Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why people look down on teachers [View all]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/why-people-look-down-on-teachers/2012/09/14/0347c52a-fddf-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_blog.html#pagebreak<snip>
Its odd. Even if youre the most toolish striver i.e., many of the people I grew up with teachers are your ticket to the Ivy League. And if youre an intellectually ambitious academic type like me, theyre even more critical. Like I said, people move to Chappaqua for the schools, and if the graduation and post-graduate statistics are any indicationin my graduating class of 270, Id guess about 50 of us went onto an Ivy League school theyre getting their moneys worth. Yet many people I grew up with treated teachers as bumptious figures of ridicule and not in your anarchist-critique-of-all-social-institutions kind of way.
Its clear where the kids got it from: the parents. Every year thered be a fight in the town over the school budget, and every year a vocal contingent would scream that the town was wasting money (and raising needless taxes) on its schools. Especially on the teachers (I never heard anyone criticize the sports teams). People hate paying taxes for any number of reasons though financial hardship, in this case, was hardly one of them but there was a special pique reserved for what the taxes were mostly going to: the teachers.
In my childhood world, grown ups basically saw teachers as failures. Those who cant do, teach goes the old saw. But where that traditionally bespoke a suspicion of fancy ideas that didnt produce anything concrete, in my fancy suburb, it meant something else. Teachers had opted out of the capitalist game; they werent in this world for money. There could be only one reason for that: they were losers. They were dimwitted, unambitious, complacent, unimaginative, and risk-averse. They were middle class.
No one, we were sure, became a teacher because she loved history or literature and wanted to pass that on to the next generation. All of them simply had no other choice. How did we know that? Because they werent lawyers or doctors or businessmen one of those words, even in the post-Madmen era, still spoken with veneration and awe. It was a circular argument, to be sure, but its circularity merely reflected the closed universe of assumption in which we operated.
<snip>
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
id say another reason is that for every good teacher a person had they had a bad one
loli phabay
Sep 2012
#1
you really believe that, sorry but even the best of students can have a crap teacher at some point
loli phabay
Sep 2012
#19
I think you only gain an appreciation for teachers when you realize how hard it is to grab kids
dkf
Sep 2012
#2
That would take a willful misunderstanding of tenure, to take that position. nt.
Starry Messenger
Sep 2012
#3
that's why she got out, like about 50% of newbies do within their first five years. plus there
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#14
We should stop calling it that. "Due process" is closer to what it really is.
Smarmie Doofus
Sep 2012
#20
I'll never forget the excitement...all those years of education...first day of school
cr8tvlde
Sep 2012
#6
I haven't experienced that generalized level of animosity the writer has. People here generally
HiPointDem
Sep 2012
#13
Well, now there is a corporate, right-wing, coordinated attempt to do so,
woo me with science
Sep 2012
#21