Why do I hate Teaching?!?!

grgr, you've fallen into a common mistake, and you're assigning a minority comment to the majority. I think that I speak for many teachers when I say ....

1. I make solid money ... although when I started my salary was low when compared to my college classmates. Currently, I have no complaints, and the stability has been nice considering the recent economy.

2. The teaching part of my job requires about 45 hours each week total, and each day requires all work and very little idle time. Therefore, the job is very comparable to others out there. I choose to coach all three running seasons, which then leads to a feeling of being overworked because it adds about 20 hours onto the 45. To be fair, that should be withdrawn from the equation. Nonetheless, vacations aren't really vacations, more like a chance to take a deep breath ... and I work during the summer at a camp just b/c I actually like kids.

3. I work in a great school district, so on average I would have to say my job is less demanding than a Dr.'s. but of course not all MD's. I'm not so sure that a high school teacher in the South Bronx would agree.

My complaint? Having to justify my profession to so many of you. I work hard, earn my pay and make a difference in some kids lives. Too many peer in from the outside and think the inside is a breeze. Like many jobs, it has its perks and it has its difficulties. What we should all do is start to learn to appreciate anyone who puts in a hard days work, regardless of whether you are a neurosurgeon, delivering mail or cleaning septic tanks. As long as you earn that Friday check I'll have a beer with you. And amen to that, brother.

...and if you think teaching is easy, consider what it is like to be presented with 25 kids, all of varying abilities, varied learning styles, and with a handful of learning disabilities thrown in, and also with some from other school districts, and even other states. Your job is to get everyone up to grade level by the end of the year. Not only that, every couple of years, the curriculum changes. Sometimes it is changed mid year. Sometimes (like with common core) you will be told that the assessment is changing before the curriculum is put in place, and that an aggressive evaluation system is being put in place to get rid a whole lot of teachers, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Anyone who thinks this is an easy job has never spent hours trying to explain a difficult subject to a complete dullard, let alone a difficult subject to a range of children that range from dullard to gifted. They have also not spent hours trying to prepare a slow child for an exam that is very difficult conceptually, and is also very unpredictable, and sometimes even very shabbily constructed by Pearson, often leaving 40% of the content off of the exam.

SomeCoach - you sound like a good guy and I'd bet you're a great teacher. I think the world of people like you. You exemplify the quality having pride in one's job and having a sense of self-satisfaction from it. I wish that the system rewarded you for that. Currently, the "just good enough to not get fired" teachers in your district (with the same years experience/schooling*) make the same money as you. That includes gym teachers. Does that not drive you crazy? Don't you see how that cheapens your profession?

*I use schooling here loosely. As you're well aware, the graduate classes that raise pay can include online courses or classes where all you need to do to pass is show up. Some teachers share this information with one another, and intentionally seek out these classes.

old math professor wrote:

Anyone who thinks this is an easy job has never spent hours trying to explain a difficult subject to a complete dullard, let alone a difficult subject to a range of children that range from dullard to gifted. They have also not spent hours trying to prepare a slow child for an exam that is very difficult conceptually, and is also very unpredictable, and sometimes even very shabbily constructed by Pearson, often leaving 40% of the content off of the exam.

Is there any profession where they, as a whole, are more likely to throw themselves up on the cross? The whole martyrdom thing gets old.

SpanishArm wrote:

Just that question... Why does it suck the soul out of my life? Does anyone feel this way? Those poor kids.

You hate teaching because it's a toxic environment. You're surrounded by people complaining about how unappreciated you are, how "little" you're paid, and how "dumb" the administrators are. You hear this so enough times by enough people and you start to believe it yourself.

I think that you're confining 25+ year veterans who are coasting in the work force to just education. I personally believe that you'll find these in all professions. Teachers who "coast" don't last long because if the administration isn't all over them the kids, their parents and their colleagues are. There is more self regulation in teaching than you may realize.

Who's to say I'm not a PE teacher? One reason that all teachers are paid equally is that each subject comes (again) with its own perks and challenges. One thing about PE; when our school is short on subs and teachers are asked (for extra pay) to cover a PE class nobody ever volunteers. The secretary in charge of subs always covers the PE with paid subs first, and then recruits teachers for the other classes. It's kind of funny. Controlling a class of 35 kids blowing off steam where one wrong turn earns a lawsuit is something many don't have the stomach for. PE may call for the greatest gift for classroom management, short of some grammar school classes.

As I'm cooling down from a run with some of the athletes I work with I'll often see the foods teachers coming in from the supermarket, having done 2-3 hours of shopping for the next few days classes ... the school is empty, and they are still putting in time. Again, each teaching job has it's own +'s and -'s. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who believe that teaching culinary must be the easiest job on the planet.

