Response to John Danahy's Latest

Ordinarily I do not respond to John Danahy's distortions, but in this case I choose to do so. It is unfortunate, I think, that there may be those who would choose to vote against the levy because John describes our local schools as "poor" then uses as a case in point the education received (or not received) by his own children. They were, and I'm sure continue to be, delightful individuals. When John's son graduated from high school John wrote a letter to the editor stating that his son had received a, "good but not great education." Actually I thought it was one of his milder attacks, but as a Moscow teacher I did grow weary of his continued assaults. John never acknowledged the three entities responsible for a student's education: the parents, the teachers, and the student himself. From John's position--at least from his written perspective--he very handily places the blame on the teachers and absolves the other two entities. So easy, but so unfair. And those who work in the district know that, but it would be considered unprofessional for them to reply with evidence from their experience as teachers of his children. I am retired now from Moscow School District, but I enjoyed a reputation as a good teacher and loved working with students and their parents. I know I had students who did not leave my class with all the knowledge I would have liked for them to have. And that pains me even today, for I know that while I could not force them to drink from that fountain of knowledge, it really was my job to try to make them thirsty. The fact that I worked with really outstanding professionals who, too, believed they had an obligation to make children thirsty for knowledge, was an exceptionally rewarding part of my career. Many of those outstanding professionals continue to teach in Moscow School District and they are not deserving of John's continued scorn.

[Date Prev]	[Date Next]	[Thread Prev]	[Thread Next]
[Date Index]	[Thread Index]	[Author Index]	[Subject Index]