Submitted by pessimist, May 12, 2008 12:05

Brown's criticisms of the NYC teaching fellowship was not a diatribe against teaching in difficult school systems, but to bring out the failures of the NYC teaching fellowship. The 42% of fellows who remain after the first year is ambitious; as these fellows proceed through their teaching career, the drop out rates increase. This is because the value of teaching diminishes as teachers energies are re-directed to disciplining kids, lecturing them about good behavior, respecting people.

I spent 3 years in a classroom in another country; the literacy rate in this country is higher than the United States. The reason has little to do with the superior capabilities of the teachers. The difference lies in what students are taught in the home and what is condoned in terms of how students treat other people. Cutting others down instead of using others' accomplishments as a motivation to do better is a common trait one sees among inner city kids. I know this because I grew up among them. It is not the teacher's responsibility to be the disciplinarian. These days, administrators call it "class management"; call it what it is.

When I taught, unruly kids were singled out for disrupting the classroom; more importantly, teachers got support from the principal. There are a lot more talented teachers out there, who can teach well. There are fewer teachers who have the patience to address discipline issues when they are hired to teach. The comments Brown made are very useful and, as good administrators should, reflect on the reasons he (and I am certain many others) complain about the Fellowship's approach to training. Perhaps, cohort 3, you are satisfied with mediocre work.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.