The walls of the stairwell leading up to the third floor, where I teach, are full of blotchy paint jobs. Each night, or at least a few times a week, the custodians paint over the stairwell walls. The walls and the steps are littered with gang symbols and warnings. The one sign that always makes my heart skip a beat is the one that reads: “W-Zone.” Though it might have a different connotation to the people who wrote it, I believe it to mean “You are entering a War Zone.”
During my first year, this daily routine of walking up bleak stairwells full of hateful and evil messages and feelings put me on the defensive for the day – prevent defense all day long. As long as I walked out physically whole at the end of the day, it almost didn’t matter what happened in my classroom. Family members and friends would laugh and ask if I wore a Kevlar vest to work. That wasn’t funny to me.
I felt that what happened in Room 303 would happen whether I was there or not; the kids would cuss the teacher out, throw stuff on the floors, ignore the lesson plan, come without pencils or pens or notebooks, walk in 30 minutes late with no excuse but a look that said “What are you gonna do about it?”
I found ways around the demoralization of teaching in a dangerous, low-performing and mismanaged school by seeking external releases: Running up to 100 miles per week to train for a marathon, drinking too much on the weekend, reading three newspapers per day – anything to escape the “W-Zone” and the internal feeling that I was completely helpless in this situation.
Those things brought little but a bad left knee, headaches and depression and strained relationships with people I love. I had to turn it around not by seeking extra resources within the school district (because there were none worth asking for) or professional help (though my mother told me I needed it). I turned it around by believing in myself and my ability as one committed young man to promote academic achievement in a place where the vast majority of people don’t think it’s attainable because of various “systemic” deficiencies.
But this year, my second, I’ve approached the “W-Zone” not as a hell that I am trying to survive my two year commitment in, but as one that I am trying to lift myself and my students out of.. I haven’t been 100% successful, but my classroom is decorated from top to bottom to invite students out of the “W-Zone” in the halls, and I have 90 minutes worth of good instruction for each class period. I don’t let the students run me, scam me or cuss me out. No, I stand up for myself and for the majority of great kids there who don’t want to be bogged down by a system full of low expectations, disruptive and disrespectful kids, mismanagement and broken promises.
So I get irked when Nicholas Kristof, the liberal commentator who takes up a different liberal cause each week, claims to know what “works” in urban schools. In a recent blog, Kristof swipes at Republicans who are arguing against spending massive amounts of money on education. It’s the old ridiculous argument that somehow pouring more money into education will make it work better. It’s the argument every college student in America hears in their mandatory freshman sociology class.
He also writes:
We’re gaining a much better understanding of what works in education, and early childhood education is a major element of that. I haven’t visited a KIPP school, but everyone raves about their success rates. Improving teachers would help, which means a combination of four elements: lowering the barriers to entry, more rigorous assessment of teacher performance, pushing out more under-performing teachers, and more compensation. And of course, we need the good teachers in bad schools, not just in the best ones.
Kristof really ought to visit a KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) school and see what makes it tick; the KIPP School in this city I have spent time in is in a beat up old building that is made beautiful by a staff that pours their life blood into it. Everyone from the administrators on down decorate the KIPP school to promote achievement and the ultimate goal of sending children to college. They don’t do this because they are funded well, but because they want to promote professionalism and respect. Excuses aren’t part of this culture.
It’s very tough to get a teaching gig in a KIPP school because they don’t just hire anyone; they hire people they know are ready to commit to one of the toughest jobs anywhere – demanding high quality, above grade level work from mostly minority students in low-income areas. These schools also discipline kids: They kick them out if they want to play the games that are allowed in the regular city schools.
Every city school teacher knows this: The federal, city or state money will never be enough. You do the best with what you have. For many apathetic teachers, that does mean showing up and collecting a check. And yes, we do need to find ways to fire those teachers. For those of us who are truly committed, however, it means working day and night to make sure our kids succeed with the few things we do have right now. Better that any day than expecting some government stimulus or social experiment based on our supposed need to “be our brother’s keeper” to come save us. To know what “works” in inner city schools, look inward.
