Why do so many educated professionals look down on teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed this among the upper middle class types who gloat about their credentials and say they "believe in education" - yet they don't revere teaching as a career. It's not something to be mentioned in the same breath as lawyers, MDs and MBAs - and certainly not something they'll boast about their own children doing. They see teachers as people who couldn't cut it in the "real world" and don't respect teachers as professionals - even upper middle class liberals seem to buy into the charter school hype. Let's replace experienced teachers with 23-year-old Harvard grads who did it as a "public service" stint before going onto law school or Wall Street.

This article in the Washington Post, although 2 years old, is bang-on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-people-look-down-on-teachers/2012/09/14/0347c52a-fddf-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_blog.html

maybe you just hang out with stuck up people or are projecting your views as someone else's.

[Anonymous]

Could be OP is insecure about something...

[Anonymous]

One of the unintentional consequences of increasing opportunities for women in the 70s meant that the teaching force declined in quality. Bright female college graduates used to be mostly limited to teaching, but now they go to law school, medical school etc. instead. Not justifying a return to the sexist division of labor of the 1950s, but now the teaching profession needs to work harder to attract top quality applicants.

[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.

*Standing and applauding the PP.*

Truly, imagine if medicine were based on cure rates. We'd have a surplus of dermatologists and a dearth of oncologists.

Let's also think about the incentive structure that would be created if pay were tied to performance. Teachers will vie for positions teaching the students most likely to succeed-- the kids who already have economic, parental, and social advantages. The best teachers would get those jobs while the worst teachers would be left with the kids who most need a skilled, thoughtful, dedicated teacher. Frankly, those advantaged students will pretty much succeed regardless of their teachers' ability, whereas an excellent teacher can change the life of an at-risk kid. Teachers are not in it for the pay, and young, idealistic teachers would certainly be drawn to positions teaching the neediest kids. But those young teachers will eventually have families and economic demands, probably right about the time they really have the experience to be at the top of their game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm a project manager. When people below me don't perform, I either let them go or get them moved into a new position with different responsibilities or I invest a lot of time in training them up. In the meantime, someone else does their job for them (often, me).

So, what do you think, should I suggest my teacher spouse kick poor performing students out? Or just move them to a different classroom so they can be someone else's problem? Or maybe he should take their standardized tests for them until they can perform up to par?

Or maybe we should consider teaching no different from sales. Kids, just widgets after all.

I don't think you are nearly as clever as you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the unintentional consequences of increasing opportunities for women in the 70s meant that the teaching force declined in quality. Bright female college graduates used to be mostly limited to teaching, but now they go to law school, medical school etc. instead. Not justifying a return to the sexist division of labor of the 1950s, but now the teaching profession needs to work harder to attract top quality applicants.

this is true. I teach college. Yes, there are really smart, talented kids going into teaching (usually secondary school teaching). But there are tons who are pretty much some of my worst students. incurious and uninterested. The major just doesn't draw the best and brightest. And I can't imagine it is going to get better as we strip teachers of their autonomy. No one who whants to be a professional is going to read from curriculum scripts provided by the state (this pretty much happened to my mom - and she left the profession) .

[Anonymous]

I always thought the most humiliating part of being a teacher would be not being able to get up and get a cup of coffee or go to the bathroom or make a phone call whenever you liked. To me, part of being a professional is having a fair amount of autonomy and flexibility over how I spend my time.
I'm not sure how we fix this, but in my mind, that's why being a teacher doesn't feel like a professional job, and it might explain why so few people who have other prospects are willing to sign up for it.
Remember how awful you felt with morning sickness? Remember how hard it was to do your regular job? Now imagine having to puke and being up in front of thirty kids, on your feet, all morning with no opportunity to excuse yourself and be sick. I'm wondering if that's where we lose the great teachers. THere's not a lot of recommend a scenario with so little freedom or autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always thought the most humiliating part of being a teacher would be not being able to get up and get a cup of coffee or go to the bathroom or make a phone call whenever you liked. To me, part of being a professional is having a fair amount of autonomy and flexibility over how I spend my time.
I'm not sure how we fix this, but in my mind, that's why being a teacher doesn't feel like a professional job, and it might explain why so few people who have other prospects are willing to sign up for it.
Remember how awful you felt with morning sickness? Remember how hard it was to do your regular job? Now imagine having to puke and being up in front of thirty kids, on your feet, all morning with no opportunity to excuse yourself and be sick. I'm wondering if that's where we lose the great teachers. THere's not a lot of recommend a scenario with so little freedom or autonomy.

