective programs, Haystack. But I think that if Americans (and, apparently, Canadians) were more committed to understanding teaching as a profession (and _not_ as a gift), we would create teacher training programs that would be stimulating spaces for reflection and dialogue among teachers-to-be and master teachers. And I think our public school systems would certainly benefit from such programs.

I am one who is not particularly "naturally" talented at teaching. And yet, I think I've managed to become a pretty decent educator after having been surrounded by some exemplary teachers during my work with children. I want teacher training programs to be able to do this for everyone that goes through their ranks.

Haystack, I'm sorry your experience of public schools was so miserable. But I strongly believe that if your secondary teachers had a) received better teacher training and b) been respected for the professionals they are, your experience could have been more positive. I truly believe that recognizing the (often derogatory) way we as a culture speak about teachers is one tiny step toward making public schools less oppressive environments for both teachers and students.

Loring, I do agree with a lot of what you just said. I misunderstood your earlier post to be a kind of vote for the status quo. My rant/reply was about how the status quo has been shortchanging all of us.

Anyways, at a more constructive level, what I would like to see more of are the substantive master's programs that combine in-depth subject work with high-quality teacher training. I understand that some small liberal arts colleges are offering very high-quality M.A.T.'s and other well-designed programs. I'd like to see the large public universities' ed-school factories offer a similar level of quality. From my vantage point in Canada (not sure about the U.S.), the big schools are not even close to that yet.

Finally, Loring, the point you make about the wider culture's attitude towards teachers is a very good one. That disdain is definitely contributing to the rot in public education.

Loring, what's this about teachers being underpaid? Not in our local public schools, at any rate!

It's true that senior teachers who teach in suburban schools do stand to make decent money ($60-70K), but new teachers and teachers in poorer urban and rural areas--working at some of the most challenging schools in the country--are making $25-30K. For the amount of work these teachers are doing, CP, that certainly qualifies as being underpaid.