Why do so many educated professionals look down on teachers?

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP from a rural area where teachers are respected.

I think a lot of people are confusing the strenuousness or ease of the college classes for teaching with the actual social/emotional skills it takes to teach. Those skills are what makes teaching hard... kids are so different. You are dealing with personalities and different home support and different parent personalities and expectations. Having the social and emotional IQ to react to all of those variable AND still get the kids to learn something is quite a feat.

The substance of the academics is not the "hard" part of teaching -- that's where people who claim Education degrees are easy are missing the boat. Criminal Justice classes are pretty easy too -- same with psych -- but being a police officer or therapist is HARD. Same with teachers. It's the art that's hard, not the technical substance.

[Anonymous]

My DS has had great and not so great teachers. The great ones have my utmost professional respect-- the "not so great" garner less respect. I have the same attitude toward any professional-- do a great job, earn respect.

OP I think you're speaking to feelings of superiority- people who think that they are "superior" are "a" holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think it is this Dc area where people do that. Where I grew up in a rural midwest town, there were many farmers and retail or tradespeople. Teachers were not looked down upon. They were respected and their word was believed over the kids if they reported back to the parents about a problem.

There are so many highly paid people in this area that many feel they rank higher than teachers. Our society estimates value by the salaries people are paid.

This. There are so many stuck up lawyers and executives in this area that look down on any profession that doesn't bring in at least $200,000. They live in a bubble afraid that if they associate outside a prescribed social circle that their bubble will break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2009/12/21/dc-schools-chief-michelle-rhee-fights-union-over-teacher-pay

From the article:
" Chancellor Michelle Rhee is pushing innovative but con­tentious ideas, one of which has garnered her national at­tention: whether teacher pay can be tied directly to stu­dent performance."

In what other industry would it be considered conentious and gain national attention if pay was tied for performance?

In what other industry is performance based on variables completely out of one's control? Do your billable hours not have enough to eat? Do they have a bed? Undiagnosed learning disabilities? Disinterested parents? A lack of background knowledge and experiences that the curriculum assumes they have? Oh, billable hours and people can't be compared? Ok, then.

Should doctors' pay be tied to the number of patients whose Type 2 diabetes they reverse? Therapists on the number of mental illnesses they cure? Dentists on the number of cavities a patient doesn't get due to their preventative education? Police officers on the number of crimes they prevent? Firefighters on the number of people who don't set their house on fire? By your logic, shouldn't their pay be tied to performance too?

As soon as other professionals who work with humans see their pay equitably tied to human performance then I'm all for it for teachers. Until then, not so much.

Sure, most industries your pay is tied to performance where some factors are out of your control. For example, a person in sales has a sales quota. They have on control over their customers' budgets, which affects their ability to meet that goal. Maybe their key customers are cutting back this year, went bankrupt, etc. Yet, the sales person's performance is tied to if their customers buy.

Or think of a project manager. Their performance is judged based on if they deliver the project on time. Their ability to do that depends on all the peopel working under them, as well as many other circumstances difficult to control. Maybe a supplier of a key component is running behind; maybe government permits took longer than expected; maybe there was severe weather and that prevented certain work from taking place.

Heck, walk into most retail (chain) stores at the mall, and ask if the head office has given them a sales goal for that day. I guarantee you they have. Can they control how many people come into the mall today and buy? Not entirely -- the weather is kind of cold and dreary today, so I bet mall attendance is lower than on a sunny December day. Yet, they'll be held accountable for meeting that quota, even if it's more difficult than usual.

Bottom line is that just about every job has performance goals, and meeting those usually depends on many factors not in direct control of that person. Why can't teachers be held accountable in the same situation as just about every other job?

[Anonymous]

Elementary school teachers seem to be very effective because they must have mastery of a broad base subject matter. However many have favorites and purposely use peer pressure as part their classroom management strategies. This practice places targets on the backs of certain children resulting in years of future bullying. Bullying is damaging to the bullied, but it is equally damaging to the bullies themselves because it gives them a false sense of security which will ultimately fail them in the long term.

Elementary school teachers are willing to sacrifice the security and mental health of individual students for the purpose of making their jobs easier.

Too many secondary school teachers lack adequate mastery of the subjects they teach. They teach from a rubric and are less than one page ahead of their students on any lesson they are teaching. They see no value in students who research or think outside of the box.

It's regratable, but few teachers are praise worthy.

[Anonymous]

they are embarrassed when they figure out teachers start making good salaries and have half the year off with giant pensions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because teachers unions are against pay and job security based on performance (results). In the real world, we get fired if we don't deliver.

Teachers deal more with the real world than you'd ever know. It's funny that you think your office/cube has anything to do with the real world.

Yes, witness Sandy Hook. This snobbery is a DC thing. People are so arrogant! In many small/medium towns in this country public school teachers are looked up to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

I wonder how many Fortune 500 executives fit that description (sociology BA, no graduate or professional school) I guess you're not concerned about his anonymity.

I bet a lot.

+1 The CEO of the company I work for didn't graduate from college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

I wonder how many Fortune 500 executives fit that description (sociology BA, no graduate or professional school) I guess you're not concerned about his anonymity.

I bet a lot.

+1 The CEO of the company I work for didn't graduate from college.

neither did a guy in my graduating class who now owns a multi-million dollar business

[Anonymous]

I don't look down on teachers at all. Is this really a common thing?

[Anonymous]

People on this board sure live in very elite circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't look down on teachers at all. Is this really a common thing?

In places like Chevy Chase and Chappaqua, yes.

[Anonymous]

1. Teacher education is too vocational

2. Union membership (liberal elites support unions for the masses but not for "true" professions)

3. Increasingly too much micromanagement of teachers (a level professional elites wouldn't accept for themselves)

4. Too common a profession to be "elite" (over 3 million primary and secondary teachers in the U.S.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could you elaborate?

Sure. I'm a big advocate of the "Finnish model." Since it performs well, the education "reformers" (reform isn't a bad thing, but a certain type of "reform" dominates the debate) sing praises to Finland, including Arne Duncan. For example the film Waiting for Superman praises the success of Finland but then trashes teachers unions and teacher education as useless, and says the TFA approach is better. In Finland, teachers are unionized, have master's degrees in education and there's no charter schools and no emphasis on "teaching to the test."

In Finland, there is also a homogeneous population; universal healthcare for all; long maternity and paternity leaves, and associated job security; universal high-quality low-cost daycare and preschool; and no poverty to speak of.

So, the job of a Finnish teacher does not compare to that of his/her U.S. Counterpart.

[Anonymous]

I look down on the education degree. And I definitely have know some pretty lackluster teachers. At the same time, I have deep respect for good teachers. There's no way I could do what they do day in and day out. Standing up in front of a class of kids, finding a way to connect and reach so many different personalities while maintaining some sense of order in a classroom. Going the extra mile to be there before and after school when kids need you -- that is worthy of anyone's respect and gratitude.