Teacher Criticisms...(rant)

iuangina

BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?

Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.

VegesaurusRex

BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?

Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.

Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment

firefly171717

I am a teacher and would gladly take the pay of a babysitter!

Let's say that I charge $3/hour/kid. I have 27 kids in my class:

$3 x 27 = $81/hour

I am SCHEDULED to work from 8:45 - 4:15 (though I am usually at school before 8 and leave around 5):

$81 x 7 (taking out my lunch - 30 min.) = $567/day

I work 36 weeks per year, and that does account for summer break and other days off:

$567 x 5 days/week = $2835 x 36 weeks/year = $102,060/year

Now, I also have a MA in education, but I won't charge extra for my extra knowledge of how to better serve your children.

I make less than $40,000/year. So, PLEASE let me charge babysitter rates! I would love that!

^^Haha..>THIS...I CHOSE this undervalued and underpaid field because I am passionate about education. Those teachers who educated the nuckleheads that speak out against teachers are embarrassed.

EDIT: Apparently I'm a thread killer. But I wanted to say factor in the fact that there are no "laws" for the level of education a "babysitter" has to have - that's downright scary!

Nicely said

iuangina

BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?

Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.

Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment

I actually said that most government employees have a protected property right under the 5th amendment (14th amendment for the state). Teachers are government employees. So, I never said that teachers have a special right under the 5th amendment to be precise. Yes, tenure is a function of state and/or contract law. But it is tenure and expecation of job security that creates the protected property right that other employees don't have. So, in a sense the 5th/14th amendment create rights for those employees that not everyone has. Thus, it is not the same for everyone because of how the courts have defined "property". Being a state employee means that you are Constitutionally protected from some actions by the state (your employer), so here again you do have more protections than the average Joe. I'm confused where you got that it applies to teachers only. Explain or show me where the "Only teachers get protections under the 5th amendment" is written.

You are very concerned about precise language, but you tend to paint with a very broad brush when you are trashing teachers and the public education system....hmmmmmmm....

VegesaurusRex

BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?

Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.

Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment

I actually said that most government employees have a protected property right under the 5th amendment (14th amendment for the state). Teachers are government employees. So, I never said that teachers have a special right under the 5th amendment to be precise. Yes, tenure is a function of state and/or contract law. But it is tenure and expecation of job security that creates the property right that other employees don't have. So, in a sense the 5th/14th amendment create rights for those employees that not everyone has

In a sense? Not that I can see. You might just as well say that I own a house because the 5th Amendment gave it to me. I purchased the house through a contract, and yes, the Fifth Amendment protects me from any government taking my house except by due process, but that hardly means that the Fifth Amendment created my property right!

- thus, it is not the same for everyone because of how the courts have defined "property". I'm confused where you got that it applies to teachers only. Explain or show me where the "teachers only get protections under the 5th amendment" is written.

Actually you did say government employees, not just teachers, but you were responding to a question about teachers.

You are very concerned about precise language, but you tend to paint with a very broad brush when you are trashing teachers and the public education system....hmmmmmmm....

I really do not think I have trashed "teachers." I certainly trash the Teacher Unions, and like others on this board I resent the privileged position that teachers have with regards to everyone else, and I trashed the educational system which doesn't work, and is disadvantaging this country with respect to other countries, and I praise brilliant teachers such as Escalante and Gotto who proved the system can work. I also attacked certain teachers, like the one who felt that working parents should take time off from work as vacation so that she wouldn't have to stay late. But I don't think I have said anything with a broad brush that applies to all teachers.

I say what I think. Mea Culpa.

jenilla1

I hear you. I got out after 10 years of teaching at the high school level. The pay was fine - no complaint from me on that end. I didn't do it for the money. But I can tell you now that I wouldn't teach again for any amount of money. I rarely had a class under 40 students. I taught a computer class with only a dozen working computers (yeah, what were the other 30+ students supposed to do?) And how was I supposed to get them proficient with no resources? This isn't a Hollywood film and I'm not a miracle worker. I had parents calling me asking for advice on how to discipline their kids at home! WTH? I taught at-risk students (in a suburban, middle-class setting) and was bullied, sexually harassed, and physically assaulted with no support from admin. I was only able to get help from the police dept. with one student who was 18 years old. The others were underage, so it seemed to be a free pass for them. We lost about half of our teachers within the first few years it seemed. I was tired of hearing people in the community complaining about teachers. It was starting to really impact my health and I knew I didn't want to live my life in dread of waking up each day. Teaching isn't the only job I've had, but it was the toughest, by far. I don't recommend it. It's a shame, because there are so many wonderful kids out there and they aren't getting what they need because the system is totally screwed up. But please don't blame the teachers. The vast majority of them really bleed for this job. My complaint is not money. It's working conditions. I'm sure a bunch of people will flame me and say "if you don't like it, leave." I agree with that, which is why I left.

