Low salaries for teachers mean that they don’t attract dedicated professionals and the quality of teaching is bad. You can want well paid, good teachers and simultaneously hate the bad teachers you have right now. And of course each time there’s widespread protests, you’ll get a small amount of people who are only there for the violence.
The violent people being there just for the violence, not caring about the stated goals is what I wanted to point out.
As for hating the bad teachers, I agree and realized this when writing my comment. Still, I find it hard to believe all current teachers are bad or that the protesters know which are the bad ones to attack.
And as pointed out already, attacking teachers definitely does not make teaching an attractive career choice. So it’s likely counterproductive even if the attacked teacher was one of the “bad ones”.
Plus, how bad of a teacher would you have to be to justify a violent attack?
You know what else doesn’t attract dedicated professionals to teaching positions? Attacking teachers.
People don’t choose profession based purely on salaries. They also want good work environment. No person will think “yes, this teacher was hurt by students but he was bad at his job. I’m I will be fine”.
And yes, the government is the one responsible for creating good job conditions for teachers by ensuring good infrastructure and proper staffing but teachers will tell you that kids are not exactly getting easier to work with. “Bad teachers” argument is pure victim blaming.
At what point did I say that attacking teachers is justified? I said wanting well paid teachers and hating cheap teachers can coexist and aren’t “suspicious” as the OP comment implied.
Right here. You claim that attacking bad teachers is consistent with the goals of the protesters. Saying that only tiny fraction of students attacked teachers and it’s not a valid part of the protests is one thing. Claiming that students are right to hate their teachers is justifying the attacks.
Low salaries for teachers mean that they don’t attract dedicated professionals and the quality of teaching is bad. You can want well paid, good teachers and simultaneously hate the bad teachers you have right now. And of course each time there’s widespread protests, you’ll get a small amount of people who are only there for the violence.
The violent people being there just for the violence, not caring about the stated goals is what I wanted to point out.
As for hating the bad teachers, I agree and realized this when writing my comment. Still, I find it hard to believe all current teachers are bad or that the protesters know which are the bad ones to attack.
And as pointed out already, attacking teachers definitely does not make teaching an attractive career choice. So it’s likely counterproductive even if the attacked teacher was one of the “bad ones”.
Plus, how bad of a teacher would you have to be to justify a violent attack?
You know what else doesn’t attract dedicated professionals to teaching positions? Attacking teachers.
People don’t choose profession based purely on salaries. They also want good work environment. No person will think “yes, this teacher was hurt by students but he was bad at his job. I’m I will be fine”.
And yes, the government is the one responsible for creating good job conditions for teachers by ensuring good infrastructure and proper staffing but teachers will tell you that kids are not exactly getting easier to work with. “Bad teachers” argument is pure victim blaming.
At what point did I say that attacking teachers is justified? I said wanting well paid teachers and hating cheap teachers can coexist and aren’t “suspicious” as the OP comment implied.
Right here. You claim that attacking bad teachers is consistent with the goals of the protesters. Saying that only tiny fraction of students attacked teachers and it’s not a valid part of the protests is one thing. Claiming that students are right to hate their teachers is justifying the attacks.
Saying it’s right and saying it’s not surprising are two entirely different things.