logo
Opinion: The Voices We Don't Hear: Teachers Who Gave Up

Opinion: The Voices We Don't Hear: Teachers Who Gave Up

Yahoo22-05-2025

A version of this essay originally appeared on Robert Pondiscio's SubStack.
Earlier this month, I was flattered to be invited to a conference at Marquette University Law School, sparked by an article I'd written making the case that education reform has misfired by prioritizing testing, measurement, accountability, and other structural reforms instead of trying to improve classroom practice.
A highlight of the convening was the final panel of the day, featuring four teachers and administrators who acknowledged that many of the challenges I cited—poor preparation, chronic problems with student behavior and classroom management, and the overwhelming demands placed on teachers—were real and concerning. But they pushed back politely on my assertion that we have made teaching 'too hard for mere mortals.' I was particularly struck by remarks from Taylor Thompson, an earnest and winningly dedicated first-year fourth-grade teacher from Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
'[Teaching is] not an impossible task. It's demanding. It's hard. Each day is not rainbows and singing and dancing,' she said, but it's not impossible 'if you are a collaborative person, work with your peers, and you have a community of coworkers and principals who don't allow you to silo into your own rooms and do your own thing. It can be a very, very empowering job.'
Thompson brought with her materials from the Core Knowledge Language Arts curriculum; having worked on CKLA's launch during my time at the Core Knowledge Foundation, I was heartened that it contributed to her success. That said, I couldn't help but wonder if her first-year experience would be different—if she'd even have had the time and energy to come to Marquette at all—had she not been given CKLA but an empty plan book, and expected to spend 10, 20, or more hours a week scouring Google, Share My Lesson, or Teachers Pay Teachers for lesson plans and materials?
When it was my turn to respond, I told the audience that what they'd just heard didn't contradict my argument; it amplified it. I suggested to my hosts that what we really needed was one more panel: earnest, well-intended people who wanted to teach but grew overwhelmed and walked away from their classrooms. Their absence from the conversation—not a flaw of Marquette's thoughtful event but a field-wide oversight—limits our ability to address the issues driving nearly half of teachers to quit within five years. Those stories are legion.
Related
After leaving the classroom, I worked briefly at an outfit called Prep for Prep under Ed Boland, who later left the organization to teach in a New York City public high school armed with little more than idealism. His 2016 memoir, The Battle for Room 314, described the relentless student misbehavior, homophobic slurs, and physical fights he endured. He wasn't a minimally prepared Teach For America corps member or, like me, the product of an 'alt cert' teacher prep program. He had two years of graduate school and six months of student teaching that he described as 'a mix of folk wisdom, psycho-jargon, wishful thinking, and out-and-out bullshit.'
After one freakishly difficult year, Boland returned to his old job. 'I had taken courses in lesson planning, evaluation, psychology, and research. Next to nothing was said about what a first-year teacher most needs to know: how to control a classroom,' he wrote.
NPR's All Things Considered not long ago ran a story about Liz Stepansky, the daughter of two school teachers who wanted to follow in their footsteps, thinking teaching would be a path to a stable, meaningful life. But when she took a job teaching at a South Carolina middle school, she found that she 'had no idea' what she was in for. Her middle school students 'dialed 911, threw balloons filled with bleach and ink in hallways and constantly pulled the fire alarm.''I'd go home and sometimes I'd spend an hour grading papers. And then I'd go back the next day and do it all over again,' she told NPR. 'I remember my paycheck being $800 and something every two weeks.' She transferred to another school, faced similar frustrations and threw in the towel. She's now a speech pathologist.
It's not hard to find stories of earnest, well-intended people who want to teach but find the job untenable. But I can't recall hearing from a single one at any of the education and policy conferences I've attended over the last twenty years.
Inattention to abandoned careers and disappointed hopes allow false and misleading narratives to gain traction. Last summer, I was invited to give testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Senator Bernie Sanders was proposing a $60,000 minimum teacher salary to address teacher shortages. 'By all means, pay teachers more,' I testified. 'But don't harbor any illusions that doing so will solve the problem.'
Higher pay doesn't fix shoddy preparation, unruly classrooms, or the ever-escalating burdens we pile on teachers' plates as we treat schools as not just academic spaces but something akin to the social service agencies of last resort. 'We are asking teachers to do too many things to do any of them well at any salary,' I said.
Teaching's aspirational nature attracts optimists, but crushing demands betray them. A RAND study I cited in my Senate testimony found 99% of elementary teachers create their own materials, stealing time from honing their craft and working more closely with children and their parents. A 2024 Pew survey showed only 36% of teachers feel adequately resourced; a 2022 NEA poll revealed nearly half plan to quit due to poor school climate. These are systemic failures, not personal ones.
Related
Teaching is among our most optimistic and aspirational professions, drawing idealists who believe education can transform lives. But celebrating only the successes—teachers who beat the odds, schools that defy demographics—distorts our vision. As I quipped at Marquette, it's like watching Aaron Judge hit 62 home runs and concluding, 'See? It can be done!'
And it can—if you're Aaron Judge.
Other fields learn from failure—medicine from misdiagnoses, aviation from crashes. I urged Marquette's audience to imagine a panel of teachers who quit—not to shame them, but to learn. What broke their optimism? What tools were missing? Thompson's success shows what's possible with support. But for every Thompson, countless idealists leave because they were overmatched, felt unprepared or betrayed by poor training or simply couldn't manage chaos.
A few days later, Alan Borsuk, who organized and moderated the event at Marquette, told me about a conversation he'd had with a school administrator who was in attendance who disagreed with the notion that teachers who leave are failures. 'She said one of the best teachers they have whose students have done well for year after year is leaving after this year,' Alan said. That teacher, she insisted, was not a failure.
Exactly! That teacher didn't fail. We failed that teacher.
Education reform must weigh frustration alongside triumph. We need convenings where former teachers speak without judgment: their failures and frustration studied, not stigmatized.
There's no magic wand that will make the job easy or friction-free, but when you connect with students and go home feeling successful, there's no job that compares to being a classroom teacher. You feel on top of the world. It's immensely satisfying work.
The question ed reformers and policymakers need to ask now is what can we do to make more teachers feel successful and their jobs more doable.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade
Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' [Read: The case for a big, beautiful military parade] Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal–NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. [Read: The all-volunteer force is in crisis] A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents 'scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve. A version of this essay originally appeared on AEIdeas from the American Enterprise Institute. Article originally published at The Atlantic

