When you鈥檝e been around as long as I have, one gets all manner of intriguing questions. While I usually respond to such queries in private, some seem likely to be of broader interest. So, in 鈥淎sk Rick,鈥� I occasionally take up reader queries. If you鈥檇 like to send one along, just send it to me, care of Greg Fournier, at greg.fournier@aei.org.
Dear Rick,
I haven鈥檛 seen you write about this, but I鈥檓 curious about your take on 鈥済row your own鈥� programs to get high schoolers interested in the teaching profession. We鈥檝e started trying to do this in my district, and it strikes me as a sensible idea. I鈥檝e heard good things about the idea and I saw a really compelling conference presentation last year. But I鈥檓 curious if you鈥檝e had experience with it and whether you have any suggestions or see any pitfalls.
Sincerely,
Grow 鈥橢m Up
Dear Grow 鈥橢m,
This is such a great question, so thanks for raising it. I鈥檒l admit to having mixed feelings about all this. My bottom line? Not much in the way of practical suggestions, sympathy for the impulse, but also a tendency to think that these efforts aren鈥檛 a good idea.
For starters, I鈥檒l note that I鈥檝e been familiar with 鈥済row your own鈥� ever since Harvard鈥檚 Kennedy School asked me to evaluate Broward County鈥檚 Urban Teacher Academy Program for its Innovation in Government competition 15 or 20 years ago (Broward won an award). I spent a few days on the ground interviewing the architects, educators, and students. I came away struck by the thoughtfulness of the program鈥攊ncluding the way participating high schoolers were mentored, how their interest was channeled into tutoring for elementary students, and how they were provided with a path to a free college degree.
Thus, my only real suggestion is my standard-issue go-to: The execution matters. It was the particulars鈥攔egarding finances, logistics, mentoring, and supports鈥攖hat made this work so well. So, here鈥檚 my one tip: If you decide to do this, how you do it matters.
That said, I fear I鈥檓 skeptical of the whole notion. Now, let me qualify this up front: I loved teaching, I think teaching is a worthy profession, and I get why school leaders would view grow-your-own programs as both practical and inspirational.
Earlier this spring, James Lane, the CEO of PDK International, captured the sentiment nicely, urging schools to host ceremonies honoring high schoolers who pledge to become teachers because 鈥渨e think this is as big of a deal as announcing that you鈥檙e going to play women鈥檚 basketball at [the University of] Iowa, or men鈥檚 basketball at the University of North Carolina. It鈥檚 just as big of a deal when kids announce鈥� they intend to 鈥済ive a life of service to children.鈥�
Indeed, each year, PDK鈥檚 Educators Rising program sponsors a national signing day during which local chapters have high school seniors sign a pledge that they鈥檒l become teachers. Especially if you work in or around schools, the case for encouraging students to embrace meaningful, reliable work they can pursue in their community has a practical appeal. But the more I sit with the whole notion, the more concerns I have.
When a high school senior tells me what their profession will be, I take it with several grains of salt. In fact, I actively advise high school seniors (and college seniors, for that matter) to be open-minded about the kind of work they want to pursue. I tell them that they鈥檒l meet new people, encounter new ideas, discover new passions, and develop new interests, and that this may shape the kind of work they want to do. That鈥檚 the message I鈥檇 like schools to be sending. The premise of grow your own strikes me as being at odds with that.
One of the nice things about signing up to play college sports is that this is a decision about what to do next year. It鈥檚 not a pledge about what one鈥檚 future self will do in four years, much less a commitment by an impressionable teen to 鈥渁 life of service.鈥�
After all, I think very few people really know what they want to do when they鈥檙e 17 or 18. Indeed, part of the rationale for students going to college is that it鈥檚 an opportunity to see the world in new ways, discover new passions, and explore new avenues. Asking college-goers who鈥檝e spent the lion鈥檚 share of their young lives in a schoolhouse to commit to a profession before receiving their high school diploma seems ... well, it seems very much at odds with the notion of education as a formative, evolutionary endeavor.
The case for grow your own is that, since most teachers work within 20 miles of where they went to high school, district leaders should tap into their own students to ensure a sustainable supply of teachers. As PDK鈥檚 Lane puts it, 鈥淪chool districts spend a lot of money on HR and recruiting. But their best recruiting tool is actually with the kids in their community and convincing them that education is a great life, and you can make a difference.鈥�
Again, I get the argument. It鈥檚 logical enough. And yet, it strikes me as profoundly problematic. This seems like the apotheosis of putting the needs of 鈥渢he system鈥� over those of the kid. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 healthy or appropriate for school districts to be in the business of 鈥渃onvincing鈥� students to pursue a given career. And I鈥檓 especially leery of schools trying to use their special relationship with students to 鈥渃onvince them that education is a great life鈥� because it makes staffing a school district more manageable.
Now, let me be clear: I鈥檓 fine with helping students appreciate the importance and rewards of teaching. But I think that should be no different from what schools are doing to help students do the same when it comes to other crafts, trades, and professions. The point should be to help students find career paths that appeal to them, not to steer students into avenues that serve the needs of school district officials. Whether grow-your-own programs ultimately have much of an impact on staffing (the jury is still out), I fear they fall short on that count.
