|
|
Re: Adjuncts + part-timers, part I (WAS: Relevance?)
Mike Salovesh (t20mxs1@CORN.CSO.NIU.EDU)
Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:38:38 -0600
On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> Mike: If you think elem entary education should be improved, why not
> make it attractive for male teachers, too.
Whaddya mean, "too"? El ed isn't attractive for anybody, male, female,
or E: none of the above. Our society refuses to put its money
where its educational lip service is. That doesn't prevent us from blaming
teachers for their inability to make bricks without straw.
The way things are today, it doesn't take long for the most education-
dedicated teacher to realize that there is absolutely nothing attractive
about the job. Except, of course, for those who sincerely have a calling
that must come from God: it certainly doesn't come from the society.
> I know you can't possibly believe that women's genes uniquely fit them
> for elementary school teaching.
Of course not. It's just that I'm old enough to remember when that's how
society used to act. When most doors to careers that the society valued
were closed to most women, the result of that illogical belief was that a
lot of women who would have been outstanding doing many other things were
channeled into elementary and secondary education -- where they succeeded
in doing a fantastic job, of course. Now most of those women with very
high potential go into other fields.
The old system recruited firstclass teachers by telling half the
population that they weren't wanted much of anyplace else. Now many of
them can make a place for themselves elsewhere. In education, nobody has
yet figured out that when you no longer have slaves you have to give
desirable rewards, not the least of which is good pay, if you want good
work done.
It would be nice if somebody tried to make el ed an attractive career for
anybody. Then maybe somebody else might try making university teaching
attractive, too!
mike salovesh, anthropology department <salovesh@niu.edu>
northern illinois university PEACE !
|