At ‘CPAC of the center,' Democratic moderates beat up on the left
At ‘CPAC of the center,' Democratic moderates beat up on the left

Boston Globe

time4 days ago

  • Boston Globe

At ‘CPAC of the center,' Democratic moderates beat up on the left

The Democrats in the room aimed to put a new sheen on — and perhaps some more spine in — what has long been tagged as the mushy middle, arguing that they are the majority-makers the party needs in 2026 and beyond to take control of Congress. It was a wonky gathering where center-left Substack pundit Matthew Yglesias was greeted like a rock star and Lakshya Jain, a data-crunching analyst, detailed a ratings system to show which Democratic lawmakers had the highest candidate-quality WAR — Wins Above Replacement — a term borrowed from baseball analytics. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This room may be full of nerds,' said Andrew Mamo, a Democratic strategist who attended the conference, WelcomeFest. 'But the focus is how to not look like losers and how to not be losers.' Advertisement This event was not the place to debate the finer points of policy. There was glancingly little discussion beyond what would sell with voters. If some called it the 'CPAC of the center' — after the big right-wing confab — there was far less red meat, and more crudités (a platter of chopped peppers, carrots, and cauliflower was served in the back). Advertisement Instead, the thrust of the day's discussion was dismissing the party's left wing as an anchor to Democratic chances to win national elections. Scattered potshots were aimed at the activist group Indivisible throughout the day, with Representative Jared Golden of Maine, who represents the most pro-Trump district of any Democrat in the House, calling it 'a hypernational organization with a very single-minded agenda.' One of the event's organizers wore a West Virginia University football jersey — bearing the name and number of former Senator Joe Manchin from when he played quarterback at the school. Interns distributed buttons urging people to sign up for a movement to keep the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices. Some of the advice felt like Politics 101. 'A key to success in politics is to talk to people and to find out what they're saying,' Representative Tom Suozzi of New York told the audience. 'It has to be informed by real-life experiences.' A parade of Democrats who had won in hostile districts and swing states offered paeans to pragmatism. 'Being on 'Team Normal' right now really helps,' said Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who was tapped to deliver the party's response to President Trump's first congressional address this year. 'People want practicality.' The conference took place at the Hamilton Hotel in Washington as allies of the Blue Dog Coalition, the most moderate faction among House Democrats, are forming a new super PAC and an allied nonprofit group ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Blue Dogs have long had their own PAC, but never independent entities that can take unlimited donations. The new nonprofit, which has not been previously reported, will be called the Blue Dog Action Fund, with Aisha Woodward, a former chief of staff to Golden, serving as executive director and overseeing a staff of five. Advertisement 'We're willing to get involved in primaries, but our goal is to win the House majority,' said Phil Gardner, who will be a senior adviser to the groups and is a former campaign manager for RepresentativeMarie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state, a Blue Dog leader. 'Which is going to require winning in seats that Trump won.' The gathering Wednesday was organized by Welcome PAC and supported by an array of center-left groups on and off Capitol Hill. Notably absent from the day's panels, discussions, and side conversations, that included a handful of former Biden administration and campaign aides, was the standard Democratic talk about abortion rights, gay rights, and the importance of Black voters to the party. To a crowd that was mostly white, Jain said his research had found that the race and gender of a candidate did not matter. Michael Ceraso, a progressive operative who made his way in, quipped: 'It's a good place to source a lot of white people.' At one point, when RepresentativeRitchie Torres of New York was speaking, left-wing protesters stormed the stage chanting 'Free Palestine' and unfurling banners about genocide. The event organizers blasted the Carly Simon anthem 'You're So Vain,' from the sound system during the interruption. Liam Kerr, a cofounder of Welcome PAC who wore the West Virginia jersey, said the center was newly energized to take on the party's left. 'Going against the status quo is always fun,' he said. This article originally appeared in Advertisement