iuangina

BTW - here's a couple of case cites re: public employee property right in employment -

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)

Okay, went to the Supreme Court Site, and scanned Loudermill. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with teachers. Loudermill was a security guard who lied on his applications to the school district. He like everyone else in the country has 5th amendment due process rights. I already know that. Where is the particular property right that is protected by the 5th Amendment, that applies to teachers only?

Again...not teachers only. The amendment citations are really irrelvant in this situation because all is means is that 5th amendment has a due process clause which is applied to the states through the 14th amendment. The 5th amendment is not just about criminal cases (i.e., right against self-incrimination). I was arguing that teachers as an employee of the state have been afford a protection that other at will employees do not have. It doesn't have to specifically deal with teachers to show that there is a protected property right in employment. Nowhere did I ever argue that it was for teachers only. I stated that teachers fall into the category of protected employees.

Okay, I think you may want to be more precise. The fifth Amendment protects everyone equally. As you said correctly, that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to the Federal Government which was originally the case) , but also to the states. Any special rights or property rights that teachers have, however, are, as I said before a creature of state legislation and/or contract law, not the US Constitution. You may want to go back and look at what you originally said, because to me it read like teachers have special job protections under the 5th Amendment

I actually said that most government employees have a protected property right under the 5th amendment (14th amendment for the state). Teachers are government employees. So, I never said that teachers have a special right under the 5th amendment to be precise. Yes, tenure is a function of state and/or contract law. But it is tenure and expecation of job security that creates the property right that other employees don't have. So, in a sense the 5th/14th amendment create rights for those employees that not everyone has

In a sense? Not that I can see. You might just as well say that I own a house because the 5th Amendment gave it to me. I purchased the house through a contract, and yes, the Fifth Amendment protects me from any government taking my house except by due process, but that hardly means that the Fifth Amendment created my property right!

- thus, it is not the same for everyone because of how the courts have defined "property". I'm confused where you got that it applies to teachers only. Explain or show me where the "teachers only get protections under the 5th amendment" is written.

Actually you did say government employees, not just teachers, but you were responding to a question about teachers.

You are very concerned about precise language, but you tend to paint with a very broad brush when you are trashing teachers and the public education system....hmmmmmmm....

I really do not think I have trashed "teachers." I certainly trash the Teacher Unions, and like others on this board I resent the privileged position that teachers have with regards to everyone else, and I trashed the educational system which doesn't work, and is disadvantaging this country with respect to other countries, and I praise brilliant teachers such as Escalante and Gotto who proved the system can work. I also attacked certain teachers, like the one who felt that working parents should take time off from work as vacation so that she wouldn't have to stay late. But I don't think I have said anything with a broad brush that applies to all teachers.

I say what I think. Mea Culpa.

When I say "protected property right" - I'm talking about the fact that the government cannot take your property without due process of law. That's what that means. i see that I left off the word protected in one of the sentences. Sorry about that. You do have a protected property right given to you by the 5th amendment for your house.

I was also responding in this post because people what teachers to be the only people that have these protections. I wanted to point out that there are other jobs that have them.

Also, I've seen some very broad statements about teachers from you. You say that all teachers are this and all teachers are that except for the ones that buck the system. Or all kids that don't come from a good environment shouldn't be educated. It's interesting that's all for someone who is concerned about precise language.

VegesaurusRex

When I say "protected property right" - I'm talking about the fact that the government cannot take your property without due process of law.

Hello! If you have truly been to law school you know that EVERYBODY has that protection! Why bring it up just in the context of government workers or teachers?

That's what that means. i see that I left off the word protected in one of the sentences. Sorry about that. You do have a protected property right given to you by the 5th amendment for your house.

Of course I do. No different from anyone else.

I was also responding in this post because people what teachers to be the only people that have these protections. I wanted to point out that there are other jobs that have them.

Whatever.

Also, I've seen some very broad statements about teachers from you. You say that all teachers are this and all teachers are that except for the ones that buck the system.

I have said that teachers are pampered. That is a true statement. They work til three most days, They have summers off. They have Christmas and Spring vacations. They get tenure. They get automatic raises in a recession. What about that statement isn' true?


Or all kids that don't come from a good environment shouldn't be educated.

