Teachers by vocation?

I have always thought that in our profession it is very important to value the meaning of the words we use both to address children and young people and to relate to each other, teachers and families.

I'm also intrigued, and somewhat unsettled, by the overlap between certain words in educational and religious vocabulary. We have some very important words that we share with the ecclesiastical lexicon. For example, we perform a "profession" out of "vocation," and we are part of a "cloister" and "teach" classes in different "disciplines." It's a caricature, but you get the idea.

This is surely due to the historical process in which religious institutions dominated the main centers of knowledge transmission, and there has been a semantic transfer of a vocabulary created in a religious context, which we have later assimilated and in a way normalized in the field of secular education.

Of these expressions, there is one that particularly bothers me: vocation. Just as men and women are called to be servants of God, it seems that those of us who dedicate ourselves to education must necessarily be so by vocation, as if we had been touched by a divine finger and had assumed a kind of inevitable personal mission, accepting and embracing all sacrifices with obedience and devotion. Well, no! I don't consider myself a teacher by vocation, if we understand it that way.

In recent weeks, to give an example of what we are talking about, we have been able to read opinions against the various protests that are being organized to demand improvements in working conditions, whose arguments appeal to this submission to our duty, which religious lexicon puts ahead of our work: What are they complaining about? You're a teacher by vocation! We must not forget that we are working men and women who have the right and also the duty to safeguard, defend and demand our working conditions, which is one of the essential links to respect and guarantee the rights of children and young people.

Disrepute of the profession

There has also been talk of a crisis in the teaching profession. A recent survey conducted by an education union concluded that a third of teachers are willing to leave the profession. The profession's loss of prestige, caused by instability and the precarious working conditions of certain groups (such as, for example, what the 0-3 classmates experience or the figures of educational guardians), the lack of social consideration towards our group and the increased pressure on the school, have undoubtedly deepened this crisis.

On the other hand, I understand the positive message behind this expression, which is often used with kindness and appreciation towards us. It's true that working in education requires a certain amount of curiosity, a willingness to delve deeper into understanding childhood and youth, and a general concern for people. The same is true for healthcare or elder care. But then it's necessary to nurture this initial predisposition with hard work, dedication, commitment, and training to truly become passionate about a profession like ours. I'm convinced that, referring to the caricature I mentioned earlier, if we feel like members of a group of "education workers" out of "commitment," and if we are part of a "team" and "plan" lessons across different "areas," the perception of our work changes radically. And this means doing it with a strong sense of responsibility and dedication, not because of any divine mandate.

I have the feeling that we will recover the prestige of our profession if we have the ability to rebuild it on these values, with commitment and responsibility, defending the rights of children and young people to have a quality public education.

When society has a more respectful view of our group, social prestige and the "vocation" of the women and men who dedicate themselves to education will be recovered.