Response: When Teachers Become Entrepreneurs, Is Their Core Mission Altered?

I just read a provocative post from Nancy Flanagan at Teacher In a Strange Land called "Sleeping With the Enemy," which questions whether teachers comprimise their integrity by selling their ideas. Nancy seems to be asking the right question, and I was surprised at how much I had to say on the topic... though maybe I shouldn't be, since I helped develop the idea of the teacherpreneur in Teaching 2030. 

Here is my response, which I'm having trouble posting on the site at the moment:

Nancy, I am wondering about compromise myself.  I have not yet come to a conclusion about it. 

That said, I'm not sure that selling our ideas requires compromise.  I think teachers can start small businesses that offer their expertise for money to those who might want to pay for it without compromising integrity.  For example, right now I am writing a book on a curriculum method I've named Whole Novels.  I've been developing the program since I first encountered the idea from my mentor at Bank Street College (who has helped me immeasurably and whom I give due credit in the book).  I've spoken to many teachers who are interested in learning more about the method, and so I'm writing the book to fill a need, as well as to fulfill a dream I have of writing it all down in a book.  The book will be sold by a regular publishing company, and I'll get a small percentage of the profits.  I might end up doing some consulting about it as well.  I have benefitted from many books I've bought over the years, written by teachers for teachers.  Is this the entrepreneurial comprimise you mean?

Maybe the issue lies in how we apply our expertise to policy initiatives.  The method I'm writing about could never work as a mandated, one-size-fits-all kind of thing.  The book is not written to suggest that, although I'd love for it to become a known idea, that teachers can pull from as they see fit. 

Am I right that the issue you're talking about is in selling our expertise to the organizations that are creating new oppressive structures for our profession? Ones that rely on tests to determine success and feed a corporate testing industry?  If a corporation or district wanted to pay me to write Whole Novels: The Scripted Curriculum, would I do it?  Thank you for pushing me to ask myself that question.  The answer would almost definitely be no.  

But I'm tempted to ask myself, would there be a way to compromise?  Would Whole Novels: The Scripted Version be better than whatever other scripted curriculum is out there?  Possibly, yes. There's the rub.

When I first started teaching, Teacher's College Readers and Writers Workshop Model, led by Lucy Calkins, was mandated in NYC public schools--or perhaps just those with low test scores.  It was a scripted version of the program, which came to us in condescending form.  It had not been designed for middle school, but was being forced on us as an experiment.  We and principals were promised higher test scores, and there were sticks for non-compliance as well. (I later heard that Calkins herself was not happy with the watered down, force-fed nature of her curriculum as a blanket mandate). Teachers found it frustrating and limiting.  I did what a lot of others did: I took the things that made sense to me from the program and combined them with other things I was trying--namely, Whole Novels. 

The funny thing is that later, I realize I actually learned a lot from this exposure, albeit uncomfortable and borderline insulting, to the program.  I also notice retrospectively that during that time, NYC paid for every ELA classroom to have a good library of developmentally appropriate books, which was a real benefit to students (and teachers’ purses).  This had not been the case before, when only textbooks and city-mandated whole class novel sets were provided. It is not the case now, since principals control purchasing decisions for their schools and may or may not decide to fund classroom libraries.  The program also popularized the notion that teachers did not need to be at the front of the room talking to be teaching—helping teachers, principals, and other evaluators to understand that students need workshop time.  These were some positives that came from the scripted mandate. 

That's just to say that I still don't know where I stand on compromise... As always, thank you for pushing the conversation and for your unwavering integrity.

 

[image credit: infobarrel.com]

 

 

Comments

[TeachMoore]

I love that this conversation is developing among some of my favorite teacher bloggers, and I hope to weigh in soon as well. Nancy's piece does contain many challenging ideas.

But then, that's what teacher leaders do.

[S Henchey]

Ariel,

What an important conversation with lots consider. I've spent this morning reading Nancy's original post, your comments, and Steve Owens' response. The meaning and implications of compromise are varied, and I have to wonder - does compromising always place one in a compromising position?

I look forward to continuing to follow this discussion.

[thai dating sites]

Exactly why I teach. It saddens me that too often a lack of international or global understanding negatively and quite innocently impacts the classroom and creates an elitism that current classrooms should be eliminating.

[i date asia]

Thanks so much with this fantastic new web site. I’m very fired up to show it to anyone. It makes me so satisfied your vast understanding and wisdom have a new channel for trying into the world.

[скачать skype]

Really good one. Your article is giving me pleasure. It is informative and bearing importance according to social view. More you post more we learn. This is really a great site. Thanks.