Nice little puppet...

[Maxwell511]

English has grammer and vocab. History has facts. Foreign languages, ditto english.

During my last couple of years in school I had an Irish teacher that would give us essays to do each weekend on various social themes. I would hand it back every monday and get a zero because there was a grammical mistake in the first paragraph. Grammar and vocab were consider givens and you wouldn't be correct for using it correctly, you would be just incorrect for not using it correctly.

I never liked languages.

 

[TexasSky]

because of state and national "standards" that impose tests and rigid requirements so that children are simply taught to regurgitate information rather than how to analyze facts and draw conclusion. Essentially, they are taught to memorize, not to learn.

Amen!!!

 

[TexasSky]

I'm interested - what kind of examples do you have in mind when you talk about children being taught what to think rather than thinking for themselves.

As a youth worker I find it astonishingly hard to encourage the children in the area I work in to think at all.

Actually on a funny note, I enjoy encouraging imaginative play. A few months ago I noticed a little girl crawling around on her hands and knees in the soft play area roaring. As this is an improvement on her usual activities of punching kicking and pulling hair I decided to show some interest and encourage her, and play along etc. So I asked her what she was. She responed 'a TIGER' with a look of real excitement on her face. Quite sweet really. So I asked her: 'And what do tigers do?' (yeah I know stupid question - but you haven't heard the best bit!) She proceeded to show me exactly what Tigers did - she bit me . Hard. on my shoulder!

I really deserved that.

I was at lunch yesterday with the faculty and administrators of an Honors College in a top tier University and they brought up the fact that in a history class a professor asked the class to discuss an issue, and to explain their viewpoint. One of the responses was, "We should believe the President because he knows more than we know." The professor, horrified at this response, asked the class how many others felt that way. Over 3/4ths of the class lifted their hands in agreement with the girl.

Another professor is TEACHING her class how to "protest" effectively.

We have raised a generation of students who have been taught that to question or doubt authority is tantamount to career suicide.

 

[TexasSky]

I don't really understand this but it would probably depends on the class. For example, isn't not the job of the teacher to teach what the three branches of government are and not what the student thinks it is?

A truly good teacher will expand on the simple, "Congress makes law, the President enacts laws and the Supreme Court watches to make sure the laws match the constitution."

A truly good teacher will get into how the intepretation of a law by the Supreme Court can be the equivalent of creating a law, or how a President can avoid taking a stance on a contraversial issue by allowing it to sit on his desk unsigned and "unread", or how Congress and the Senate can sneak bills into other bills to pass unpopular legislation on the heels of popular legislation.

They can teach children to hold their leaders accountable. They can discuss the influence of lobby groups. They can teach children that participation in the process is more than voting - it is attending the caucuss, writing party platform, runnning even if you expect to lose.

 

[TexasSky]

Why do you believe that standardise tests eliminate the need for analyze?

Because statistical studies indicate that.
Teacher in the field report that they do not have time to teach creative thinking or to expand and teach in a creative fashion. They are sometimes limited to pre-programmed cuuriculum taught in pre-programed packages. Even when they are not actually limited in that fashion by their districts, they often find their career ladders and pay scale directly linked to the test scores of the students they teach. If they have a class with a majority of students who would be less likely to academically excel, they spend so much time trying to get the "facts" over to the students that they don't really have time to teach concepts.

Also, students entering Universities are showing an alarming lack of creative thinking skills. To the point that colleges are seriously concerned over where the next American inventors, engineers and "thinkers" will come from.

 

[TexasSky]

Things need to be used, or they are forgotten, yes. But maths is important because it gives you options. You do not know when you are 10 what you are going to want to be when you are 30. But without the basics in mathematics many options will be denied to you, and it is much harder to learn that stuff as an adult than it is as a kid. And learning maths expands growing minds, making them capable of all sorts of different things.

To the extent that certain "tools" are needed, I agree that some memorization is necessary, however, there is a TREMENDOUS amount of wasted time on memorization.

Does it help a child to know that 2 * 2 = 4? Of course.
Does it help a child to memorize the forumal for computing depreciation? No. The fact is, professional accountants won't rely on their memory of the formula. They will keep it written down, and they will use computers.

