Should teachers be held accountable for student learning when home and social issues may be the root issue?

What if, for example, we pretend that you happened to be in need of a heart surgery. What if we also pretend that, because of your particular coronary problem you suddenly ended up at the hospital. Would it really be okay with you if just any doctor stepped in, ready to cut you open?

Maybe, oh, let’s say, a podiatrist. Sure, why not; let’s imagine that a truly excellent podiatrist chanced to be walking down the hospital corridor at the very moment you happened to require your heart surgery. Although, logically, as a doctor he or she would know a heck of a lot more than the average citizen about

medical issues, do you passively assume that any doctor, any medical employee, with any diverse background, passion or experience – any medical hire who happened by – would be best able to complete your heart surgery?

Golly. Now how about that attractively young and bouncily enthusiastic doctor right over there. That one, the one who graduated from college just yesterday. Gung-ho and ready to try

anything, yet lacking practicum; lacking internship; lacking, even, a carefully-vetted state license.

Oh, my. Does experience matter? Do practice, familiarity and long-term craft make a difference? Goodness. Now why are you fussing? In days bent so assertively to an über-compassionate public school reform when the average citizen has been so easily convinced that (well, at least for those politically irrelevant lowest-income schools) any teacher is a teacher; that experience and long-standing craft have no particular value; that educators in these schools should simply be damned glad to have a job.

Well, by this light, isn’t any doctor, no matter background, experience, loyalty or passion, simply a doctor? What if, in the effort to illustrate an additional point, we move you along; what if we say

that you are no longer the patient; what if we bump you up and make you the administrator: The person in charge of that hospital. If, as the administrator, in a suddenly imaginative effort

at saving money you decided that – oh well, hell? Overall, doctors are doctors are doctors. To be more cost effective, what if you abruptly decreed that any doctor employed inside your hospital

(despite particular skill set, passion, or years of experience) perform, on demand, any procedure.

Wouldn’t you get sued? Wouldn’t you get fired?

Changing things up just a touch more, let’s look at it one more way. Let’s imagine that you have not been hired to run a hospital, but a very large and very expensive big-money football team. If, after being put in charge of a truly massive financing, you decided to expend a sizable portion of your unfettered funding in the advertising of future miracles; if, expensively and repeatedly, you publicized your anticipated ability to provide that highly coveted winning season: Well, would it really make sense when, after expending so much of your budget in the promotion of your exceptional intentions, in a sudden effort at being more “cost effective” you disinterestedly intermingled your players – ignoring background, ignoring craft, ignoring personal ability, loyalty or passion?

If, arguing the need to save money, out of a top-down detachment you suddenly interchanged offense for defense, quarterback for receiver, kicker for linesman, all while exhorting your newer and more cost-friendly theory of an employee reform: Hell, they’re all football players, and being, thus, nothing more than football players, surely they should, each and every one of them, be able and willing to perform any athletic assignment (and be damned glad to be getting paid for it).

Well, would that work? Would you, in the end, get your endlessly promised and expensively advertised winning season? Yet more to the point: Would football fans sit back, year after year, to passively ignore your lack of interest in a player experience and ability – or would they show serious outrage by demanding your release?