The NY Times looks at a new trend ... A shortage of teachers

If you had said lower income or lower performing, you would have been fine. I get what you are saying. You're using low as shorthand. That may be fine when having a discussion with other educators. With everybody else, it sounds like you are insulting the students.

 

Thanks, OOP. Although I wonder why it is that I don't pass muster as an "educator" -- don't sweat,it, I get that a lot -- I don't think it's fine to refer to anyone as a "lower." Unless you're talking about a Steelers fan, of course.

 

When I entered teaching (out of journalism) a decade ago, it was a job that:
*-Had fairly low (for a professional) starting pay (although it was a pay increase for me, despite me having 9 years' experience in journalism, half of it as an SE).
*-Had pretty ironclad job security once you got through year one or two, although not as ironclad as some would make you believe. You could still be canned for insubordination or gross incompetence - but too many administrators didn't put the paperwork trail together to make it happen.
*-Had a predictable salary schedule that meant that I'd be able to increase my salary by about 50% within about five years & with an advanced degree, and double it within about 12 years.

What it's become:
*-A profession with still low starting salaries, but they're lower now because they have stayed the same or decreased while inflation hasn't stopped happening
*-Has almost no job security - you can be axed for almost any reason (just like journalism).
*-Has job security tied to factors beyond your control, namely, how students do on "the test." (and last year, "the test" in a course I teach had an essay question that came completely and totally out of left field and was never even hinted at being a part of the curriculum materials).
*-Has replaced the predictable salary schedule with one that's almost flatlined - in my state, one cannot get a raise unless he or she is rated highliy, meanwhile principals (in the original draft) were evaluated negatively if they rated "too many" teachers in that range (because, you know, the mark of a good manager is that he hires a ton of ineffective people). And the raises that do exist are usually a scant amount of what they were before.

Meanwhile, we have state education superintendents in "blame the teachers" mode - calling for principals to be fired AND entire staffs replaced if the school underperforms and essentially referring to them as overpaid moochers. Teachers aren't dumb - they're going to flock to the districts that are higher-performing because they're more stable, and as a result, the schools & districts that need quality teachers the most struggle to get and keep them.

I teach economics. The law of supply and demand is pretty ironclad. Lower the pay AND reduce the incentives, and be shocked at how many people go "yeah, I think I'll do something else rather than put up with that." Many were willing to put up with the lower starting pay to get a few extra weeks off, know that if they put in their dues, they'll be able to make a decent living, and know they were getting some decent job security. Now that much of that is gone, there are few benefits to entice a young professional to consider entering teaching. This path was pretty predictable about 5-10 years ago, and it's coming to fruition. In some areas - especially high-socioeconomic areas - it's still pretty easy to find teachers. But in rural and urban districts, the shortage is very acute.

 

I wasn't dismissing you as an educator. I was explaining to Devil what was wrong with his post.

Notice, I said it may be fine. I've heard teachers use it as shorthand. I get what they mean, but I don't care for it, either.

 

Where's @YankeeFan? Would (honestly) love to hear his take.

I taught high school English for five years and often miss it--when don't.

Thanks @crimsonace and @X-Hack.

 

No. No, it does not beg the question.

 

What you do vaguely resembles what goes on in public schools.

You stand and deliver the content, and if the students don't get it, that's on them. It's sink or swim. I doubt there is any fallback on you if only 80% of your students pass the GRE for grad school.

Now I'm sure if only 25% of you students pass your class, then you might get a note from your bosses, but if someone tells you 90% of your students, at a minimum, need to pass, then I would be astonished.

 

It's not begging the question begs the question ...

 

YankeeFan has to be on hiatus.

 

Beg The Question // Get it right.

 

LawProse Lesson #167: The evolution of “beg the question.” | LawProse Blog

In modern usage, however, some new meanings have all but crowded out the old sense, much to the dismay of staunch traditionalists. Beg the question is now commonly used to mean (1) “to invite or raise another question; esp., an obvious one”; or (2) “to evade or ignore an issue.” Surprisingly, the 11th edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary recognizes only these contemporary senses:

beg the question. 1: To pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled. 2: To elicit a question logically as a reaction or response <the quarterback’s injury begs the question of who will start in his place>. [Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 110 (11th ed. 2011).]

Language changes, folks. It begs the question of whether you still contort your sentences to make sure not to split the infinitive.

 

I used the phrase appropriately. Anyone who disagrees can pound sand up their ass.