Caitlynn Peetz on teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you get all that from that tweet. Those two sentences are fine in and of themselves.

DP. Now that I have re-read her tweet, I agree with you. She's addressing those who think teachers are glorified babysitters, not saying that school is not childcare, as many teachers and teacher representatives did. But how many people really think that? I don't know any.

I think her "glorified babysitters" phrase is definitely hyperbolic, but I understood that to mean people who weren't aware of what a teacher actually does all day with their students.

Nobody is fully aware of what other professions do all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you get all that from that tweet. Those two sentences are fine in and of themselves.

DP. Now that I have re-read her tweet, I agree with you. She's addressing those who think teachers are glorified babysitters, not saying that school is not childcare, as many teachers and teacher representatives did. But how many people really think that? I don't know any.

I think her "glorified babysitters" phrase is definitely hyperbolic, but I understood that to mean people who weren't aware of what a teacher actually does all day with their students.

Nobody is fully aware of what other professions do all day.

True. And I think, despite all its drawbacks, virtual schooling did provide some parents with a window into what a teacher's job actually looks like these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you get all that from that tweet. Those two sentences are fine in and of themselves.

DP. Now that I have re-read her tweet, I agree with you. She's addressing those who think teachers are glorified babysitters, not saying that school is not childcare, as many teachers and teacher representatives did. But how many people really think that? I don't know any.

I think her "glorified babysitters" phrase is definitely hyperbolic, but I understood that to mean people who weren't aware of what a teacher actually does all day with their students.

Nobody is fully aware of what other professions do all day.

True. And I think, despite all its drawbacks, virtual schooling did provide some parents with a window into what a teacher's job actually looks like these days.

Is your argument that virtual learning made parents more empathetic towards teachers? Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

Having kids is a huge burden but you choose to have them. Most of the parents complaining are richer parents who could afford child care but prefered to spend their money on other things. Babysitters spend all day with kids.... summers, before school aged, after school....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

Having kids is a huge burden but you choose to have them. Most of the parents complaining are richer parents who could afford child care but prefered to spend their money on other things. Babysitters spend all day with kids.... summers, before school aged, after school....

Those are called nannies. Ad public school is not "free", everyone pays for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

Having kids is a huge burden but you choose to have them. Most of the parents complaining are richer parents who could afford child care but prefered to spend their money on other things. Babysitters spend all day with kids.... summers, before school aged, after school....

Those are called nannies. Ad public school is not "free", everyone pays for it.

No, they are called either one. And, you need a back up plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What Weingarten was essentially saying is, hey WE insisted in-person education is not essential, and now YOU all have finally come to your senses that it IS essential because it is not possible for parents to do teachers' jobs. Do you get how nonsensical that is?

You aren't doing a teachers job, you are doing the job of a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Weingarten was essentially saying is, hey WE insisted in-person education is not essential, and now YOU all have finally come to your senses that it IS essential because it is not possible for parents to do teachers' jobs. Do you get how nonsensical that is?

You aren't doing a teachers job, you are doing the job of a parent.

That's not correct. You are doing the job of a learning coach, supporting the education delivered virtually according to a schedule you did not establish as a parent. Learning coaches in online schools must spend more time being involved in their kids' online learning than they are in a traditional school arrangement. Acting as a learning coach throughout a business day is not an expected duty for parents of kids attending in-person school. Many online academies require parents to sign agreements acknowledging their responsibilities as learning coaches. When I looked at online learning for my kids, parents were that they should expect to devote 5-6 hours per day supervising their kids' online learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you get all that from that tweet. Those two sentences are fine in and of themselves.

DP. Now that I have re-read her tweet, I agree with you. She's addressing those who think teachers are glorified babysitters, not saying that school is not childcare, as many teachers and teacher representatives did. But how many people really think that? I don't know any.

I think her "glorified babysitters" phrase is definitely hyperbolic, but I understood that to mean people who weren't aware of what a teacher actually does all day with their students.

