Do Teachers Need To Be Liked?

A recent Robert Pondiscio post took me right back to many, many teacher lounge debates. "Do students need to like their teachers to learn?" was the question both in his post and in my lounge, and it seemed to come up again every time a student teacher passed through our halls.

The frequency with which this came up for newbies led me to think that maybe being liked is one of the answers that young teachers land on as they search for an answer to "How do I know whether I'm succeeding here?" This is one of the challenges that come with teaching being a solitary profession-- teachers have no place to get feedback except from students. But if you are looking for affirmation of your professional conduct from a child--well, that is not a great way to do adulting.

Teaching also comes with the challenge of being a profession in which relationships are very important, but they also mostly have to be created out of whole cloth by the adult in the room, and there isn't much in life that prepares us for that. 

So out of all that young teachers may land on, "Well, if I can get the kids to like me..." It doesn't help that so many fictional teacher models center on a beloved hero teacher who we get to see being beloved but not so much actually teaching.

But trying to get young humans to like you just leads to all sorts of problems. Heck, it leads to all sorts of problems among the young humans. The key to social success in high school is confidence, and "Please like me" energy projects the opposite. In a teacher, it projects both a lack of confidence and weakness, and while younger students may take pity on you, older students will not. And if they figure out you can be played by threats that are simply coded versions of "If you don't give us our way, we won't like you," you are done.

Teachers will sometimes land on other unproductive approaches to creating the relationship. For instance, "rule through fear" crowd. But mostly what you teach through that approach is some combination of sneakiness and resentment. Your students may comply when they are in front of you, but you'd better be careful about when you turn your back. Can they learn this way? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

So what is the answer? Respect and competence.

Treat the students with respect. Know what you're doing. I would add "be kind," but that term is too open to misinterpretation, so let's leave it for now.

The experts say that one sign that a marriage is doomed is when contempt sneaks in. Same is true for the classroom; when you show contempt for your students, it's game over. The opposite of contempt is respect-- you treat them like they are functional, capable human beings deserving of decent treatment. And here's a hugely important fact lost to many in our current political climate-- you don't have to like someone to treat them with respect. You don't have to agree with someone to treat them with respect. You just have to recognize that they are human, and as such, deserve a certain base level of respect. 

Respect for students goes hand in hand with providing them with competent teaching and high-but-realistic expectations. Throw in Not Wasting Student Time as well. 

As a teacher, you've stepped up to take on a particular role, and students will sooner or later judge you based on how well you fulfill that role. "He's a nice guy, but a lousy teacher" is not the dream. The dream is to teach the students, to help them increase their understanding of themselves and the world. 

Pondiscio says that students like teachers they learn from (not vice versa), and I guess that's sort of true. But every kind of person in the world is going to pass through your classroom, and some of them are not going to like you, ever. Trying to win them over is a waste of time, but modeling how to respectfully get the work done even when you don't necessarily like the person you're working with-- that's a lesson they (and the other students watching how things play out) can carry into the world. 

On Your Own

There are so many ways in which the education debates have simply been a warm up for broader attacks on government as a whole.

Take the latest from nepo baby RFK Jr. talking to TV grifter Dr. Phil, as reported by the New York Times:

“I would say that we live in a democracy, and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research,” the health secretary said, in response to a question from a woman in the audience who asked how he would advise a new parent about vaccine safety. “You research the baby stroller, you research the foods that they’re getting, and you need to research the medicines that they’re taking as well.”

"Do your own research" is supposed to ring with independence and a refusal to blindly follow the sheeple, combined with an implicit claim that your google search is probably just as good as what those so-called experts tell you. 

But what I really hear in this exchange is a rejection of collective responsibility. "Can you help me make a safe choice for my child?" the young mother asks. "Not going to do it," replied the damned Secretary of Health and Human Services of the richest nation in the history of the world. "Your kid is not my problem. Your kid is not anyone else's problem. Go figure it out yourself."

This has always been the message of the school voucher movement since those long-ago days when Milton Friedman dreamed of a country where education was just one more commodity in a government-free marketplace. "Go get an education for your kid yourself. It's nobody else's problem, nobody else's concern, nobody else's responsibility. Here's a little voucher; now shut up and go away."

