Why do I teach?
Published: Sunday, June 9, 2013, 10:40 p.m.
Re. the May 22 letter, “Need a baby tax”: Melan Junik stated that his system for paying teachers would “weed out those who become teachers only because they did not have the brains or ambition to become engineers, scientists or doctors.”
So I guess I only went into education because I am too dumb to handle the difficult academics associated with science and medicine.
Had Junik not pointed this out, I would have gone on thinking I chose a career in education to make a difference in the lives of children. I also give back to my community, as I teach in the district I graduated from.
I thought when I decided to not major in chemistry and major in education, it was because I felt a chemistry degree would not make a big difference like years of teaching children how to read would. Boy, was I wrong!
I guess you really don't have to be smart to:
• Juggle 20-plus students of different academic levels, with varying behavioral issues.
• Bandage up bruises, comfort sick little kids and counsel children whose home lives are not so rosy.
• Integrate technology into a curriculum covering all of the sciences, history, government, three types of math, writing and more — all in one year.
No, I didn't want to be an engineer, scientist or doctor, because I set my goals higher — to ignite the spark in the minds of the world's future engineers, scientists and doctors.
The writer is a teacher in the New Kensington-Arnold School District.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Privatization disastrous
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Christians must vote
- About Quinn & Rose I
- More overreach
- About Quinn & Rose II
- Unconstitutional funding
- Mayors & guns
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Prevailing wage misunderstood