Does it help a child to understand that John F. Kennedy was shot in 1960? Maybe. It helps a LOT more to know who Kennedy was, what his policies before the assassination were, what Johnson's policies after the assassination were.

Its nice to know that the Civil War was between the north and the south, and the years it began and ended, but honestly, those are NOT the important points of that war.

It is BETTER to know that it was not just a war about slavery. It is better to know about the underground railroad, the politics of the day, the south's economic dependence upon slavery and the north's freedoms in terms of economics.

It is nice to know that Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet." It is much nicer to know a little about the times that Shakespeare wrote in, the politics of the age, to understand the deeper meanings of Hamlet.

By feeding children rote, we are failing to teach them vast amounts of information that make the rote worth knowing.

We are also causing some children to give up on education early because they are bored to tears, they hate learning rote, and they have a need to be creative, so they throw up their hands and get out ASAP.

 

[Maxwell511]

Because statistical studies indicate that.
Teacher in the field report that they do not have time to teach creative thinking or to expand and teach in a creative fashion. They are sometimes limited to pre-programmed cuuriculum taught in pre-programed packages. Even when they are not actually limited in that fashion by their districts, they often find their career ladders and pay scale directly linked to the test scores of the students they teach. If they have a class with a majority of students who would be less likely to academically excel, they spend so much time trying to get the "facts" over to the students that they don't really have time to teach concepts.

Also, students entering Universities are showing an alarming lack of creative thinking skills. To the point that colleges are seriously concerned over where the next American inventors, engineers and "thinkers" will come from.

In Ireland if an English Teacher did not give a creative writing class, the majority (save for a few extremely bright students) would fail the English State exam. This would mean that the students couldn't graduate and the teacher would be fired.

 

[TexasSky]

Yet good teachers do not do this sort of garbage.

The big problem is these sorts attitudes that look down on teaching as a whole, rather than trying to prevent bad teachers in the first place.

Good teachers will never reduce a complicated subject into multiple choice questions! They'll do a few MC questions to make sure students are listening and read in class, and then also have short answer and essay questions.

But to get more than just the dedicated 50% of teachers doing these comphresive learning outcomes, we need to raise the bar on who is allowed to be a teacher. Knowledge in a wide variety of subjects-the liberal arts, fine arts, or sciences and applied sciences, or both, or specialised studies for teachers who want to teach upper-level courses- and also classes in child development and psychology. That'll weed out the lazy teacheres pretty quickly. And then onsite, comprehensive, training must be done. And yes, salaries do need to be increased, so that someone passionate about teaching-but who knows they could do better financially by becoming an accountant, despite not being the one- will go into teaching.

Stricter guidelines for who could become a teacher-and a focus on diversity, so that men, women, artistic types, linguistic types, scientific types, creative types are all welcome to become teachers-as long as they are also willing to commit to a two or three year post-BA, BFA, or BofS (or equivalant) course of study in child behaviour, development, and psychology.

Good teachers are leaving the field right and left because the parents and administrators are demanding what you have labled "bad" teaching. (I agree it is bad).

In Texas students in certain grades have to take a test, every year at the beginning and end of the year. It measures what they know going in, and what they know going out. If, at a certain point, they don't do well on this thing, they can be failed, even if they have an A average. They can be prevented from graduating, and they can be denied college admissions.

Now, my children could pass most of the senior level one before they were in 7th grade. However, they had almost no extended knowledge to go with it.

Someone mentioned math. My daughter knew a lot of algebra and geometry forumlas, but she didn't "understand" them. As she progressed in school she would get very upset that they didn't make sense to her. When she asked the teacher for help the response was that they couldn't stop the class for a few students. So, I taught it to her at home, and I taught her the logic behind it, how and why it worked, and how to apply it to life. My daughter has an official IQ of 157, and she graduated with high honors in advanced placement classes.

Imagine the kids who are average students with parents who don't have the time to teach it at home?

My son made A's in History, but he had absolutely NO idea how that history tied into today's world. What use was that to him beyond that silly test?

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Good teachers are leaving the field right and left because the parents and administrators are demanding what you have labled "bad" teaching. (I agree it is bad).

