tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2624481082062651225.post916862129533548753..comments2023-10-23T13:07:41.584-07:00Comments on Urban Ed: Celebrating America's Best Teacher (and Why You'll NEVER read About That on GothamSchools.org)UrbanEdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08044618498302353334noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2624481082062651225.post-82265951510599153762013-07-18T21:02:26.437-07:002013-07-18T21:02:26.437-07:00 Andy,
Thanks for the comment. I had a very long ... Andy,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. I had a very long reply that addressed almost all of what you shared (and then some). Alas, it ran over 4096 characters, and blogger didn't let me post. For now, let me reply to the points you made that are more salient to this piece, and then invite you to send me an email if you want to read the whole long response. <br /><br /><br />The actual point of this piece was to highlight the lack of celebrity that the edu press brings to great teachers like Esquith. There is a reason why smart people don't know who he is (and why you and I probably couldn't name the "second best" teacher in America and why Stephen Lazar (probably the best social studies teacher NYC (and a guy who I see you've connected with in the past) isn't a household name in NYC either). That reason is that the media don't pay much attention to great teachers. Yet we all know finite details of Michelle rhee and Joel Klein? wth!!? The intent of the post was to highlight this reality and to assign blame of this to the misguided priorities of the edu press in general. If I represented myself as some type of expert on Rafe Esquith, then I misrepresented myself. I meant only to represent myself as an expert on misguideness and as a person who is somewhat knowledgeable about the edu press (which, actually, I think I am relative to most of my colleagues). I hope that helps clear things up.<br /><br />I think it was pretty cool that GS linked the post after all and continued to engage even after the update. I don't mind saying that when these people started GS in the late oughts, they didn't know Jack about edu. They are now pretty much experts and I've noticed that they have become so because they're always engaging people. (To that end, I sort of figured they'd think about a link back.) I think you should continue engaging as well (anywhere and everywhere you can). Perspectives like yours need to be part of the discussion, otherwise the Rhees of the world move in to fill the vacuum. Not a good look. <br /><br /><br />As to whether or not I've read him, the (long) explanation I gave was that I'm pretty sure I read one back in '07, but because my daughter had just been born and because of how I approach books like this in general, I didn't come away with the same shock to the psychology that you described. Feel free to drop me a line anytime for the full steam of thought on that. nycurbaned@gmail.com <br /><br />Thanks for the thought (and for reaffirming my belief that smart people really do read blogs!). <br />Ed<br />UrbanEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08044618498302353334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2624481082062651225.post-9642997066640011192013-07-18T11:33:12.148-07:002013-07-18T11:33:12.148-07:00Fun to read this. I take GS very seriously too an...Fun to read this. I take GS very seriously too and I like that they linked to your piece (how I found it). <br /><br />I agree with you that Esquith should be considered important - I agree with several of the perspectives he offers in the two books I checked out from the library last week (students need more time, his demand for excellence, his resistance to the insane make-work of the coffee and clipboard crowd). But since I'm now returning those two books - after reading only 50 pages - I'm curious if you'll reply to a suspicion I have. You didn't mention anything specific or quote from any of the books you touted. Maybe you didn't really read Esquith either? <br /><br />Maybe, even though he's (like you say) done some great things, and won awards, and important people like him, and he should correctly be acknowledged as LeBron-esque - we should acknowledge that we also don't read books by LeBron? Or did you watch "The Decision"? <br /><br />Maybe Esquith hanging out and working with little kids for 70 hours a week for more than a decade reveals an occupational hazard of a cartoony superficiality and insatiable megalomania - or maybe he was always that way. <br /><br />Many people who have read anything he's written will recognize the description - but if anybody's about to make the decision to read him should consider the example of his Atticus fixation. He describes (No Shortcuts) being denounced as a tyrant by three former students and considers suicide. Following that turmoil, and in an uncritical understanding of "To Kill A Mockingbird", he tries to base his life on the example of Atticus. He proudly relates at the end of a chapter, with no sign of awareness of the disturbingness of the fact or the telling, how one student signs letters to him as "Scout". <br /><br />Or maybe you actually have read his books because his ravaging insecurity and superficiality don't psychologically threaten you as much as they threaten my own attempt to offset my 9 months of classroom control and immersion in teenage thinking. <br /><br />It might be that his classroom work - like LeBron's work on the court - reveals genius and mostly remains untainted by the nuclear narcissism of both of their after-work remarks. I'd like to see him teach and would hope to see that he's not bending the little kids into just the shapes that best prop up his ravenous ego. andy shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760358232927133608noreply@blogger.com