This is the Big Theme of MAGA/Trump/DOGE/Etc-- "We are tired of being told we have to care about other people." That's it. That's the whole thing. "I don't want to have to spend a cent of my money on anyone who isn't me." From the DOGE non-saving inefficient roll-back of anything the government does that involves looking out for other people (including collecting information that could help them make decisions) all the way to J D Vance's bizarre claim that Jesus says the further away from you someone is, the less Jesus wants you to love them. 

In fact, not only would they like to not have their money taken to spend on other people, but maybe they can get some of other people's money to spend on themselves. 

They can always draw a crowd of people who believe in the legitimate concerns-- government is too often inefficient and wasteful, being free to make choices is good, public schools have too often failed some students-- but those folks rarely get to drive the bus because they never think it would go So Far and going So Far is what the actual drivers intended from the start.

"Do your own research" because nobody else is going to do it, and if you don't have the resources, well, don't worry about it because I'm sure whatever you do will be just as good as any scientist or expert or teacher would come up with. The important part is that you do the science, health, and education research yourself. And if this bold new do-it-yourself approach means that society is sorted into different tiers and classes based on who has the most resources to take care of themselves, well, that's how God meant it to be. The social safety net and government-supported programs have just been a means to lift up people (with my damn money) when those folks should be staying in their proper places, cranking out babies to serve as future meat widgets for our wealthy leaders (who are wealthy and leaders because of their demonstrated merit). 

For MAGA, the DeVos's, the Kochtopus, and the rest of that crowd, public schools are just one more way that dollars are stolen to try to lift the lessers out of their proper place in society. It's the businesses, the corporations, that deserve the support and assistance of the government. For individual persons? Do your own research, do your own science, do your own educating-- because the regime is tired of helping take care of you, and they are trying to convince us that disregard is freedom. 

A Day In The Post-Mahmoud Classroom

It looks like the Supreme Court, guided once again by A) a profoundly impaired understanding of how schools work and B) a belief that it's unconstitutional to interfere with a religious conservative's desire to organize the world to suit their beliefs-- will decide in favor of Maryland parents (carefully selected so that this won't look like just a white christianist thing) who want to be able to opt their children out of any lessons that suggest that LGBTQ persons exist in the world. 

To be clear, the idea of alternative assignments doesn't bother me-- I've offered them in my own class for works that push the envelope. But this case takes us into whole new territory. 

So let's take a look at the classrooms of the future should this ruling come through. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay, class. Today we're reading 'Pride Puppy,' the story of a puppy who gets lost at a Pride parade. That means that Pat, Sam, Eddie, and Xavier-- go down to the Special Room till I send someone to bring you back--"

"You mean the room that used to be the gym?"

"Yes, that's it. See you in a bit."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mrs. Smith, I have a question about the Puppy story. Why did they--"

"Hold on a second, Ethel. Pat, Sam, Eddie, and Xavier-- head down to the room. This should only take a second."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, this is Principal Shmershwerks. What can I do for you, Mrs. Smith. You're upset because Mr. Smith doesn't have any family pictures on his desk, and you figure that since only the gay teachers aren't allowed to put out family pictures, he must be one of the gay ones, and you would like him to...? Oh, either be less gay or you want Pat out of that class."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay. today we are going to-- what is it, Pat?"

"My mom says that the people on Page 16 look kind of gay to her, and she thinks I shouldn't have to read this book with the class."

"What do you mean, they look kind of -- never mind. Go to the room."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay, class. I see some of you were a bit confused by this early scene in The Sun Also Rises so let's look at the clues. When Jake first sees Brett in the novel, she's entering a cafe with some men described as having white hands and wavy hair. One makes a comment about seeing an--"

"Actual harlot!" 

"Right. And one calls another 'dear,' and Jake comments that 'I know they are supposed to be amusing, and one should be tolerant..."

Light bulbs go on around the room. "Ooooohh! It's a bunch of gay guys."

Six hands go up around the room. They hadn't figured out the LGBTQ content on their own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wait. Why are you being opted out of the entire unit on Marie Curie? She wasn't gay."

"But my folks say she is an unhealthy model because she didn't stay home and act as a proper helpmate for her husband. That's not the right way for a woman to--"

"Go."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The following students will be going to the room for the next two weeks while we complete our unit on Walt Whitman--"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why are you students back already. I told you we'd be discussing Kate Chopin's The Awakening all week. Remember? Story of a woman unhappy to be a wife and mother, written by a lady author who wore pants?"