In Texas students in certain grades have to take a test, every year at the beginning and end of the year. It measures what they know going in, and what they know going out. If, at a certain point, they don't do well on this thing, they can be failed, even if they have an A average. They can be prevented from graduating, and they can be denied college admissions.

Now, my children could pass most of the senior level one before they were in 7th grade. However, they had almost no extended knowledge to go with it.

Someone mentioned math. My daughter knew a lot of algebra and geometry forumlas, but she didn't "understand" them. As she progressed in school she would get very upset that they didn't make sense to her. When she asked the teacher for help the response was that they couldn't stop the class for a few students. So, I taught it to her at home, and I taught her the logic behind it, how and why it worked, and how to apply it to life. My daughter has an official IQ of 157, and she graduated with high honors in advanced placement classes.

Imagine the kids who are average students with parents who don't have the time to teach it at home?

My son made A's in History, but he had absolutely NO idea how that history tied into today's world. What use was that to him beyond that silly test?

Great posts!!

 

[meh]

So you'd think, yet every year students get multiple choice tested on Literature. Yeah, that's right. Not English, where at least you can have grammar (which is relatively multiple-choice). Literature. Take a multiple choice test on Pride and Prejudice!

Of course it does make the teacher's life easier. No parents yelling at them because their kid wrote an A essay, not a C essay. No explaining to kids how to critically think. Heck, if you taught them that they might start questioning the stupid school policies. What might happen then? Administrators might get on their case! It would just be easier to ask them
"Was Pride and Prejudice written by:
A) Jane Austin / B) Charles Dickens/ C) Wordsworth/D) William Shakespear"

I'm curious as to whether or not you've ever been a teacher?

I make no claims that all teachers are wonderful. I've had a few really bad ones, usually at the college level. There are millions of good teachers and thousands of great ones.

The good and great ones would probably love to spend more time on open-ended projects and creative teaching methods and analyzing and etc. Some can't do that. Why? Because they're too busy covering as much of the material which is going to be on the standardized test as they can. And if they didn't and the student test scores went down, then it's never blame the student or the state or the government. It's always blame the teacher.

You do realize that teachers can't just teach anymore, right? They're busy doing paperwork for the state and the government; they're busy getting the undisciplined kid to sit down and shut up so everyone else can learn; they're busy fighting with parents who don't want anyone telling their little precious how to behave; they're busy teaching 8 classes a day with no prep period to grade papers and get things organized for the day; they're busy attending after-school meetings, watching over after-school detentions, coaching ball teams, debate teams, scholastic bowl teams, putting on the school plays and music programs; many spend hours after school tutoring kids for free; and then at night while they're trying to feed and bathe their own kids, they're staying up late to grade papers.

Then there are those who buy classroom materials with their own money because the state mandates certain activities, but won't pay for the materials. And top of everything else the teacher is doing during the day, including everything above and trying to teach, they're dealing with a generation of kids of which many don't care, think it's cute to fail tests and be stupid, are too busy thinking about what clothes they're going to wear to do homework, who are having sex in the bathrooms, and doing drugs in the parking lot.

Where are the parents? Many are great and involved actively in their kid's life and education. But more and more it's becoming parents who couldn't care less that their kids are having sex in the bathroom or smoking pot in the parking lot, and if you try to tell them what's going on they start screaming you're picking on their kid.

Then you've got parents who won't answer phone calls, letters sent to the home and won't honor request after request for conference. You've got the parent who backs up their kid no matter what he does and teaches him to have no respect for teachers or the school. And, my personal favorite, you've got the parent who thinks every bad grade their child gets is just the teacher picking on the kid. It can't possibly be because the child didn't do good work.

My mother taught for 33 years. I have witnessed what's become of our schools and I've seen the decline in students, parents and state mandates. She finally quit because she loved teaching, but she wasn't allowed to just teach anymore.

There is plenty of blame to go around on the education issue. Plenty.

 

[SallyNow]

The last thing we need is more alphabet soup keeping good teachers in school longer and giving them less actual time with the kids.

Wrong. The first thing we need are solid standards for teachers on more on-site training. This would increase time with students, and weed out the bad teachers before they have a change to ever get a classroom of their own.

The last thing we need is even less reason for people to become teachers.

