They spend all day herding children, so they are at least qualified to be Project Managers.

You jest, but this is my suggestion to anyone who wants a career change. You can study and get a PMP or Scrum certificate and get an entry level job fairly easily. And, if successful, can be making 100k within a few years.

Of course you have to be a PM, so there’s that. I’d rather literally herd cats or manage a kindergarten class.

"So what do you do for a living?"

"I call people and ask them to do the things they said they would do, on time. Then we have meetings about it for 4-6 hours a day. Technically I'm in charge."

This post doesn't assume that, but I have met urban public school teachers who could have been software engineers since you asked.

My post does assume that the career would attract more highly qualified candidates if the pay was higher.

I’ve met some too, but I’d say that most are incapable. Or they are the same proportion of the population that is capable. I don’t think teachers are any more or less likely than a typical person.

I’d guess I’ve met and spend significant time with 100 teachers. And a handful were capable of being a professional programmer.

What has “urban” to do with it?

I think a more diverse student body, likely one with a wide range of parental income and possibly including some kids who are members or gangs or is just more likely to have a few actually violent (,mentally ill, narcissistic, borderline personality disorder, etc.) kids, with a higher student to teacher ratio, will be much more challenging than a small high-school with 400 kids that more or less fall into "middle class and above with a spattering of low income."

EDIT: found an interesting "day in the life" article by a self-labeled urban teacher.

https://theeducatorsroom.com/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-teacher-...

The parent comment answers itself. They would choose it because they actually don't have the alternative choice. In fact, aside from the transient young Teach for America type affluent idealists, most (not "all") urban public school teachers are gloried babysitters making good babysitting wages. If they teach kids anything it's usually something that should be untaught asap. By and large, the long hauler, professional urban public school teachers are not the type of people who have a ton of useful skills. In fact, the social skills useful for dealing with adults usually atrophy so even being a Software Project Manager is off the table. They become prisoners as much as the students, who at least have a definite term to serve and can get out early for bad behavior. For most kids, urban public schools are a policy solution to the social problem of young, unattended kids causing havoc, not a viable educational tool. Considered in that light they work pretty well.

And non-urban schools are somehow different?

Yes, for obvious reasons. Classroom size and the relative economic factors of urban schools make the job less desirable than non-urban schools. Urban kids are typically rich or poor. Rich kids end up in non-public schools. Non-urban schools are more often serving the middle class, who have cultural advantages over the poor when it comes to learning outcomes. Why do you think urban parents move to suburban school districts after having kids?

There are more urban teachers than rural. And pay is more for urban than rural.

True but rarely more than the difference in cost of living.

I’ve never heard of ”urban” being a code word for “black”. Is that a thing? I assume they mean “urban” as in “city” where you’re likely to have many other forms of opportunity vs “podunk” where you’re kinda stuck in one career because there’s nothing else around.

It's very much a thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/10/heres-h...

What has "what has 'urban'" to do with it?

What?

Huh?

Well this interaction was confusing enough that I had to check your profile. I suppose that's a hobby.

Who's profile?

Yes. And most wouldn't make a statement this dumb.