I never thought that job prestige was connected to bathroom access. Live and learn.

[Anonymous]

at our w elementary school, which includes a lot of highly educated and high income parents, i don't get the sense anyone looks down on teachers.

to the contrary, i think everyone i know is very respectful. it could be because there are a surprising number of teachers at our school that had other, higher paying careers they left because they love to teach children. there are also a handful of teacher that are local to the community and either grew up nearby or live in the neighborhood (their husbands or wives work in higher paying jobs) so that could be part of it, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the issue is that most teachers are in public schools. Public sector employees in general aren't held in the highest regard. Another issue is that, while there are some fabulous teachers who could hold their own with any professional, the bar to become of teacher is pretty low. Education majors are a dime a dozen. Compare this to folks graduating with a JD, MD or Phd and you get the idea.

I work with PhD's every day. They are book smart in one particular topic but 99% of them have no common sense and they are the whiniest bunch of entitled brats God ever put on this earth. At least most teachers are decent human beings that you'd actually want to spend time with.

[Anonymous]

I am an aeducated professional and I value teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We're not PAID during those 8 weeks, genius. Many take classes to keep up with certification. Others train in special programs b/c their schools offer signatures. And others are working toward an advanced degree.

Interesting you bring up that you're not paid during those 8 weeks. That makes the "teachers are underpaid" trope even more ridiculous.

So where most of us are paid for 52 weeks, you're paid for 44 weeks (just using your numbers - I'm sure it is less but let's factor in days off equally across the two - even though we know teachers get more days off).

Average DC teacher pay of $77,512, spread across 44 weeks is equal to $91,605 if you were working a full year job.

Equivalent pay of $91k + lots of time off and a child-friendly schedule - no wonder so many people want to become teachers.

[Anonymous]

Truly, imagine if medicine were based on cure rates. We'd have a surplus of dermatologists and a dearth of oncologists.

I'm the MD, ex-science teacher. As a pediatric oncologist, this. I cannot explain how unfair it is to look at teacher's performance by outcomes instead of substantively looking at the instructor's teaching practices? Yes, I know observations are burdensome, particularly unannounced ones, but if you want good teachers you need to do things like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're not PAID during those 8 weeks, genius. Many take classes to keep up with certification. Others train in special programs b/c their schools offer signatures. And others are working toward an advanced degree.

Interesting you bring up that you're not paid during those 8 weeks. That makes the "teachers are underpaid" trope even more ridiculous.

So where most of us are paid for 52 weeks, you're paid for 44 weeks (just using your numbers - I'm sure it is less but let's factor in days off equally across the two - even though we know teachers get more days off).

Average DC teacher pay of $77,512, spread across 44 weeks is equal to $91,605 if you were working a full year job.

Equivalent pay of $91k + lots of time off and a child-friendly schedule - no wonder so many people want to become teachers.

But you're not working a full-year job. Teachers can't pay the mortgage with the money they would earn if they were paid for 52 weeks.

And "no wonder so many people want to become teachers" indeed. If being a teacher is so grand, why aren't all the high-achievers striving to become teachers instead of doctors>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But you're not working a full-year job. Teachers can't pay the mortgage with the money they would earn if they were paid for 52 weeks.

WTH does that even mean?