Nobody is fully aware of what other professions do all day.

True. And I think, despite all its drawbacks, virtual schooling did provide some parents with a window into what a teacher's job actually looks like these days.

Is your argument that virtual learning made parents more empathetic towards teachers? Lol

For some parents, it did. My empathy towards my kids' teachers only grew during virtual learning. I had new insights into their efforts, and I appreciated them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Weingarten was essentially saying is, hey WE insisted in-person education is not essential, and now YOU all have finally come to your senses that it IS essential because it is not possible for parents to do teachers' jobs. Do you get how nonsensical that is?

You aren't doing a teachers job, you are doing the job of a parent.

That's not correct. You are doing the job of a learning coach, supporting the education delivered virtually according to a schedule you did not establish as a parent. Learning coaches in online schools must spend more time being involved in their kids' online learning than they are in a traditional school arrangement. Acting as a learning coach throughout a business day is not an expected duty for parents of kids attending in-person school. Many online academies require parents to sign agreements acknowledging their responsibilities as learning coaches. When I looked at online learning for my kids, parents were that they should expect to devote 5-6 hours per day supervising their kids' online learning.

My kids are virtual. I am not a learning coach nor did we sign an agreement. I am a parent caring for, monitoring and supporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Weingarten was essentially saying is, hey WE insisted in-person education is not essential, and now YOU all have finally come to your senses that it IS essential because it is not possible for parents to do teachers' jobs. Do you get how nonsensical that is?

You aren't doing a teachers job, you are doing the job of a parent.

That's not correct. You are doing the job of a learning coach, supporting the education delivered virtually according to a schedule you did not establish as a parent. Learning coaches in online schools must spend more time being involved in their kids' online learning than they are in a traditional school arrangement. Acting as a learning coach throughout a business day is not an expected duty for parents of kids attending in-person school. Many online academies require parents to sign agreements acknowledging their responsibilities as learning coaches. When I looked at online learning for my kids, parents were that they should expect to devote 5-6 hours per day supervising their kids' online learning.

My kids are virtual. I am not a learning coach nor did we sign an agreement. I am a parent caring for, monitoring and supporting.

You are doing this by choice. Because your kids apparently like virtual learning. And obviously, you have the time and ability to supervise them during the day. Not everyone has that ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

Having kids is a huge burden but you choose to have them. Most of the parents complaining are richer parents who could afford child care but prefered to spend their money on other things. Babysitters spend all day with kids.... summers, before school aged, after school....

Those are called nannies. Ad public school is not "free", everyone pays for it.

No, they are called either one. And, you need a back up plan.

You can screech "Back up plan!" all you want, that does not change a single thing except remind everyone how incredibly ridiculous your ilk are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caitlynn is now at Education Week rather than Bethesda Beat, alas. She wrote a nice piece on how 'the status of the teaching profession is at its lowest in five decades, new research suggests, which its authors say is “cause for national concern.”'

How could anyone have predicted that 2 years of telling parents that school wasn’t essential and that anyone should be capable of teaching their kids in a couple hours before bed each day would have an impact on the prestige of the teaching profession? I’m shocked.

Obviously, that was always ridiculous, but now we’re left picking up the pieces. We need to attract new teachers, which means increasing *starting* pay. We also need teaching positons to have a better work-life balance by building in more prep time during the school day.

That’s not what happened at all but always amusing to see this. Your revisionist history along with the rest of the angry (and usually overly defensive parents) is just sad. The majority pity people like you. I’m sure this version makes you feel better though, so we can play along.

Eh I remember seeing some pretty petty posts on the MCEA Twitter feed (which have since been scrubbed). Then there was this sort of rhetoric from Randi Weingarten.