Excuse me, but if you can find one place where I said that and post it I will send you $50. I never said any such thing. I grew up in a housing project and I went to an Ivy League school then to a professional school. I am DEEPLY concerned about education of poor kids. What I said was that kids who DO NOT WANT TO BE IN SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE THERE. I never said, and never would say that anyone from a poor background shouldn't be educated. I also said stop wasting public money force feeding kids who do not want to learn. That goes for poor and rich alike.

I sure hope you don't teach reading comprehension.

It's interesting that's all for someone who is concerned about precise language.
[/quote]

VegesaurusRex

I do take your point, and I am aware of the issues faced by teachers in the classroom. I'm also aware that students' testing results are not a particularly complete way of measuring teacher performance. That said, how else is it to be measured? If your job is to educate, then how well you educate your students is surely the measure of your success? Difficult situations or not, and again, I think the practise of keeping children at age group levels rather than ability levels is somewhat to blame here, there has to be some measure of how effective teaching is. What would you suggest, as an alternative to test scores, that is simple and low-cost to assess and analyse?

This is the crux of the problem with public (and many private) schools. Political Correctness. The school system is far more worried about what how kids and parents feel than about doing their job. And of course there is the pressure from the Unions to put as many diffent ability levels in one class as possible to make sure classes are small, and more teacher jobs are available.

I have recounted many times my own experience in high school many years ago. We had a tracked system. I had classes with the same kids every class. There were no stupid or obnoxious kids in my class. Even though I was poor and lived in a housing project, I was accepted to two Ivy League schools, and attended one. Full scholarship. Other kids in my class were accepted at other Ivy schools and really good non-Ivy schools.

Meanwhile, the kids in the lowest track learned a trade and all of them did well in life. This was the perfect system. IT WORKED. Then they changed it because self-esteem became more important than learning. If my old high school had been available for my kids, I would have sent them in a heart beat. But like everything else, it was corrupted by political correctness and the Unions.

We homeschooled instead. My kids skipped high school. My son age 19 went to community college starting when he was 12, got his associates degree when he was 17, his BA with honors when he was 19 and is not in his first year of law school. My daughter age 16, started Community College when she was 10 and has already earned her Associates Degree but has not received it yet. Both my kids did considerably better in the Community College than the vast majority of the kids there who were much older than they were, and had graduated from high school. Conclusion : High school is a waste of time. Yes, I will write a book about it.

By skipping high school and paying a modest amount for community college courses instead, we managed also to skip the first two years of college. Both my kids have started or will start as juniors at our state university. We chose the state university because of the smooth transition and acceptablity of all Community College courses at state U. Both my kids realize that a BA means very little nowadays, but that what is really important is graduate or professional school. My son is already in law school and my daughter has her mind set on a particular graduate program.

Keeping out of and away from the deadly high school system saved my kids from intellectual stagnation, and kept them on the right academic track. Until high schools start offering something better than what we (and many, many others) found, I consider it a useless waste of time, and certainly a waste of public money. Bytheway, we are in a school district that is considered one of the best in the State of Connecticut. The reality is, however, it sucks.

iuangina

When I say "protected property right" - I'm talking about the fact that the government cannot take your property without due process of law.

Hello! If you have truly been to law school you know that EVERYBODY has that protection! Why bring it up just in the context of government workers or teachers?

That's what that means. i see that I left off the word protected in one of the sentences. Sorry about that. You do have a protected property right given to you by the 5th amendment for your house.

Of course I do. No different from anyone else.

I was also responding in this post because people what teachers to be the only people that have these protections. I wanted to point out that there are other jobs that have them.

Whatever.

Also, I've seen some very broad statements about teachers from you. You say that all teachers are this and all teachers are that except for the ones that buck the system.

I have said that teachers are pampered. That is a true statement. They work til three most days, They have summers off. They have Christmas and Spring vacations. They get tenure. They get automatic raises in a recession. What about that statement isn' true?


Or all kids that don't come from a good environment shouldn't be educated.

Excuse me, but if you can find one place where I said that and post it I will send you $50. I never said any such thing. I grew up in a housing project and I went to an Ivy League school then to a professional school. I am DEEPLY concerned about education of poor kids. What I said was that kids who DO NOT WANT TO BE IN SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE THERE. I never said, and never would say that anyone from a poor background shouldn't be educated. I also said stop wasting public money force feeding kids who do not want to learn. That goes for poor and rich alike.

I sure hope you don't teach reading comprehension.

It's interesting that's all for someone who is concerned about precise language.

