It seems that, at least in the DC area, teachers can't afford homes. If one subscribes to the Hillary Clinton theory, that it takes a village to raise and educate a child, what is the impact when one of the key actor's in a child's education doesn't live in the village? What if the person, in this case a teacher, can't live in the village because they can't afford a house in the village? Is the education of the child compromised? I believe the answer is yes because there is not enough of a community connection between parents, students and teachers.
By homes, I mean either a townhouse or an actual single-family home. Sociologists will tell you that in order for a person to feel as though they belong to a community there must be some sense of roots, or connection within the community. One of the primary methods by which people put down roots or build connections with a community is by owning a home.
Teachers play a significant role in our community, but when the teachers of our children are not accessible outside of the school, it presents difficulties, both for the families and the teachers, to develop a relationship outside of school. If you are wondering what I mean, take an example from my own childhood. As a kid, my teachers lived in the same middle-class neighborhood as I did. I played soccer with their kids, we saw some of them at church and my parents knew my teachers socially outside of school. What all this meant is that teachers were a physical part of the community where I went to school. The connections outside of the school meant that teachers, students and the parents had a basis from which to communicate that was not predicated on the parent-teacher-student relationship. In short, although not necessarily friends, at least there was a common understanding between my parents and my teachers. Even though my parents may have been too busy for regular parent-teacher conferences in a formal setting, informal conferences sprung up at church, at the soccer fields, and other community events.
However, in far too many cities across the country, where the connection between teacher and families is already too tenuous, the relationship is becoming more so--all because teachers cannot afford to live in the places where they teach. Particularly in larger cities and suburban areas, teachers are forced by poor salaries to live in areas far from their schools, meaning a punishing commute both ways. Since teachers are not seen outside of the school setting, there is no common understanding or common viewpoint between parents and teachers. Parents don't respect the teacher because they feel the teacher doesn't understand their kids or their situation. Teachers can't understand their students because they live so far away, outside of the teacher's living environment, and away from interactions withing the community. So the only time parents and teachers see each other is in the framework of the school. Such an arrangement does not make either the parents or hte teachers feel as though they are part of a community with a role in the education or rearing of kids. They feel more like merchants or service providers, operating at arm's length, with a tenously connected goal.
As housing prices increase, teacher's (and many others) cannot afford homes in the communities they serve. While I can offer no solution for the problem of increased housing prices, and it is unlikely that communities can easily force teachers to live where they teach (at least not without substantial differences in pay among teachers in a state), the problem does present a tough scenario.
Housing Costs Pushing Teachers Far From School
No comments:
Post a Comment