Nearly every statement here is untrue. Their annual salaries are for nine months work. What on earth makes "chance of advancement" an automatic guarantee of job quality? How is a teacher supposed to "advance" aside from "advancing" out of being a teacher? If you like teaching so much that you pursue the career, or think teaching is so important that you undertake the burden why would you want to "advance"? And who has high expectations? They can't even get the little bastards to learn to read or do basic math. My mother, without a day of college education in her life, taught me to read before I ever set foot in a school. When I went to first grade in a public school, they had to put me in a reading class with older kids. When my parents pulled me out and put me in a private school run by our church, with parishioners teaching all the classes, and teaching two grades at a time (so much for class size and workload ), I was way behind the other kids in math, courtesy of my time in a public school. My father taught me the basics of math, again, before school, and my grandfather was the one who rectified the shortcomings of the educational and made me understand the concept of multiplication.

Grasp this concept - two people with NO COLLEGE EDUCATION taught a four year old and a seven year old basic skills the public schools routinely fail to impart. High expectations, my ass.

The myth of low pay for teachers has been circulating for years. If they are too stupid to know this when they enter the field, they are surely too stupid to be educating children.

Try using facts sometime instead of empty sentiments and teacher's union brainwashing.