The whole "school is not child care" line was a big F U to parents whose livelihoods and careers were at risk. It's also a pretty offensive (and I'd argue racist line, since you know they are contrasting themselves with child care teachers who are largely women of color while the teaching profession has been persistently White after teachers of color were shut out of public school teaching jobs after Brown v Board of Education), as well as untrue (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/opinion/coronavirus-schools-child-care-centers.html ). To suggest that teachers' unions didn't contribute at all to the low public perception of their profession is just ridiculous.

I say this as someone who put my grudge to the side and voted for every single Apple Ballot candidate for school board (not because they were on the Apple Ballot but because they were the most qualified candidates).

I see nothing wrong with Randi Weingarten's rhetoric there. Your comments seem like a non sequitur.

The biggest issue is the term "babysitters". The implication which is abundantly clear (and even more clear in the "SCHOOL IS NOT CHILD CARE" shrieking early in the pandemic) is that Weingarten wants to make crystal clear that teachers for school-age children are a higher life form than child care teachers that provide care for young children, and for older children during the summer and after school. A babysitter is a person who watches one or two children for a couple of hours during date night. To equate child care teachers with "babysitters" is so unbelievably offensive and I can't believe it was so widely accepted

But the other issue is just the complete denial that virtual school was a massive burden for parents. Was it the right thing to do, especially at first? Yes. But it was really hard for a lot of parents and Weingarten acts like this is some sort of "gotcha". It is not a respectful way to advocate for the teaching profession.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you get all that from that tweet. Those two sentences are fine in and of themselves.

DP. Now that I have re-read her tweet, I agree with you. She's addressing those who think teachers are glorified babysitters, not saying that school is not childcare, as many teachers and teacher representatives did. But how many people really think that? I don't know any.

I think her "glorified babysitters" phrase is definitely hyperbolic, but I understood that to mean people who weren't aware of what a teacher actually does all day with their students.

Nobody is fully aware of what other professions do all day.

True. And I think, despite all its drawbacks, virtual schooling did provide some parents with a window into what a teacher's job actually looks like these days.

Is your argument that virtual learning made parents more empathetic towards teachers? Lol

For some parents, it did. My empathy towards my kids' teachers only grew during virtual learning. I had new insights into their efforts, and I appreciated them.

Well then, the only answer is to go back to virtual and let more parents gain "insights" into the efforts made by teachers lol

Some of us don't need to literally see other professions in action to respect them. But it's no surprise that teachers seem to think this is necessary since they have zero respect for professions outside their own. Like, you all insist on being called "educators" but demand that anyone who cares for children and isn't a K-12 teacher is a "babysitter". GTFOOH you self-centered witches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, one of the biggest changes is that teachers themselves will not recommend teaching as a profession. Back when I was in high school, teachers were always telling me that I’d make the perfect teacher, my family encouraged me to go into teaching, and the job just seemed enticing. After I got my degree, I absolutely loved the job (not every minute, obviously, but as a whole, it really was great. Now, with 20 years of teaching experience, I have already told my daughter that she needs to stay away. Schools aren’t safe, the job isn’t enjoyable, and public perception is terrible. My colleagues are also warning everyone to stay away from the major. Graduates will continue to decline. But, what needs to be understood, is how little my salary contributes to how I feel about the job. Increasing the salary will not change education! Teachers need to feel safe!!! Classes need to be manageable! And the home/life balance needs to be restored.

I became a teacher in the late 90s. Both my parents were teachers & told me *then* not to enter the profession. The demeaning of teachers has been going on for decades, likely before I became aware of it, but certainly with the Bush rhetoric about the "bigotry of low expectations" that basically posited that the achievement gap was due to the negative attitudes of lazy, ineffective teachers. The ed reform movement pushed for standardized testing, scripted curriculum, all to remove the teacher from the equation. I personally think this is the logical end result of those decades of pushing for teachers to have less agency in public school classrooms.

[Anonymous]

16:35 here - also, I love Caitlynn Peetz & am very happy for her new gig altho I miss her excellent reporting on MCPS.