Is teaching supposed to be a great virtuous sacrifice for the sake of the poor? One might think so from reading Fernanda Santos’s article in today’s New York Times.
Samantha Sherwood had lofty aspirations when she settled on a family-studies major at the University of Connecticut, like redrawing welfare rules or weaving together a sturdier safety net for people in need. She figured that she could change the world in big, broad strokes, and that she might pick up a fancy title and ample salary along the way.
Instead, Ms. Sherwood, 25, joined up with Teach for America, the program that puts top college graduates into the nation’s most poverty-stricken schools, deciding that the best way to make a difference would be, as she put it on Monday, “to be there, where the rubber meets the road.”
I am not passing judgment on Ms. Sherwood; I don’t know her or her teaching. She sounds very dedicated. It’s the article that seems a bit strange. Santos mentions that Sherwood earns $45,000–presumably much less than she would or could have earned as a high-profile social worker.
Is it really that great a sacrifice to go into teaching? I would hope not; I’d hope that those who do it enjoy it enough that they don’t perceive it as a sacrifice. Yes, it’s tough, but it can be immensely rewarding too. Is a salary of $45,000 so bad? Well, it isn’t much money in NYC, but one can live on it, especially if one is 25 and doesn’t have major financial obligations.
The layoffs–which were really the point of the article–will hurt veteran and new teachers alike. They will hurt the classrooms. No layoff system will mitigate that. But one of the weakest arguments on behalf of the younger teachers is that they gave up possible fame and fortune for the sake of the kids.