I really don't like the part where the author rags on teachers.
"I didn’t realize there is a stigma amongst teachers—that they deeply resent having to spend money on their classrooms and careers. Many businesses, both online and off, have special discounts and freebies for teachers. This has warped teachers’ sense of value and fostered a sense of entitlement."
Sorry, but why the heck should a teacher have to pay for their own classroom? If I were forced to pay for my keyboard at work, or my monitor, should I not be pissed? Teachers, especially ones that are starting out, are dirt poor, and for some reason they need to spend money on their classroom? Nonsense.
As sense of entitlement? How about a sense of what's fair. I didn't like the attitude at all.
"I feel for them. I really do. But they’re still terrible customers."
Or, in other words "Teachers refused to pay for my product, so they suck."
I would say the author was guilty of a cliched mistake that many startups make: he built a solution for a problem that no one was interested in, or at least interested enough to pay for.
I don't think he resents them as much as he just realizes that he had mistaken assumptions. He heard that teachers often pay for their own supplies, but what he didn't know was that teachers hate doing it.
He says they have a “warped sense of value” and a “sense of entitlement”, and that teachers’ claimed love of tech is a “farce”. I don’t know if he “resents” them or not, but it’s a pretty insulting tone he takes. Teachers don’t hate spending money on school supplies because they’re somehow unique: everyone on a fixed salary hates spending their own money on stuff that is absolutely necessary to their jobs and should be provided by their employers, especially ones who feel underpaid and disrespected in general.
You can bet that if you forced (for example) salaried programmers to pay for their own chairs and their own company email accounts, or forced salaried graphic designers to pay for their companies’ font licenses and stock photos that there’d be plenty of grumbling and resentment about it.
Sorry but one word comments are the only way no to indicate assent quickly, if you upvote it's useless except as an indicator the commenter and even then they don't know it was you who upvoted. FWIW I think that your comment was fine, showed that you agreed.
The "ground rules" were set and worked on an earlier version. Your comment added information that was unavailable to us.
I left this out of the post, but my wife, father, and sister-in-law are all educators. I am a huge supporter of teachers. That's why I got into this in the first place.
You shouldn't have to pay for your keyboard, but maybe books to keep your skills current. Maybe a web host to operate a portfolio website or experiment with new code libraries. Everyone in every industry invests money into their careers. Why not teachers?
Last thought about the cliched startup mistake is completely true. I definitely made that mistake.
We're talking about 2 completely different things here:
1. Investing in your future skills, and
2. Having the necessary tools to do your job.
I don't know a single teacher that confuses these. If I want to become better at my job, clearly it's my responsibility to go take a class or buy a book or just study on my own. If I don't have the tools to do my job properly, depending on how core it is to my job, I would have the expectation that the school would provide it. The problem is schools often do not provide what is commonly understood as core tools.
Some random webapp that slightly enhances the classroom experience or slightly enhances learning outcomes is not a core tool. Instead it is a tool that exists on the periphery. Just as with any population, you have the early adopters and the not so early adopters. The early adopters may be interested, the others won't. Convincing administrators that your app isn't just an app that exists on the periphery is the most difficult task out of all.
If that's the case, then you should change the tone of your post. You obviously don't realize this, but it makes you sound petty, and makes it seem as though you're blaming your failure on "those stupid teachers that didn't realize how great my software was".
When I wrote the post, I realized there was a danger in that. I think the wording I landed on is blunt but fair.
I still really don't think it's an issue of "those stupid teachers that didn't realize how great my software was." ( However if I'm honest, I did think that on a couple of my more challenging days.)
I think teachers just don't want software for everyday tasks.
I thought that initially, but upon reflection, I think he struck the right tone.
He's not writing marketing materials for teachers to buy his product, he's providing a stern warning to other hackers making the same mistakes. So for that purpose the language was quite effective.
Exactly. Shows how important it is to bounce your concepts off the right people before you start. Everyone should quickly learn that the guy that says "Yeah, that's awesome!" with dollar signs in their eyes every time is the worst with feedback.
"I didn’t realize there is a stigma amongst teachers—that they deeply resent having to spend money on their classrooms and careers. Many businesses, both online and off, have special discounts and freebies for teachers. This has warped teachers’ sense of value and fostered a sense of entitlement."
Sorry, but why the heck should a teacher have to pay for their own classroom? If I were forced to pay for my keyboard at work, or my monitor, should I not be pissed? Teachers, especially ones that are starting out, are dirt poor, and for some reason they need to spend money on their classroom? Nonsense.
As sense of entitlement? How about a sense of what's fair. I didn't like the attitude at all.
"I feel for them. I really do. But they’re still terrible customers."
Or, in other words "Teachers refused to pay for my product, so they suck."
I would say the author was guilty of a cliched mistake that many startups make: he built a solution for a problem that no one was interested in, or at least interested enough to pay for.