JPA Blog: Too personal or emotional?

Click here to read about teacher turnovers at Jay Pritzker Academy for the 2013-2014 school year. 
Click here to read FAQs for prospective JPA teachers.

I'd like to address this issue of tone. A reader wrote in saying that they think if the tone of the blog were less personal or emotional, and more professional, it would be more successful in deterring teachers from working at the schools. The following post is not aimed at their intentions. I don't mind their comment at all; at the very least, it's food for thought.

However, I have a few points to address about being "too personal" or "too emotional."

1. This blog is a long-term project, not merely a glib comment from a disgruntled teacher. The idea of keeping this blog going is painful. Most teachers who leave JPA want to move on and forget about Steve McCambridge entirely. They don't want to rehash all the mistreatment they experienced, and I don't either. The reason I keep this up is because Steve is still there, humiliating the students on a daily basis, and I'm not there providing a line of defense for them anymore. And as I wrote in the blog's title, this is the only voice of dissent--so far. In the next point, I address why it was personal for me, and why it is personal for you, the prospective teacher.

2. What will happen to prospective teachers is very personal and emotionally volatile. Perhaps some readers think the blog sounds like it's coming from a disgruntled teacher, despite what I wrote above, and that prospective teachers may not take "emotional" appeal seriously. Well, unfortunately, it is very personal, and it will be personal for any teacher who chooses to work at JPA. You will definitely dip into your savings to move yourself and perhaps your partner all the way across the world. You will be asked to spend 10-12 hours of your day commuting, teaching, tutoring, grading, planning, collaborating, and literally sweating. You will be evaluated and judged not on your teaching ability but with arbitrary standards. You will be paid more or less depending on your students' test scores. You may be insulted by your superiors. You may not receive a recommendation. You may be fired for little to no reason because you signed an at-will contract. You may see these things happen to your friends. You may feel post traumatic stress disorder after you leave. You may become sick and not receive prompt health care. You will grow attached to the students. Your Khmer coworkers will ask you never to forget them, because you have the privilege to be able to leave JPA and Cambodia, but they do not. It's their home, and they are second class citizens at their job. This is personal and emotional--there's no way to skirt this fact.

3. Being personal does not mean unprofessional. What readers mean by having a "professional" tone is trying to present a situation neutrally, or reporting simply the facts. The problem with this approach is that it's disingenuous. I'm not a third party doing research. I have first hand experience of Steve, and receive accounts from others who also have personal experiences. The blog is not a study. It's here as an impetus for those who have stakes in the school to do something about him. I receive multiple emails a month asking whether or not they should apply, or if their daughters or sons should apply. I answer every single one personally, yet professionally. I tell them it's their decision, but I recount my experience and tell them about teacher and student treatment, as well as teacher turnover. Why do I still do this? Because as an experienced education professional, I am deeply concerned about the state of JPA. I don't want teachers going through what my colleagues and I went through. "Neutralizing" the language only waters down the teachers' and students' daily reality.

4. Containing emotion or personal connection does not make the blog irrational. This point deconstructs rhetoric--watch out! There are assumptions being made by those who insist that a "professional" tone is necessary to be credible or logical. The reader assumes that the narrative presented isn't necessarily accurate. The reader desires to reserve judgment until a more "authoritative" voice confirms the narrative. This is an oppressive way to insist on discourse because it invalidates those who are oppressed. Historically, it's common rhetoric that men use to discredit women's narratives, using words like "irrational, emotional, crazy, or hysterical," and that white oppressors use toward people of color, like invalidating microagressions. (Google it, I don't have time to attach the thousands of links.) I have had two teachers submit guest posts here and here, and a post from a student. They are also very personal and emotional. Their narratives should not be invalidated by comments about emotional tone.

One way to address that final point is for other teachers to write. I'm the only one right now. If there are more teachers who write about their experiences, then I won't be the only voice of dissent.

JPA Staff Update

The previous post was a pros and cons list for prospective teachers. Most poignantly, a student's email was included, one that describes Steve McCambridge and the current state of JPA.

Teachers from the previous school year have submitted a staff update.

For the 2013-14 school year, 17 new staff members were hired. Here is a report of what happened to 10 of them:

-Teacher 1's classes were reduced to one per day without warning, pay reduced. Teacher 1 quit. Steve and Naomi discussed Teacher 1 with the staff, then drafted a two-paragraph notice on due process: teachers will receive a verbal warning, then a written warning.
-Teacher 2 was verbally warned on a Friday, and fired the subsequent Monday.
-Teacher 3 & 4 complained to Steve about the fact that the Khmer staff cannot have their children attend the school but expats' children can. They were fired the day before Christmas break.
-Teachers 5, 6, 7, & 8 quit mid-year. They were all veteran teachers who could not withstand Steve's leadership any longer.
-Teacher 9 posted a picture on FB that was perceived to be negative to JPA and was fired.
-Teacher 10 made negative comments about the school around another teacher who took the "whistleblower" policy very seriously and reported her to the administration. She was fired immediately after her students took a crucial standardized test.
-Teachers 11-14 did not renew their contracts. Out of 17 new staff members, only 3 stayed on.

I understand that international/foreign schools have problems hiring dedicated and experienced teachers. They don't know if they're hiring a tourist-teacher or a professional teacher who really cares about the students. That being said, would you want to work at a school with a trigger-happy principal? Sure, maybe you think, I won't put up a stupid FB picture. I won't complain. I'll close my eyes to the inequality shown to the Khmer staff. I won't talk poorly of the admin while at school. But really, whatever you do, the odds are, you'll be fired, you'll leave mid-year, or you'll leave at the end of only a year. And it'll be a painful exit, without even so much as a reference.