The small number of Asian Americans who become K-12 teachers has often been noted. According to June Gordon of the University of California, Santa Cruz, the reasons usually advanced are the "same mainstream views that are offered for overall lack of participation by minority students in general, claiming that low wages and multiple career choices are the principal obstacles within a context of continuing racial discrimination." Other hypotheses include the disrespectful way Asian teachers are treated in American schools and the "prestige hypothesis," which proposes that Asians prefer a career requiring technical expertise in an environment where racial discrimination is minimal. Gordon's research appears in the February 2000 issue of Teachers College Record.

Gordon thought there might be more to it than that. She was particularly intrigued by the contrast between the reluctance of Asian Americans to enter teaching in the U.S. and the positive perception of teaching in their ancestral home countries. Her findings reveal a fascinating set of differences between Asians' perceptions of teaching and the perceptions noted in large-scale studies of would-be teachers.

Gordon's research began when a group of Asian students -- headed for careers in teaching - took her course on education and diversity but refused to complete an assignment on Lisa Delpit's work with African Americans and, instead, wrote about the variation in dialects of English in different Asian communities. This led Gordon to meet with the nine students Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean) to talk about issues concerning their entry into teaching. Gordon then invited them to write essays about what had led them to teaching. "The ideal images of teachers that emerged from the student essays included is patient, loves kids, committed, great person [erai hito], serves student needs, knows everything, and knows how to get students to understand." No matter what their nationality, all cited the influence of Chinese culture on their feelings about teachers and education.

Gordon then trained the students in interview techniques, worked with them to develop protocols for the various Asian cultures, and had the students interview other Asian Americans in a wide variety of occupations about how they perceived teachers and teaching. Some interviewees were recent immigrants or refugees, but some were fourth-generation Americans.

The students asked their informants, "Why do you think that Asian Americans are not selecting teaching as a career?" Gordon lists 10 major reasons, not in order of importance:

• Money.
• Lack of encouragement; parents more interested in kids' having high-paying, high-status jobs.
• Fear of losing face because of language facility or accent; fear of not being understood.
• Hesitancy to work with diversity; unable to understand kids' socialization; unable to control them; and limited exposure to blacks and Latinos.
• High expectations for teachers; young Asian people do not see themselves as good enough to be teachers.
• Too much responsibility; can't be responsible for other people's children and prefer one-on-one jobs such as counselor or social work.
• Chinese culture; not brought up to talk about self; not inclined to share.
• Little respect for teachers from students; inability to discipline through corporal punishment; no natural assumption that gives respect to elders.
• Hesitancy of talking in front of people; fear of loss of face and/or making mistakes, fear of being laughed at.
• Racism/discrimination; "Kids don't respect Asian teachers as much as white teachers."

Gordon and her students interpreted the interviews to reflect four major themes. The first was the intensity of parental pressure. The interviews "revealed an almost absolute acceptance of the career expectations, spoken and unspoken, of parents, family, and community. Parental attitude toward the teaching profession was the number-one factor in not choosing teaching. Parental influence was particularly definitive for first-generation Asian American students."

The interviewers also found that "high status was intricately entwined with high income." The informants moved easily between the two concepts, as if they were synonymous, noting repeatedly that both are very important within Asian culture. As one informant lamented, "I know that it is a stereotype, but you are pushed in the direction of high status and money, like medicine, law, biz. Teachers don't have the title of doctor." Readers of these columns might recall that the April 1992 edition reported that one reason for the success of Chinese students in school and college was that so many of their parents - in that sample, anyway - were small businessmen who did not want their children to take over the family business.

A sense of personal inadequacy defined the second theme. In fact, the factors of money and prestige "paled against the fear of incompetence in attempting to educate someone else's child." This was more than the uncertainty of youth; indeed, the informants claimed that the title of teacher had to be reserved for those who neared perfection. The decision was seen as a reflection of great arrogance on the part of the decision maker: "Being a teacher means you have to be qualified. If I were to tell my parents that I wanted to be a teacher, they would laugh at me and say `ne mo geegok' ["You're not good enough" in Cantonese]. But in the American sense, you don't have to be totally qualified because you learn as you teach. But in the Chinese way, you have to be perfect to teach."

According to Gordon, "Respect in the Chinese model is associated with structure, order, discipline, and reverence, all of which are dubious expectations for Asian Americans considering a career in teaching in America. The likelihood of entering a situation where respect is conferred on the basis of performance rather than position frightened many of the informants." This might be something the standards and high-stakes-testing folk might want to think about for a while.

Fear of working outside a comfort zone constituted the third theme. This included fear of having a "big effect" on other people's children. No one mentioned that the effect could be positive. It also included hesitancy in working with diverse ethnicities and cultures and a lack of control over students who were perceived as "unruly, undisciplined, and gang oriented." As noted above, possible language difficulties brought hesitancy. In addition, informants often said that they did not like to speak in front of strangers or to speak about themselves, as teachers often do.

The fourth theme involved a rejection of race-matched teaching. The informants felt that "once students grasped English, the important factor was quality of pedagogy, not ethnic background." In addition, the differences among Asian cultures emerged: "What could a Cambodian refugee have in common with a third-generation Japanese? That they are both 'Asian'?" In fact, some of the informants expressed negative feelings about the Asian American teachers they had had: "They were too Chinese; they expected too much."

Gordon concludes that "the paradoxes resulting from the findings are twofold. First, while the majority of the informants held teachers in very high esteem and attributed their own success to the quality of their education, they did not see the need for reinvestment of their talents and perspectives in aiding the next generation. Second, by alleging that the criteria for a teacher neared perfection and that stating one's interest in teaching could result in an accusation of hubris, informants were guided by unrealistic standards that prevent many talented Asian Americans from even considering teaching in the United States."