"Yes, we know. Sorry. But biology classes are doing evolution this week and the room is already full."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't understand. Why are you opting out of this lesson?"

"This poem definitely refers to the world as a globe, but in my family, we believe that the earth is flat."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, Pat?"

"Mrs. Smith, my family has a religious objection to eating meat, and this character clearly has a hamburger for lunch. Expect to hear from my father's lawyer over the lack of advanced warning."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, Mrs. Jones, you want Pat opted out of lessons because of the pronouns?  Not just 'those gay pronouns,' but you have objections to all pronouns?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, this is Principal Shmershwerks. Yes, hello Mrs. Wiggins. You want Sam moved out of Mrs. Smith's classroom because why?...Oh, because you saw Mrs. Smith's new haircut and it looks kind of butch."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay, class. According to the posting on today's opt out request list, Pat's family objects to the portrayal of geocentric orbit, Sam's family objects to the suggestion that God loves short people, Quinn's family objects to the portrayal of talking fish on religious grounds, three other families object to the use of caricatures on moral grounds, and Patsy's mother has moral objections to any use of the word 'oral'. All of these objections have been referred to the District Office of Moral and Religious Issues, which will consult with the State Office of Religious Concerns, and we'll let you know whether your religious issues are officially recognized by the state or not."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK: More Edu-spats

While awaiting SCOTUS's take on the Big Oklahoma story-- the attempt to create the illusion that a religious charter school-- do not miss the other ongoing crazypants fussing going on over various other issues.

Oklahoma is wrestling with some new history standards, subject to Edu-dudebro-in-chief Ryan Walters intense desire to jam his version of Christianity into schools while simultaneously making google eyes at Dear Leader in DC.

Here's the thing-- the standards were rather christianism-infused to begin with. But then as the new year rolled around, a bump or three appeared in the road.

There's fallout from ongoing feuding among Oklahoma's big name GOP politicians. Walters tried to get State Attorney General Gentner Drummond to make some noise about Trump's anti-diversity edicts to support Walters own response, but Drummond, who has often clashed with Walters, called it "manufactured political drama" intended to get Walters more attention. Drummond is running for governor, Kevin Stitt wants to keep being governor, and Walters sure looks like he's running for something (especially now that Dear Leader didn't call him to DC).

Then Walters decided to require all schools to send him a list of every undocumented immigrant child, and even Stitt thought that was too much ("picking on kids" he called it) and fired three members of the Board of Education. Walters put two of them on a new made-up thing called the "Trump Advisory Committee" because his old BFF Stitt is now part of the "liberal DC swamp." But Walters now has to deal with three new members of the board who don't appear to be either impressed by or afraid of Walters, and the history standards have emerged as the first topic of dispute. 

The standards were tossed in front of the board, complete with three new members, in February, accompanied by a demand that these needed to get okayed super quick. Only it turns out that the final version of the standards had some changes that had been quietly slipped in there, most notably a requirement that Oklahoma students "identify discrepancies in the 2020 election results." Those changes were not discussed, and the newly appointed board members somehow didn't know about them.

Walters has handled this challenge to his authority with aplomb and diplomacy. Ha, just kidding. He has called the new board members liars and accused them of creating a "fake controversy." "I can't make you do the reading," he said, referring to the standards with changes that nobody was told about. 

"I'm not a speed reader," said new member Ryan Deatherage, reminding Walters that he had asked for more time at the February meeting.

"I did my homework," said (more or less) new member Michael Tinney, pointing out that he downloaded the standards to read, but that what he read was the pre-sneaky-changes standards.

Sasha Ndisabiye and Bennett Brinkman have been all over this for NonDoc. They report:

Asked after the meeting why Walters did not at least notify board members of what changed between the initial version of the standards and the final version, Walters declined to give a reason besides saying he made it clear to board members that the version of the standards given to them less than 24 hours before the meeting was the updated and final version.

“I don’t control when Gov. (Kevin) Stitt put these board members on here. That’s what he chose to do,” Walters said. “It was at the very end of the process.”

I think we could safely call this a passive-aggressive hissy fit. And to add to the cheery atmosphere, the GOP chair of the Senate Education Committee, Rep. Adam Pugh, filed a resolution shortly after the board fireworks saying the Senate doesn't like the standards and will send them back to the board for a do-over. 

