Teaching To Stay Poor?

ABC News 15 has a piece on the recent budget fix featuring Deer Valley teacher Paul Strauss. Paul does a good job speaking to the issues as a Republican educator-- yes, there are many Republicans teaching in public schools.. But most I know are not understanding why the elected "Republicans" are not supporting public education.

In the ABC report Representative Patricia Fleming (D- Sierra Vista) states the following:

“I want to encourage them to stick with their chosen profession,” said Democratic Representative Patricia Fleming, about Arizona's teacher shortage. “We sympathize with you. We know that you're teaching because you love to teach, not because you're going to become wealthy, and in many instances these teachers are taking on second and third jobs just to survive.”

I am certain Rep. Fleming meant it as a compliment. Her voting record shows her as a strong advocate for public schools. Would you feel complimented if the prevailing thought about your chosen profession was that you would always struggle financially?

Teachers graduate from college with a degree and also must successfully complete a teaching internship. In most states (if not all) teachers must also pass a content area test and a pedagogy (teaching skills) test. Lawyers do this. Doctors do, too.

But no one says doctors and lawyers (whose years of education are very similar to a teacher with a master's degree) do their job out of love without expectation of being compensated for their hard work.

No, we save that "compliment" for teachers.

I did not become a teacher to work long hours (for free) at home and through most weekends.

I did not become a teacher to chaperone the prom, time track and field events, or sponsor the "anime club" during my "duty-free" lunch.

I did not become a teacher so I could work a second or third job "just to survive" as Rep. Fleming stated.

And I most certainly did not become a teacher to stay poor. I'd like my kids to have the opportunity to attend college, too.

I became a teacher because I believe it is an important profession-- easily as important as a doctor you might see once per year or a lawyer you might see once in a lifetime. The 180 days I spend with students each year (that is one out of two days) teaching them to read, compute, and reason are far more important.

Far more important.

This phrase, this language no matter how good-intentioned must change. If we talk in terms of teachers "teaching for love" instead of money, then we will always be "complimented" and not compensated.

No one else would stand for that. Why do we?