31 January 2008
1:48 PM
The fourth week has gone by, and the gangsters at the back of my class have become almost friends. They copy their notes, snort loudly and speak
gangster-speak, yet I can't help but laugh with them when they tell those lame chinese-eng jokes that remind me
so much of primary school.
I use the plastic neonpink pencilcase smoot gave me for v-day, and so there's a "cher" on it, big and bold. Imagine their shock/horror when they see it and go "teacher, your name is
zher?" Being highly amused yet trying to maintain a stern disposition is one of the harder things in the job. But I get how teachers keep young; there isn't time, nor space, nor
heart to become jaded and distant. The kids don't demand infinite knowledge, but they do need you to care.
And so I find it in bad taste when people decide that teachers should work "with their hearts, and not with the hope of better pay", as is stated in the Forum. I don't see how else they work, if not with their hearts -a generalisation no doubt, but one that does not and cannot diminish the truth.
When teachers have to play the role of parent, when they worry about the kids not yet in school, or those who are failing in every aspect of academia, and have to hear / face the verbal abuse that the parents throw at them. Well.
How else should the system go? Should we pay for ever insult the teacher receives, or for every mean thing the student throws. Should the nature of the job be altered to "Hazardous - emotional health at risk" just so we can justify a pay rise? This isn't
Teach less, Earn More.
If the only way to justify a rise is through quantifying their job, then I am sure the rise is more than justified. The Teacher is answerable to everyone in their line of work: their hod, their principal, the students, the parents.
If nothing else, perhaps we could pay for their added line of responsibility.
-
Lastly, a hopefully apparent observation- the introduction to Means testing and its subsequent critiques have reflected one thing: we are a greedy lot. They either request that less be given to the already subsidised, or whine about the higher standard of living and ask for more for the upper middle-class. Is $5000/month for a family of 3 considered lower-income?
Even with every recognition of generalisation, it's a joke to even ask.