Walters continues to demonstrate what it looks like to put politics and personal brand building over educating actual young humans. In the meantime, Oklahomans can consider the value of adding The Big Lie to the curriculum when there are so many smaller lies near to hand. 

ICYMI: Spamalot Edition (4/27)

I'm playing in another pit orchestra, this time for a local community theater production of Spamalot, a show that makes me really want to get out my copy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but I don't have time to because I'm playing in a pit orchestra.

But I still have time for the weekly roundup of read-worthy pieces. Here we go.

Donald Trump’s war on children

Someone at the Washington Post messed up and let Catherine Rampall post this big-picture look at all the ways Dear Leader has been trying to make life worse for the next generation.

How Trump Is Using Strategic Chaos to Reengineer Public Education

Julian Vasquez Heilig posts about the tactics of Dear Leader and what it means for education policy (watch that Overton window).

Harvard Stands Up

The Academic Freedom newsletter takes a look at Harvard's tussle with the regime. 

Harvard Takes the Gloves Off

This view is from David Pepper. Dang, but who knew that we would be cheering for Harvard some day.

Florida’s Proposed School Grading Change Isn’t About Accountability—It’s About Undermining Public Education

Sue Kingery Woltanski looks at the latest Big Bad Idea in Florida as part of its never-ending quest to kneecap public schools.

Et Tu, Urban Institute?

Stephen Dyer looks at a new study that cuts all sorts of corners on its way to saying that school vouchers are swell!

Draft executive order outlines plan to integrate AI into K-12 schools

From the Washington Post again, but all you need is the headline. And if you've not been grasping the kind of authoritarian threat that AI poses, let this be your big clue.

Executive Disorder

Audrey Watters responds to that edict for AI, in case you need an explanation of just how bad it is. 

The Silent Professor

This is an oldie, but I only just ran across it. What would you do if you lost your voice, but you still had to teach? Joseph Finckel tells his story.

Bringing Critical Thinking to the Classroom: Introducing the “InfluenceWatch Educational Guide”

Kali Fontanilla has developed some teaching materials based on the InfluenceWatch media guide to bias. If I were still in the classroom, I would be considering this.

Student Outcome Focused Governance is Impuissant

Not sure what SOFG actually is? Thomas Ultican has dug up answers to what it is, and why you should be wary. 

RIP, Libraries and Museums

Nancy Flanagan considers yet another institution that Dear Leader wants to trash.

Congress Should Defy the Trump Administration and Save Head Start

Dear Leader's budget proposal includes the cutting of Head Start. Jan Resseger explains why Congress should put the kibosh on the plan.

In search of solace

Benjamin Riley is grappling with the role of tech in the erosion of democracy, and he turns to musing with people of faith to get a handle on it.

This week at Forbes.com I looked at some of the arguments being brought up this coming week for the religious charter school case, and I looked at the court order holding off Dear Leader's anti-DEI measures for schools. 

Join me on my newsletter, and I can haunt your email inbox without you having to do a thing. It's free and always will be.

God Loves A Sucker

Lifewise is in a state of alarm over candy.

We need to have a long talk about Lifewise some time, a company that is making hay out of an Ohio law that says schools must let students out to attend church lessons-- a sort of Skip School For Jesus. It's a chance for conservative christianists to recruit children right out of school, and make a ton of money while doing it. Lifewise sets up a site for church school, and buses students to it and back during the school day (and if that sounds like a terrible idea, it is, but we'll talk about that another day). 

It's one more way to try to work around the wall between church and state, but it turns out that Lifewise needs the use of a particular tool, and they grump when they can't have it.

Candy.

Well, candy and toys. Turns out that students who skip out for church time come back to school with "candy, stickers, or tchotchkes." and Lifewise attorney Jeremy Dys says that some schools are forbidding this. You know-- in the same way that schools don't allow candy and toys during the day because it's disruptive and troublesome. All over the country you'll find schools where students can't even bring in cupcakes for their birthday because of health policies. 

But attorney Dys says forbidding students to bring back the trinkets from their Lifewise session-- well, "that’s restricting free speech and denying students their religious liberty." And he feels strongly enough about it to threaten "some very serious litigation that is not going to be fun for anybody."

Dys is an attorney at First Liberty, yet another of those right wing legal shops dedicated to imposing christinist political beliefs on everyone. 