Which is why we need more focused, diverse training programs; why we need a better salary; why teaching must be respected as other professions that require the time, dedication, and training that teaching takes.

The salary is alright, right now.

*snort* The salary for a teacher is low. It's not even close to being okay. When broken down it often comes to about $20 to $30 an hour, for very tough, time-and-mind consuming work.

For a Masters degree? It's horrible. That means even less bright, talented people will be interested in becoming teachers - they'd rather spend their 6-7 years on something that pays relatively well. So even more of the teachers will be people who just didn't want to leave college. Oh, great. We'll get even more of that 5% who just can't cut it in the 'real world.'

So because requiring teachers to get training would require teachers getting paid what they deserve, we should just lessen the standards and let teaching stay as a "back-up career"? That's hasn't worked in the past 50 years and it won't work in the future.

Let me put your "solution" in other terms: Being a rural doctor is often not paid well, and there often isn't much oversight. So, sometimes, less-qualified doctors move to rural areas. Is the solution to lower the training for rural teachers? Of course not. It's to raise the pay and to raise the standards.

Here's a solution: Fire bad teachers. Hire good ones. No protection in jobs for elementry school teachers. Make teaching competative, make the school system competative.

The salary for teachers is horrible.

Hiring good teachers is not as a simple as just going out and hiring good teachers. Good teachers will only work if their voices are listened too, if they can really do what is best for teachers. Good teachers may not go into teaching because they see what a bum deal it is: no respectability, not enough training, not enough money, no control.

For there to be good teachers to be hired, first, and foremost, good teachers must be trained; and to do this, better training is needed: BA or BofS or BFA degree, and then two years teacher's training: one courses on child behaviour, etc, the other in the classroom to weed out the "teaching is my back-up" people from the actual teachers.

The best teachers I know did get the most training, but also had the most drive. Teaching programs must be made to weed out the bad teachers before they ever go into teaching. On-site training would do this.

Spending a year or more as a student teacher-rather than a few months-would weed out the teachers who are just in it as a "back-up" career.

A smart person, a skilled worker, someone who has trained hard and well will not work in a totally unprotected job. While teachers should be fired if they are bad, they should not be subject to dismisal because they run into a few whiny, bad parents who would rather hurt the teacher than actually raise their kids.

 

[MoodyBlue]

I'm curious as to whether or not you've ever been a teacher?

I make no claims that all teachers are wonderful. I've had a few really bad ones, usually at the college level. There are millions of good teachers and thousands of great ones.

The good and great ones would probably love to spend more time on open-ended projects and creative teaching methods and analyzing and etc. Some can't do that. Why? Because they're too busy covering as much of the material which is going to be on the standardized test as they can. And if they didn't and the student test scores went down, then it's never blame the student or the state or the government. It's always blame the teacher.

You do realize that teachers can't just teach anymore, right? They're busy doing paperwork for the state and the government; they're busy getting the undisciplined kid to sit down and shut up so everyone else can learn; they're busy fighting with parents who don't want anyone telling their little precious how to behave; they're busy teaching 8 classes a day with no prep period to grade papers and get things organized for the day; they're busy attending after-school meetings, watching over after-school detentions, coaching ball teams, debate teams, scholastic bowl teams, putting on the school plays and music programs; many spend hours after school tutoring kids for free; and then at night while they're trying to feed and bathe their own kids, they're staying up late to grade papers.

Then there are those who buy classroom materials with their own money because the state mandates certain activities, but won't pay for the materials. And top of everything else the teacher is doing during the day, including everything above and trying to teach, they're dealing with a generation of kids of which many don't care, think it's cute to fail tests and be stupid, are too busy thinking about what clothes they're going to wear to do homework, who are having sex in the bathrooms, and doing drugs in the parking lot.

Where are the parents? Many are great and involved actively in their kid's life and education. But more and more it's becoming parents who couldn't care less that their kids are having sex in the bathroom or smoking pot in the parking lot, and if you try to tell them what's going on they start screaming you're picking on their kid.

Then you've got parents who won't answer phone calls, letters sent to the home and won't honor request after request for conference. You've got the parent who backs up their kid no matter what he does and teaches him to have no respect for teachers or the school. And, my personal favorite, you've got the parent who thinks every bad grade their child gets is just the teacher picking on the kid. It can't possibly be because the child didn't do good work.