I often hear that English teachers should be paid less because, of course, what the hell else are they supposed to do with that damn, useless degree, right? Our last new hire in English beat out over 250 applicants; she must be fantastic, and thus to my mind deserves equal pay.

I could go on and on .....

I think you should take some time and think through some of the preconceived notions that you have. If you could clone yourself and find a teaching job it may turn out to be a pretty cool learning experience.

So rather than attempting to quantify the difference in difficulty between subjects or paying based on the supply of teachers versus the demand, we should just pay all teachers the same - no questions asked? This is silly, counterproductive, inefficient, and again, serves to diminish the integrity of the profession.

The fact that there were 250 applicants for a job does not imply that the one that got the job is superb. It says that there is a glut of English teachers and a lack of positions*. Pay could be shifted from English to math/science, where schools often have difficulty filling positions, to maximize the utility of the school's dollar. Even if the number of applicants for the English position dropped to 200, the difference in quality of the filled position would be negligible.

* A big reason there are a lack of positions is because all the school's funds are sucked up by the 25+ year teachers that are coasting by. They make the most money, have the least enthusiasm, and are the most difficult to fire. When the funds are short at the school, the last hired is the first fired. This makes such little sense it's infuriating. If just one of these teachers were fired, 3 first year teachers could be hired in their place.

You seem to have a thing with anyone who has taught for 25 years. Is that a magic number? Do these teachers get together in a secret ceremony after completing 25 years and sign a blood pact promising both mediocrity in performance and intent?

I've been teaching for 27 years, and keep getting better each year. I was flat out awful my first year because I was learning the craft. Replace a veteran with 2 new teachers (salary is about double, negating the gain in benefits) and the school will, initially, take a hit. Provided, of course, that the teacher being replaced is still committed. I'm not going to deny that there are teachers who lack the same passion they had in their youth, but will reiterate that education does not breed the beaters at a higher rate than the general work force

This discussion may have to end though, and we'll have to agree to disagree. I can tell that I'm not going to change your feelings on the subject. I'm hopeful that your children have an opportunity to find their way into classrooms led by those who inspire.

I simply took the 25 year figure from you. You can apply my statement to any year of experience.

I don't think we disagree too much. I'm simply saying that teachers should have merit pay and it should be easier to fire the teachers that coast at the end. I'm not saying there aren't great teachers who have been around for a while. I'm not saying a majority of teachers that have been around for a while are coasting. I'm saying that the fact that it's so hard to fire those that are coasting cheapens the profession. If I were a teacher that had been around for 27 years and worked my butt off, I'd feel even stronger about this. I don't understand why you're defending the leaches or the system that allows (promotes?) them?

To summarize:

- I'm not saying you're over paid

- I'm not saying teaching is easy

- I'm not saying that older teachers should be fired

- I'm saying there are teachers that coast one tenured

- I'm saying that merit pay would help this problem

- I'm saying that good teachers should be screaming from the roof tops to implement a merit based system and any system that would out the leaches

I am not saying merit pay is bad, but, there could be problems. Here's why:

1) The teachers that students like the most are sometimes the ones with the lowest standards, and the ones that are least effective in the long run.

2) When a student fails, almost always they will blame someone else. Usually it is the teacher. Upon further reflection, a failing student will almost always admit that they could have done more to pass the course.

3) Parents always say they want high standards, but rarely want high standards for their own children. High standards get in the way of a busy social life for the parents and/or students. High standards mean very few after school activities, no Olympic development soccer, etc.

4) It takes many years to learn how to effectively teach, and how far a student can be pushed, and how a correct approach can have a lasting impact on the long term academic success of a student. Only very experienced teachers know this. Even if an experienced teacher moves slower than they once did, and has lost a bit of rapport with the students, they still have this invaluable insight that young teachers do not.

Yes, there are teachers that are complete dolts, and long ago should have been fired. It would be easy to find the worst 10% of teachers and fire them on the spot, and the schools would carry on as usual, probably a little better than before. But, after that, it gets real murky.

Merit pay in some form might work if we could form a panel of experienced educators that are impartial. But, where are these people going to come from, and how expensive will it be?

StinkeyNeoHippy,

I never implied that teachers are martyrs. But, I do think we should take a sobering, truthful look at how difficult teaching is. Burying our heads in the sand and telling lies is no way to improve any system, including teaching.

Most teachers I know don't go around wearing their badge of honor. But, so many of them are routinely accused of being lazy, that they probably feel a need to defend themselves. You know this is right. It is our culture.