The point here, of course, is that promising the students treats if they attend the Lifewise program is an important part of the recruitment process. Maybe the argument is that God really loves a sucker and Jesus has commanded His people to hand out lots of stickers, but I can't say I've ever seen either idea crop up in the scripture, and I'd personally rather not see my church resorting to the same recruitment techniques as creepy guys in vans. 

If Lifewise has a message that is just as powerful and uplifting and life-improving as they claim, surely they don't need to add candy and treats to sell it. 

OH: Is A District Firing A Teacher Because He's Gay?

Tiny South Central School District in Greenwich, Ohio, is stirring controversy by canning its choir director, and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with his job performance. I will warn you ahead of time-- yes, this is a thing that is happening in 2025. 

Decades ago, a district in my neighborhood fired a gym teacher for being gay. They didn't hide it behind any kind of vague language; they just said they wanted to fire her because she was gay. So they did. And she sued their asses off and won. 

Since those days, uber-conservative districts have learned a lesson. Unfortunately, the lesson was not "Don't discriminate against people because of sexual orientation," but was instead "Don't say out loud that you are firing people because they are gay."

The crowd turns out for the March meeting.
  Terry Burton/Norwalk Reflector   

Greenwich, Ohio is a tiny place; fewer than 1,500 citizens located smack in the middle of Central Ohio's Big Flat Nothing. The district is the result of Greenwich's consolidation with North Fairfield schools back in 1960. The high school has around 200 students in grades 9-12. 

The district hired Alex Kuhn last year to handle the choir, and by accounts, he did a good job with his chorus getting high scores in district contests and advancing to states. But apparently word got out soon that is gay and in a committed relationship with a partner (it's not clear from what I've read whether or not they are married). And that has become a point of controversy. 

By mid-March, the region was worked up over the issue. The culture panic crowd was agitating for Kuhn's contract to be non-renewed for next year. The school board meeting drew a crowd that would be large for a school board meeting in a town with more than 1500 people. The board responded by refusing to expand public comment time (15 minutes with 3 minutes per speaker) and refusing to let anyone who hadn't signed up ahead of time to speak. Also, they announced that anyone who tried to make a public complaint against a board member or employee would be shut off. 

One 2019 graduate spoke in favor of diversity and tolerance, and also pointed out the hypocrisy that heterosexual staff can speak openly about their families and personal lives, but Kuhn is (allegedly) denied the same freedom. 

But another community member rose to express his "disappointment" over the hiring practices, and his hope that an unnamed staff member would not be rehired.

Another audience member expressed a concern that Kuhn's "values are inconsistent with the values of the community and district. The district "can't allow this to take root and snowball" and that "God will not honor this path unless we choose to alter the path." He asked four questions:

1. Was the board aware of Mr. Kuhn's lifestyle?
2. Can his contract be rescinded?
3. Can the district buy out his contract?
4. What can the board and administration do to insure this will never happen again?

 The board appears to have been split, with two members unwilling to go on record one way or the other. As a result, the vote to renew Kuhn's contract failed. 

Those opposed were remarkably coy about the actual issue. The one newspaper that covered the meeting (Terry Burton for the Tandem Network) couldn't get anyone to comment on exactly what policy the board was reviewing, nor was anyone apparently explicit about the "this" in the "this will never happen again." Disappointed? About what.

But Kuhn's defenders seem to have no doubt about what they're defending him from. A petition at change.org supporting Kuhn has 1,294 signatures and numerous comments praising the teacher and condemning the attempt to end his employment over homophobia on the board and in the community. 

What's the fear? Students will learn that LGBTQ persons exist in the world, leading perfectly ordinary lives? Is this that same old notion that nobody is born LGBTQ and therefor every LGBTQ person is probably a recruiter? Are people just freaking out about LGBTQ persons for no particular reason beyond vague moral panic? I suppose one is entitled to disapprove of LGBRQ persons (though it strikes me like disapproving of blondes), but why should that disapproval require stripping a young man of his job?

I wish I could provide more detail, but there's very little real media coverage of rural Ohio, so this is pulled from the one press account about the March 17 meeting and a plethora of online comments that center on the April meeting, which appears to be the one at which the board failed to hire Kuhn for next year. One commenter noted that the board opened the meeting with a prayer. Several others suggest he may have cause for a lawsuit, and that certainly seems possible, though what young teacher would want to go through that. This is an ugly chapter for the district, but time will tell if there is more of this story ahead.