My mother taught for 33 years. I have witnessed what's become of our schools and I've seen the decline in students, parents and state mandates. She finally quit because she loved teaching, but she wasn't allowed to just teach anymore.

There is plenty of blame to go around on the education issue. Plenty.

I appreciate your comments, they match up exactly with what my wife has been complaining to me about. She is a special education teacher in an elementary school. She really loves teaching, loves her students. But she is so frustrated over the government bureaucracy, meetings, uncooperative/uncaring parents, she is ready to quit.

 

[arnegrim]

I was at lunch yesterday with the faculty and administrators of an Honors College in a top tier University and they brought up the fact that in a history class a professor asked the class to discuss an issue, and to explain their viewpoint. One of the responses was, "We should believe the President because he knows more than we know." The professor, horrified at this response, asked the class how many others felt that way. Over 3/4ths of the class lifted their hands in agreement with the girl.

Another professor is TEACHING her class how to "protest" effectively.

We have raised a generation of students who have been taught that to question or doubt authority is tantamount to career suicide.

Funny... I can give you stories that show the exact opposite. "Never trust the US government".

There was a white student who, during black history month, asked the teacher what whites had done to be proud of... the teacher said 'nothing... you should be ashamed.'

 

[ScottishJohn]

There was a white student who, during black history month, asked the teacher what whites had done to be proud of... the teacher said 'nothing... you should be ashamed.'

In relation to Black History month I would tend to agree somewhat.

 

[Alarum]

Wrong. The first thing we need are solid standards for teachers on more on-site training. This would increase time with students, and weed out the bad teachers before they have a change to ever get a classroom of their own.


Which is why we need more focused, diverse training programs; why we need a better salary; why teaching must be respected as other professions that require the time, dedication, and training that teaching takes.

*snort* The salary for a teacher is low. It's not even close to being okay. When broken down it often comes to about $20 to $30 an hour, for very tough, time-and-mind consuming work.

So because requiring teachers to get training would require teachers getting paid what they deserve, we should just lessen the standards and let teaching stay as a "back-up career"? That's hasn't worked in the past 50 years and it won't work in the future.

Let me put your "solution" in other terms: Being a rural doctor is often not paid well, and there often isn't much oversight. So, sometimes, less-qualified doctors move to rural areas. Is the solution to lower the training for rural teachers? Of course not. It's to raise the pay and to raise the standards.

The salary for teachers is horrible.

Hiring good teachers is not as a simple as just going out and hiring good teachers. Good teachers will only work if their voices are listened too, if they can really do what is best for teachers. Good teachers may not go into teaching because they see what a bum deal it is: no respectability, not enough training, not enough money, no control.

For there to be good teachers to be hired, first, and foremost, good teachers must be trained; and to do this, better training is needed: BA or BofS or BFA degree, and then two years teacher's training: one courses on child behaviour, etc, the other in the classroom to weed out the "teaching is my back-up" people from the actual teachers.

The best teachers I know did get the most training, but also had the most drive. Teaching programs must be made to weed out the bad teachers before they ever go into teaching. On-site training would do this.

Spending a year or more as a student teacher-rather than a few months-would weed out the teachers who are just in it as a "back-up" career.

A smart person, a skilled worker, someone who has trained hard and well will not work in a totally unprotected job. While teachers should be fired if they are bad, they should not be subject to dismisal because they run into a few whiny, bad parents who would rather hurt the teacher than actually raise their kids.

Quick, raise your hands anyone who thinks that $20-$30 an hour is a bad, unlivable, horrible wage. Bueller? Bueller?

Good teachers are not made by having them sit in a classroom longer. Classrooms do very little to improve teaching ability. If they were, everyone with a PhD would be a great teacher. Raise your hands, everyone who thinks that people with a PhD are by necessity good teachers? I mean what do you want. You want six years of training. To be a teacher. Why? There doesn't seem to be a good reason, beyond the anecdotal.

Moving on, you say that good teachers will often only work where their voices can be heard. You then speak up AGAINST school competition. With competition between schools, schools would have an incentive to hire good teachers. The good teachers would necessarily gravitate towards schools that offer them exactly what they want - a voice. Those schools might not even need to pay them any more money if they offered them a great working environment.

