Hacker News Reader

Comment by VirtualAirwaves | Hacker News Reader

Don't we need more men in primary and secondary school teaching? I would think so.

That is highly discussed issue in pedagogic cycles - how to get and keep more males. For years. The answer usually ends up "yes, but they would come only if there would be higher social status and salaries for teachers". And no one knows how to achieve that.

It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away, I dont recall any studies. Just that is the usual assumption. The fact that male teachers tend to come up as ironical response (nor saying you are doing this) to female-in-tech topic suggest also contributing cultural reason. Non trivial amount of people finds idea of male working with children (except coach for some reason) funny or absurd.

> And no one knows how to achieve [higher status and salaries for teachers].

They do. There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment.

> It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away

I know male teachers who have had to deal with sexism (the men as sexual predators stuff). A non trivial amount of people find men untrustworthy with children.

> They do. There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment.

Could you elaborate?

For example, let's assume for the sake of example that objective evaluation of teachers and even schools is impossible. This is true in other jobs in the service industry.

Then it should be possible to have a subjective rating system that is accessible by consumers (parents, students) and employers (schools). Teachers that relatively rate well would benefit. Teachers that rate relatively poorly would have incentive to improve. Teachers that cannot improve could either be supported by their bosses for their good "intangibles" or be removed from their positions with better evidence than "Well, I think he is a bad teacher".

Thought experiment. Why doesn't this happen?

* Parents don't always have the ability to switch teachers or schools, so there's a lot of conflict of interest in providing publicly available feedback; students shouldn't suffer more because their teacher is called out for something.

* Unions absolutely don't want this. They get more power in numbers, so there's very little incentive to serve the top 10th percentile and introduce risk to the bottom 50th percentile.

* I don't see why the education regulators would care about this approach. Ask a regulator for solutions, and you'll get regulations (standardized testing, lunch nutrition standards, etc.).

* Teacher pay would have to be more subjective and negotiable (set by the superintendent or something). This means all the teacher contracts would have to be renegotiated.

* Teacher mobility is low. Jumping to a new district in a different state that takes good ratings seriously might actually involve a loss of seniority and a pay cut.

* New public schools aren't going to be started to "try this out". Private schools, maybe.

* So, ultimately, school districts don't tangibly benefit from a change like this. They benefit more from property values going up. Or from more student attendance.

* Finally, given all of the above, who will build Yelp/LinkedIn for teachers? It seems like a political hot potato with plenty of external barriers to actually working. Maybe legislators or regulators decide to design one by committee, but I'll be skeptical that they can create a product that gets any real traction that way.

I don't think it's a particularly great idea, to be clear. I'm just exploring why established parties aren't interested in change. And I don't say that to say everyone in education is uniquely greedy or self-interested. I think people in education often have noble hearts, but they're people at the end of the day, like the rest of us. Putting nobility at odds with economic interest limits achievement. We're all human, after all.

> > And no one knows how to achieve [higher status and salaries for teachers].

> They do. There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment.

I'm curious (growing up in Switzerland), which does pay it teachers highly (https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/201...): what about the Swiss approach to teacher salary is unappealing to the pedagogic establishment?

To be fair, most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by men. It is something to be concerned about.

Source: http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-ab...

Ontario has very high teacher salaries and still not many male teachers.

I've heard from male teachers that teaching younger children isn't worth the risk (perceived or real) of baseless accusations ruining them. They much preferred to teach high school or above.

If the risk is perceived higher with small children and lower with teenagers, then it is 100% on adults.

No amount of money will overcome "they suspect me to be predator" social pressure.

In my elementary school, teachers up until age 7 or so were women, above were men. One factor there might've been that kids below that age still have a chance of having err, 'accidents'.

(source: I had an accident)

It's a fascinating topic, really. It's almost like "women in tech", just for men in "teaching". Yet, the discussion is framed entirely differently and the reasons for its existence are somehow perfectly valid, items that "women in tech" advocates would not consider conceding/admitting for their own cause. Because that would run contrary to "structural oppression" by the males reason.

Well, arguing that higher salaries in tech would attract more women is ridiculous, mainly because salaries are high already. Arguing that women in tech are suspect sexual predators would be absurd. The social bs (beers and games up etc) are not mentioned in case of techers, because teachers are not expected to socialize with each other as much as techies are.

Then there are other cultural reasons that seems to be sa me in both cases - role models and societal idea of what is appropriate for males and females. The sexism in the assumption that gender x is less qualify is stated in both cases.

It seems to be roughly the same except completely unapplicable arguments?

    Well, arguing that higher salaries
    in tech would attract more women is
    ridiculous, mainly because salaries
    are high already.

The argument we do see is that the long hours, lack of leave and lack of flexibility disproportionately affect women.

> The social bs (beers and games up etc) are not mentioned in case of techers, because teachers are not expected to socialize with each other

You would be surprised then how common it is that men cite work culture issues when leaving the teaching profession. It is mentioned in the government report that I mentioned in a other comment.

Imagine a profession with incorporate gender identity into the work culture, and try to see what form of social BS it will produce for both men and women. Which one will would include beers and games?

One way that comes to mind is to put some work in lowering the social pressure on young males to be "earners" and "providers"... when it becomes acceptable that my wife earns the real money and I do something not particularly cool nor profitable that I enjoy, and that we're not being weirdos in everyones eyes because of it ("poor woman, what's she doing with that looser?"), then all those problems will be solved...

There is a good report done by the Swedish government body for higher education (which include the program that teach teachers), and it has multiple reasons stated. Two I strongly remember is that the education work culture has incorporate female gender identity (similar to "bro culture" in IT), and that the rate that male students leave the teacher program is significant higher than for female students. The few men that ends up finishing the program also tend to the leave the profession in higher rate than women.

The similarities are very striking to me to those made about IT profession, but with the roles reversed.

Stopping as 'higher social status and salaries' can miss the driving factors of why men might want those. Society currently judges a ma's relationship worth on those scales far more than a woman's relationship worth. Men who earn less or have lower social status are seen as less dateable, and even married men will face negative social pressures if they earn less than their wife (to say nothing of social pressure the wife may face).

Another issue is false accusations. I know personal anecdotes aren't a replacement for peer-reviewed data, but I tutor kids and have had my own mother ask me to stop because she is scared my life will eventually be ruined by a false accusation.

One strong argument for this is that boys who are at the highest risk for crime, not graduating, lower incomes, etc. frequently lack positive make role models.

Indeed! It seems to me that parents have largely left parenting to schools, which aren't really designed for that.

Eh, that's a potentially true narrative, but not really what I'm taking about. I'm referring more to lower income neighborhoods where as many as 80 percent of children's fathers will be absent for at least a year of their childhood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com