How do other politicians describe teachers — is calling them 'not professionals' common in political discourse?

1. Political attacks on teachers are a recurring tool in wider policy battles

When politicians push major changes such as dismantling the U.S. Department of Education or advancing Project 2025, critics portray those moves as direct attacks on teachers and public education, and proponents sometimes frame teachers as the problem or obstacle to reform — a framing that fuels negative characterizations of educators ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting on the federal changes documents how elected officials and administration allies emphasize “streamlining” or “returning power to states,” language that opponents say implicitly questions teachers’ professional role and the federal protections that support them ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Complaints about teachers’ professionalism often surface around political speech or social-media incidents

Multiple outlets document teachers being suspended, fired, or investigated for personal social-media posts about political figures like Charlie Kirk; districts describe such posts as “unprofessional,” and unions argue many investigations implicate free-speech rights — illustrating that accusations about being “unprofessional” are common in disciplinary contexts ^{[3] [4] [6]}. Those incidents show politicians, school leaders, parents and unions clashing over whether a teacher’s off-duty expression undermines professional norms ^{[3] [4]}.

3. “Not professionals” is part of a long-standing rhetorical pattern, not a standardized political term

Historical and campaign-oriented reporting compiled by education advocates and historians traces a long tradition of politicians attacking teachers as a way to mobilize voters — calling them “subversive,” “biased,” or otherwise unfit to teach — but the sources describe this as rhetorical scoring rather than a formal, consistent label universally applied by politicians ^[7]. The Zinn Education Project and other analyses argue conservative politicians have repeatedly targeted teachers to score points, indicating recurring delegitimization rather than a single fixed epithet ^[7].

4. Teachers’ unions and education groups frame attacks as coordinated and consequential

Union leaders and education advocates explicitly link political attacks on teachers to policies that would reduce funding or federal support, and they present the rhetorical delegitimization of teachers as part of a coordinated campaign to weaken public education ^{[5] [1]}. This perspective asserts that public attacks on teachers’ professionalism are instrumental — designed to justify policy shifts such as defunding or restructuring ^{[1] [5]}.

5. Some politicians and organizations push back, urging teacher engagement rather than silence

Other voices — including op-eds and union resources — encourage teachers to participate in politics and defend their profession, arguing that silence cedes narratives that portray educators as untrustworthy or unprofessional ^{[8] [9]}. Education Week opinion pieces and NEA resources frame political participation as a corrective to mischaracterizations and a civic necessity for those affected by education policy ^{[8] [9]}.

6. Two competing frames shape public discourse: accountability versus delegitimization

One strand frames criticism of teachers as accountability for political advocacy or poor conduct (used when districts cite “unprofessional” behavior tied to social-media posts), while the opposing strand sees such criticism as delegitimization intended to silence and scapegoat educators ^{[3] [4] [6]}. Reporters and advocates cite both kinds of examples in coverage of the Charlie Kirk–related disciplinary cases and in responses to federal changes, showing active disagreement over motives and impact ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

7. Limits of current sources and what they don’t say

Available sources document many incidents and rhetoric but do not provide a systematic quantification of how often politicians explicitly call teachers “not professionals” versus using other language (available sources do not mention a comprehensive frequency analysis of that exact phrase). Likewise, the sources highlight high-profile episodes and institutional responses but do not map every partisan or local politician’s wording across the country (available sources do not mention comprehensive national linguistic tracking).

Conclusion — what this means for interpretation

The record in current reporting shows frequent politicization of teachers’ conduct and recurring rhetorical attacks tied to broader policy fights; calls that teachers are “unprofessional” are common in disciplinary and political messaging, while explicit uses of the short phrase “not professionals” appear as one variant within a broader strategy of delegitimization rather than a narrowly defined, universally applied label ^{[3] [4] [7] [5]}. Readers should weigh incidents case-by-case and note competing claims from districts, unions, and political actors about motive and impact ^{[3] [4] [8]}.