Jeff Bezos's Washinton Post Plans to Add Random Opinion Writers Edited by AI
Jeff Bezos's Washinton Post Plans to Add Random Opinion Writers Edited by AI

Gizmodo

time4 days ago

  • Gizmodo

Jeff Bezos's Washinton Post Plans to Add Random Opinion Writers Edited by AI

Given how artificial intelligence's pitfalls dominate the daily news cycle, you'd think that the media industry would take a cautionary approach to AI. Yeah, think again. In an effort to boost readership, the Washington Post plans to expand its opinion section to include newbie writers who will be guided by artificial intelligence. Since April, the Post has worked on scaling an initiative to bring new voices to the paper. Multiple people confirmed with the New York Times that the program, dubbed Ripple, involves publishing established Substack writers and nonprofessionals. On the surface, it sounds similar to previous contributor models utilized (not necessarily successfully) by the Huffington Post and Forbes. The biggest difference is that the Post won't guide new writers with a human. That's way too basic. Instead, the outlet will use Ember, an AI coach, to oversee the process. Per the Times, its current prototypes include a 'story strength' tracker and a sidebar laying out basic components like 'early thesis', 'supporting points,' and 'memorable ending'. It also features a live assistant to deliver writing prompts and help shape content. Each article, which will be published outside of the Post's usual paywall, will still be reviewed by a human before it goes live. Per the Times, Ember will begin testing this fall. But why test it at all? We've seen this exact same scenario play out before. Just two years ago, CNET came under fire after publishing AI-guided articles with barely any disclosure. Although editor-in-chief Connie Guglielmo later stated that each story was 'reviewed, fact-checked and edited by an editor with topical expertise', Futurism broke down how one of the articles highlighted by Guglielmo was riddled with errors. The Post has struggled to successfully adapt to the ever-changing media landscape. Last year, it launched a new subscription model in an attempt to boost revenue after losing $77 million. But a fancy subscription model can't save you if you're led by dickheads. In January, the Post laid off about 4 percent of its workforce in an effort to recoup losses. Just a month later, owner Jeff Bezos' controversial overhaul of the opinion section (which prompted opinion editor David Shipley to immediately resign) cost the outlet over 75,000 digital subscribers. Artificial intelligence could potentially be useful for journalism. Currently, the Times uses it to shift through large databases and recommend articles. Except Ember is being given a much more significant role. And given that journalists at multiple outlets, including the Atlantic and Politico, are pushing back against AI, the Post's entire plan seems especially ridiculous. But hey, what the hell do we know?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store