[/quote]

What type of professional school did you attend (just curious)?

I find it interesting that you attack me instead of actually addressing the arguments. If I've truly been to law school and I can't read.....blah blah blah.

What you are failing to understand is:
1. Not all jobs are considered to be property.

2. Jobs of government employees are considered to be property.

3. If your job is not considered to be property it is not protected by the constitution. (Except for civil rights violations those apply to everyone)

If you don't own property the constitution doesn't apply to you because you are not a person that falls under the coverage of the constitution. This is what I mean by not applying to everyone equally. You have to be in a situation where the constitution applies otherwise it doesn't protect you equally.

Maybe you didn't directly say that kids from poor environments shouldn't be educated, but you certainly seem to have a bias against kids who may struggle in school for one reason or another. (kids with disabilities, kids with lack of motivation, kids that don't have strong support systems, etc.)

I"m not in the business of writing kids off. I think that kids have to be given the benefit of the doubt over and over again because they are kids. You want to write kids off. You think that the education system will be fixed by only educating the few rather than the masses. What are we supposed to do with all those uneducated people?

VegesaurusRex

I find it interesting that you attack me instead of actually addressing the arguments. If I've truly been to law school and I can't read.....blah blah blah. I'm just curious....have you been to law school?

What you are failing to understand is:
1. Not all jobs are considered to be property.

2. Jobs of government employees are considered to be property.

3. If your job is not considered to be property it is not protected by the constitution. (Except for civil rights violations)



***************************************
Okay, getting back to your original statement WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION does it say that government employees' jobs are property? This is what I asked originally and this is what I called you on and this is what you seem to be coming back to.
**************************************

If you don't own property,like your house for example, the constitution doesn't apply to you because you are not a person thatbfalls under the coverage of the constitution.

**************************************
WHAT? The constitution only protects people who own property? Really, what law school did you go to?
**************************************

This is what I mean by not applying to everyone equally.

Maybe you didn't directly say that kids from poor environments shouldn't be educated, but you certainly seem to have a bias against kids who may struggle in school for one reason or another.

*********************************************
That is pretty much complete crap. I was one of those kids. I know what it is like to pull yourself out of the mud. I love and admire poor kids who try and make it. Why do you think I keep pushing Jaime Escalante and John Taylor Gotto. Do you think they got their reputation by helping rich kids?

However, if a kid won't come to school, doesn't want to try, and has no interest in learning, trying to help him is a lost cause. Period. I doubt Escalante or Gotto would disagree with me.
************************************************



You want to write kids off. You think that the education system will be fixed by only educating the few rather than the masses.


**********************************
Boy, you really have a reading comprehension problem.
*********************************

What are we supposed to do with all those uneducated people?

************************************************
"We" should do nothing until they get their act together. I am nobody's nanny. Let them find their own way. The government cannot and should not try to solve everyones problems for them.
*********************************************

iuangina

The constitution does not define what property is. It simply protects property. That's what the courts do. Do we need a civics lesson? The cases previously cited show how the court has defined certain jobs as property. I suppose, judging by your earlier comments, you have a problem with perceived judicial activism.

As far as your reading comprehension problem, I did not say that the constitution only protects property owners. I said that is an example of someone who would not be covered under the particular amendment we were discussing. I was using your example of owning a house. I was not discussing the whole constitution, just the particular amendments we had been talking about. I was being lazy and not typing out the 5th amendment/14th amendment everytime I was discussing this issue.

You must have great motivation, but sometimes all it takes is teacher to reach a troubled kid and they turn around, but you would not even have those kids in school.

As far as the uneducated not being your problem, they will be when they end up in the criminal justice system or unable to provide for themselves and they are living on the street.

chanstriste13

I have said that teachers are pampered. That is a true statement. They work til three most days, They have summers off. They have Christmas and Spring vacations. They get tenure. They get automatic raises in a recession. What about that statement isn' true?

nope.

iuangina

I have said that teachers are pampered. That is a true statement. They work til three most days, They have summers off. They have Christmas and Spring vacations. They get tenure. They get automatic raises in a recession. What about that statement isn' true?

nope.

Haven't had a raise in 4 years. No tenure. We work on vacation at our 2nd jobs.

jonbobfrog

I have enormous respect for teachers. They are amazingly patient and kind people who work incredibly hard and care about their kids . . . because they obviously aren't in the profession for the monetary rewards.

But I would like to extend this to mental health professionals as well. I work in a psychiatric residential treatment facility, where I work with male sex offenders. I am paid . . . pretty much nothing. I had to get a Masters degree to get this job and I haven't even paid it off halfway yet.