4 responses so far
1 doodad // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:51 am
I admire your courage, Mr. Gibbon. My experience teaching public high school in a New England mill town in the ’70s was eerily prescient of your experience. The students were classified by attainment: A students, B students, C students, which designations became self-fulfilling prophecies. The most frustrating and challenging were the F students, many of whom were quite smart. They took their classification as a life sentence of failure. “You can’t expect us to learn anything, we’re the F students.” I tricked them. I DID expect them to learn and they learned. It was the hardest job I ever had; I went home exhausted every day. And I was burned out after one year. I applaud you Mr. Gibbon, you are pursuing a profession of the highest moral value. Please know that there are many of us who appreciate what you are doing.
2 Cforchange // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:17 am
Actually spending the same money but in a different way would go far to curb what you describe.
One simple change to the rules would change many things – a clean drug test requirement to receive Section 8 funds, SSI payments, Food stipends or government supplied child support. The drug test should be a requirement because these funds are income to the recipient. If testing is part of what the tax paying work force at large experiences to obtain their income why should recipients of government payments receive preferential treatment? There is no doubt the general work force’s civil rights are violated everyday because of this double standard. Sure you might pose a danger while performing certain tasks under the influence – but how about the danger to the CHILD who has a caretaker that is chronically impaired?
Crack users for example: The habits of a crack addicted person are very well known – they use the drugs round the clock for as long as they can. For those who do not have payment sources, they stumble in the streets seeking the toxin and ways to pay for it. This occurs for days usually 2 weeks or so and then they disappear home to sleep off the binge and rest their weary hearts. Statisically each street walking professional drug user has 3-5 children so who and how are the children cared for while they stumble in the street? How can a child from this environment possibly take advantage of an education? Then consider how can they not be abused by others if their parent is preoccupied with pleasuring themselves round the clock? This is not a remote situation – it’s happening over and over on a street corner close by.
From my urban view, a child in this environment would be much better served in a children’s home cared for by former day care workers that will be idled when the sour ecomony takes full shape.
If we take steps to determine why there are people in need – even when times are good, the CHILD will be the winner. Playing the system and neglecting a child so you can pay for your addiction isn’t fair to anyone. Make the system smarter because most everyone experiences a violation of civil rights in the case.
3 jonnyjayhawk // Feb 11, 2009 at 2:28 pm
getting my car broken into last night about 30 yards away from me while I watched, left me in deep thought all day. The guy had to have taken 3000 dollars in merch between the 4 cars he broke into.
With education from people that care about teaching life lessons rather than people that pass as many students through as possible for that bonus check is what matters. The difference between right and wrong, as well as an understanding of why it’s that way, is what is being taught by people like you. I’ll take advice from people on the front lines anyday.
The sad fact is this: Unless you are directly affected or passionate about the subject people like you will be scarce. You can’t teach passion, you can only pass it on…. hence what you are accomplishing.
the goal is not money, and I agree with that. The goal is to create passion, understanding, and most importantly caring where it has never been on a massive scale. Soooo easy to say, and there has rarley ever been a glimmer of that concept.
4 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Cforchange says that drug testing should be required for all forms of public/government money stipens and while a part of me agrees I also wish it were that easy. If the drug hazed mother receiving funds had cared about her kids to begin with then she would not be doing drugs so what are you going to do with those kids when you take away the money from the mother? Whose going to put a roof over their head of you take away section 8 housing? whose going to keep them alive when simple antibiotics are refused at the hospital?
It’s easy to allow our collective anger at the free hand outs get the better of our mouths but harder to deal with the real issues that would be laid open in it’s wake.
There are no easy answers but children who grow up to attend the KIPP schools at least have a shot at a life because they have had food in their bellies some days and have been able to receive vaccines, and had roofs over their heads at least part of the time.
No, throwing money won’t fix the problems but the reality is that the money gives good people a chance to try.
You must log in to post a comment.