It's just that teachers seem to take the position that their job is hard, they suffer greatly and they are underpaid... Yet they don't just leave or do any thing to purpose any changes to make it better.

You don't heard stock brokers whining about their situation. If they can't deal wi th it, they move on to another profession. You don't HAVE to be a teacher . There are options .

StinkyNeoHippy wrote:

It's just that teachers seem to take the position that their job is hard, they suffer greatly and they are underpaid... Yet they don't just leave or do any thing to purpose any changes to make it better.

You don't heard stock brokers whining about their situation. If they can't deal wi th it, they move on to another profession. You don't HAVE to be a teacher . There are options .

The teachers on this thread aren't whining. They are responding to gross and insulting mischaracterizations of their profession.

Only 3-3.5 months until the paid vacation starts!

Merit pay creates competition to be better than other teachers, I'll agree with people on that.

I argue that that is a bad thing. I'm not saying I don't want teachers to get better--I think that most teachers already do that. But when two teachers who are teaching the same material in the same grade are suddenly competing against each other for pay, how is that helping the academic environment? There is a lot of teamwork in schools between teachers, especially between veteran and new teachers. The experience passed on is invaluable. And now you want teachers to develop a sort of hidden animosity between each other?

Or if you think merit pay should be based on schools, not individual teachers. Then you just get into an example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

And besides, how do you implement fair judgement of merit? The only thing that seems fairest is exhaustive testing, but then you are just bringing the entire educational system down because teaching to do well on a test is not the most effective way to educate kids. In general it demotivates them.

And if you do use tests to determine merit pay, do you go by a set standard? That's completely unfair to schools that have kids from better backgrounds and good home lives. Of course they will win every time. Do you go by improvement from the start of the year to the end of the year? Again, how do you even determine how effective a teacher is based on improvement? What if a teacher has students who just refuse to work, not matter how great the teacher is? Or in the other direction, what if at a high ability school they test really high at the start of the year and have less room to improve.

Schools are NOT businesses. Competition among teachers has a different effect than the business world (and even the business world has its share of ill effects from competition). And if you make it competition between schools, competition still has ill effects, not even counting the fact that it's nearly impossible to accurately gauge the merit of a teacher/school based on test scores alone.

Rational Economics wrote:

runn wrote:

Spend some time at my school and you'll feel differently about it. Seriously, we have great students who get full education rides to top universities. I'm a Social Studies teacher and the students love hanging out in our office because we talk about social issues- such as gay marriage and gun control.

We're all liberal to moderate (obviously- we're educated in the social sciences) and the conversations are lively and interesting.

Discussions among political hacks are only interesting to political hacks - rational people do not find them interesting. Those kids will go to college, major in useless fields and destroy their minds with drugs and socialism.

Not sure why, but I laughed out loud at this one.

Letsrun Gunner wrote:

Everyone has been to the doctors office does that mean they grasp what that profession is about. So dumb@ss understand that being in a building does not mean you have any understanding of what a profession is.

Good lord. I was on your side until you continued posting these horribly written replies.

I ignored the "working their" atrocity but this latest response...

Gross. Stop attempting to defend yourself on here and go practice a bit of English.

StinkyNeoHippie wrote:

Never compare teachers to doctors. It's just not an apt comparison at all.

Teachers are more comparable to being a police officer, fire fighter, nurse, social workers.

Be honest. "The best and the brightest" dont go into teaching. It's usually the C students that end up there.

At my uni the education program had the lowest graduation standards. The kids that couldn't graduate with a business degree or something comparable "dropped down" into education.

Scary.

...and why do ed schools have the lowest standards? Well, for years, there were shortages. In NY certification standards through the years have been adjusted based upon availability of teachers. When there is a shortage (due to low pay, etc.), standards have been always lowered.

StinkyHippy,

The problem with teaching is that the public gets to vote on school budgets (as they should), and teacher salaries get published in the local paper. This causes a lot of very public discussion about teacher salaries, etc.

I also think we have to separate the rank-and-file teacher from the union saber-rattling. Of course the unions are always going to better their lot. Probably 20%-30% of the teaching force are union thugs, which is probably roughly the same percentage in just about any profession.

By the way, I don't mind calling out the union thugs, and the few lazy, no good, dullards and dolts that hurt the teaching profession. But, I would never characterize the teaching profession by using the worst among them.

All in all, teachers do work for their pay, and teaching is a helping profession. Most teachers I know are decent, honest people.

Recently I read that among the top 10 professions to attract psychopaths are CEOs and politicians. In the bottom 10 are teachers, as are other helping professions. I find it very interesting that CEO's and politicians are reforming teaching, yet another time. It is no wonder that teachers squawk.