The most important people in society are ignored and underpaid. Shame of society.

VegesaurusRex

The constitution does not define what property is. It simply protects property. That's what the courts do. Do we need a civics lesson? The cases previously cited show how the court has defined certain jobs as property. I suppose, judging by your earlier comments, you have a problem with perceived judicial activism.

As far as your reading comprehension problem, I did not say that the constitution only protects property owners. I said that is an example of someone who would not be covered under the particular amendment we were discussing. I was using your example of owning a house. I was not discussing the whole constitution, just the particular amendments we had been talking about. I was being lazy and not typing out the 5th amendment/14th amendment everytime I was discussing this issue.

***********
Read what you said. You are really confusing Con law with everything else.

**********


You must have great motivation, but sometimes all it takes is teacher to reach a troubled kid and they turn around, but you would not even have those kids in school.

**********
Which is why you need someone like Escalante or Gotto.
**********


As far as the uneducated not being your problem, they will be when they end up in the criminal justice system or unable to provide for themselves and they are living on the street.

**********
You do love to put words into my mouth and fit me into your neat little stereotypes. Buy unfortunately, like everyone else, I am an individual, and I think for myself. I never said "the uneducated are not my problem." I did say "Stop wasting public money on forcing kids who do not want to be in school in school.." I can think of plenty of things to do with a drop out. We have millions of illegals coming to this country every year. They come to work (Odd, since so many Americans claim they cannot find a job.) Get these people into agricultural barricks and have them do the work until they decide they want to be in school. If they'd rather pick sugar beets, then let them. Or start a CCC program like Roosevelt to fix the infrastructure. I would run it privately but with the force of the government behind it.
***********

_VoV

I have enormous respect for teachers. They are amazingly patient and kind people who work incredibly hard and care about their kids . . . because they obviously aren't in the profession for the monetary rewards.

But I would like to extend this to mental health professionals as well. I work in a psychiatric residential treatment facility, where I work with male sex offenders. I am paid . . . pretty much nothing. I had to get a Masters degree to get this job and I haven't even paid it off halfway yet.

The most important people in society are ignored and underpaid. Shame of society.

This sounds like a mostly accurate generalization, but I have known teachers, nurses, and mental health professionals who enter their work with the wrong attitudes from the word go. And, then of course, there's burn-out.

stablesong

I haven't read through this thread but I agree with the posts on the first page.

My mom is a kindergarten teacher in a very "inner city" school. 80% of the school or something like that is below the poverty line. I see how hard it is for her to deal with kids who don't want to learn. I also see it in my school, which is also considered a "bad school." My school is ~65% poverty. I try really hard to be nice to all my teachers and make sure they know I want to learn. Everything I can do to make their jobs easier. I know that it sucks to be stuck in a general elective class, so I can only imagine how much it sucks to teach one. The kids in my psychology class last semester were awful. I think I was one of two kids who actually wanted to take the class and learn the material. I hate when kids treat teachers like crap and have bad attitudes because they don't want to be there.

Teaching is not for everyone. I think it takes a strong person to teach 200 high school kids every day. The least you can do is respect them, because we all know you're not going to do it yourself.

Edit: On the topic of mental health professionals, I totally agree. That's my intended field after college, but I want to work with patients with eating disorders and self-harm problems. There are many jobs that require great emotional strength and give little financial stability, but they still need to be done. Those people are the ones I respect the most.

thurberj

This sounds like a mostly accurate generalization, but I have known teachers, nurses, and mental health professionals who enter their work with the wrong attitudes from the word go. And, then of course, there's burn-out.

I think there are people in all professions who go in to the profession for the wrong reasons, but teachers are beat up a lot and many times it is undeserved. If the parents only knew how hard we worked and how much we cared..........walk a mile in my shoes.......

_VoV

This sounds like a mostly accurate generalization, but I have known teachers, nurses, and mental health professionals who enter their work with the wrong attitudes from the word go. And, then of course, there's burn-out.

I think there are people in all professions who go in to the profession for the wrong reasons, but teachers are beat up a lot and many times it is undeserved. If the parents only knew how hard we worked and how much we cared..........walk a mile in my shoes.......

I agree that it is a tough profession. I would not want to deal with all the parents who each carry in their own special agendas which are impossible to meet. I actually know more about the mental health field, since that was my first career path--I saw many people who were working in the field who seemed to lack any real caring for the patients. I was young and I recall being very disillusioned by this at the time.