... whose only interaction with a teacher was probably to be disciplined. I was in high school in the first years of the 70's, and about half of my teachers were male. Several of them were very good teachers, too, although inevitably there was one moronic football coach who taught social studies. (Nice guy, though) Were they part of the "captive work force?" Or did they take up teaching despite the crummy pay because they wanted to teach? And if so, why? Agreed, anectdote is not evidence, but I think statistics will bear out that at the high school level, there was and is a fair number of male teachers.
It's really a difference of emphasis we have, Hound. I think it is far more necessary to reverse the tide of disrespect that has overcome teachers than it is to pay them more -- especially since paying them more will inevitably draw fire from those who think they are greedy, useless drones to begin with. I also think we need to get away from this idea that teaching is a business, and that teachers can be graded on "productivity" like someone who makes widgets for Megacorp International. You draw a comparison to professional athletes. But before the Messersmith case, pro athletes made salaries that were not so great, comparatively, as they are now. As late as 1970, many athletes worked at a straight job in the off-season because they didn't make enough money to spend that time training and perfecting their craft. Yet they still played the game, because they wanted to play the game. (I'm not claiming the money was bad, or not a consideration -- but I do think it wasn't the primary motivation) I guess I want teachers who choose teaching because they want to teach, not because it's a "good career." Do you want a doctor whose interest is your health, or his bottom line?
If we treat teaching as a business, will we not get business people for teachers? Is that not, in fact, the direction in which we have been going for a generation?
-- Mal
= new reply since forum marked as read