Those schools would be sucessful. Bad schools that don't get good teachers? Not sucessful.

If good teachers knew that their voices would be heard, that they COULD change the system, they would be more inclined to go into teaching. And what's the sign of change? Growth. Competition. If the system is stagnant, of course they see no need to change it. Offering more money does not give the dreamers, the people who would like to kindle a love of learning an incentive to go into teaching. Offering a potential to change things does.

I simply don't understand this adversion to simple competition. Not cutthroat. Not angry, not attacks. Simply offering people a chance to place their kids where they want to place their kids, and force the schools to accept the responsibility of teaching those kids. Freedom and responsibility - kids should be learning about it from the start, from experience.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Quick, raise your hands anyone who thinks that $20-$30 an hour is a bad, unlivable, horrible wage. Bueller? Bueller?

Good teachers are not made by having them sit in a classroom longer. Classrooms do very little to improve teaching ability. If they were, everyone with a PhD would be a great teacher. Raise your hands, everyone who thinks that people with a PhD are by necessity good teachers? I mean what do you want. You want six years of training. To be a teacher. Why? There doesn't seem to be a good reason, beyond the anecdotal.

Moving on, you say that good teachers will often only work where their voices can be heard. You then speak up AGAINST school competition. With competition between schools, schools would have an incentive to hire good teachers. The good teachers would necessarily gravitate towards schools that offer them exactly what they want - a voice. Those schools might not even need to pay them any more money if they offered them a great working environment.

Those schools would be sucessful. Bad schools that don't get good teachers? Not sucessful.

If good teachers knew that their voices would be heard, that they COULD change the system, they would be more inclined to go into teaching. And what's the sign of change? Growth. Competition. If the system is stagnant, of course they see no need to change it. Offering more money does not give the dreamers, the people who would like to kindle a love of learning an incentive to go into teaching. Offering a potential to change things does.

I simply don't understand this adversion to simple competition. Not cutthroat. Not angry, not attacks. Simply offering people a chance to place their kids where they want to place their kids, and force the schools to accept the responsibility of teaching those kids. Freedom and responsibility - kids should be learning about it from the start, from experience.

Keep in mind that hourly pay gets diluted quite a bit when teachers take work home with them. Working day and night isn't fun...I've done it. Then add the stress of dealing with rooms full of kids all day that teachers have to deal with that regular working folks don't.

 

[Alarum]

Keep in mind that hourly pay gets diluted quite a bit when teachers take work home with them. Working day and night isn't fun...I've done it. Then add the stress of dealing with rooms full of kids all day that teachers have to deal with that regular working folks don't.

Even if it's another hour or even two after work, teachers are still making pretty good pay. As for the stress of dealing with rooms full of kids, there's other jobs where you have to deal with stress - customers, high temperatures, hard physical labor, risk of injury, etc. They call them jobs because they're not things people do voluntarily. The average starting salary of someone with a liberal arts degree is $30,000 dollars. That's only about $14 an hour, less than $20 an hour by a good bit. How much extra work do teachers have?

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Even if it's another hour or even two after work, teachers are still making pretty good pay. As for the stress of dealing with rooms full of kids, there's other jobs where you have to deal with stress - customers, high temperatures, hard physical labor, risk of injury, etc. They call them jobs because they're not things people do voluntarily. The average starting salary of someone with a liberal arts degree is $30,000 dollars. That's only about $14 an hour, less than $20 an hour by a good bit. How much extra work do teachers have?

Ask a teacher. They will surely tell you!
I do work a high stress job and I think it is less so than teaching. I get to go home at the end of the day and unwind...most teachers don't. Someone mentioned the meetings with parents, involvement with school groups, endless grading at home, etc. You roll all that together with having to deal with the politics and then the regular teaching load and dealing with student "drama" all day and you have way more than a full plate.
When you weigh out what teachers actually have to do to perform their duties and stay current with their certifications, the pay falls short. Think about it like this: Someone in a "regular" job does work beyond the 40 hours, they get a thing called overtime and get compensated for working longer hours. Teachers don't get anything like that as far as I know.