U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-20-2011, 10:48 AM
 
4,749 posts, read 3,471,573 times
Reputation: 3223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu View Post
I totally see your point. But I also see Stossel's point of increasing competitive pressures on the schools by attaching the money to the child (rather than the school), and making it easier to fire ineffective teachers. According to the program, charter schools are able to use less money per child (yet spend more % on education), and still pay higher salaries to the teachers. Isn't that a win-win situation?

Also he compared two schools (one charter, one not) in the same area. The students at both schools have similar demographics. At the charter school the kids were well-behaved and achieved excellent scores on standardized exams while the non-charter school kids were rowdy and did poorly. I don't think the district or demographics necessarily dictate how the kids will do.

I've definitely seen good teachers and bad. Ultimately if a student is self-motivated and has a textbook they can overcome the bad teaching. Conversely, an unmotivated student might not be receptive even to the best teacher. But I still think part of the teacher's responsibility is to instill interest in a subject. Bad teachers should still be fired, crappy schools should still be closed down. Just like how disruptive students should be expelled. 10k/child/year is just too much public money to be playing around with. That is actually more than tuition at some colleges.

I'm truly afraid to send my kids to any public school in this district (which is somewhat affluent but also made up of poor immigrant populations). I still think the issue of quality has to do with demographics, but part of it is that the teachers have lowered their standards to match those of the students, such that D quality work would get a B. The students are well-behaved and attentive, but don't seem to learn squat. This drives the better students to charter and private schools. I wonder if the better thing would be to maintain standards so that the poor performers would have to start doing well or fail out.
I don't think it should be easy to fire developing teachers. I think that this sounds attractive, because that's what happens in the business world, and that's the simple analogy that people make. But firing teachers shouldn't be done without much thought, because firing a teacher is wasting resources, such as the time and money that is spent training one to begin with. I'll do one better: if we really cared about the quality of teaching, we would make sure that we were more selective in the teachers we hire to begin with, and we would commit to their success.

You've actually raised what I think is one of the big problems in our society, which is actually a problem that has been introduced by the business world. The problem is, we see people as something we can just throw away the second we no longer feel like working with them. An employee isn't performing? Dump him like stock. Just hire the next guy and hope he trains himself. And if he doesn't? Well, dump him, too, and repeat. We're doing the same thing with teachers now, it would seem. We're just hiring teachers and expecting them to train themselves, and if they can't, we'll just throw them away. I think it would be better if we were to put a lot more thought and care into the hiring and training of teachers and get rid of them only if it becomes clear that they're not willing or not going to evolve. As a teacher, I can tell you that one of the most important things a teacher has is his own experience. Teachers, as in any other field, need time to try out different methods in the classroom. I think they ought to be supervised closely and mentored carefully, but this throw away society of ours will continue to get crap results until it learns to value human resources more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2011, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,763,789 times
Reputation: 14503
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
I don't think it should be easy to fire developing teachers. I think that this sounds attractive, because that's what happens in the business world, and that's the simple analogy that people make. But firing teachers shouldn't be done without much thought, because firing a teacher is wasting resources, such as the time and money that is spent training one to begin with. I'll do one better: if we really cared about the quality of teaching, we would make sure that we were more selective in the teachers we hire to begin with, and we would commit to their success.

You've actually raised what I think is one of the big problems in our society, which is actually a problem that has been introduced by the business world. The problem is, we see people as something we can just throw away the second we no longer feel like working with them. An employee isn't performing? Dump him like stock. Just hire the next guy and hope he trains himself. And if he doesn't? Well, dump him, too, and repeat. We're doing the same thing with teachers now, it would seem. We're just hiring teachers and expecting them to train themselves, and if they can't, we'll just throw them away. I think it would be better if we were to put a lot more thought and care into the hiring and training of teachers and get rid of them only if it becomes clear that they're not willing or not going to evolve. As a teacher, I can tell you that one of the most important things a teacher has is his own experience. Teachers, as in any other field, need time to try out different methods in the classroom. I think they ought to be supervised closely and mentored carefully, but this throw away society of ours will continue to get crap results until it learns to value human resources more.
See bolded: Contrary to popular belief, THIS is what industry does. They don't fire people who are under performing until attempting to rectify the situation because resources are lost when you fire an employee. What they do, in industry, is select the best and then invest, heavily, in them.

As an teacher, I was handed the keys to my room and told to go teach. I was given a mentor I saw a couple of times a month. As an engineer, I was placed onto a three to five year traning program. My mentor and I met, at least, weekly, my boss and I almost daily, and I had several engineers I worked with who gave feedback constantly. My projects were designed to help me grow and become the kind of engineer the company wanted. While they understood that some would flush out, their aim was to develop all of us into employees they wanted to keep.

I was a much better engineer after three years in the profession than I am a teacher after the same time in service. I'm starting to understand why people say good teachers are born. The fact is, no one takes the time or makes the investment necessary to grow one from good stock. Industry picks good stock and then nurtures it. Teaching does not, from what I can see. They do try to pick the best but then they, pretty much, leave them to develop on their own so there is a considerable amount of luck involved in getting a good teacher. Industry stacks the deck by investing in employee training.

The most efficient way to get from where you are to where you want to be is to start with where you are, keep what's working and change what isn't. No matter where you started, you end up in a better place for having done this. In teaching, they throw the baby out with the bathwater and start over, again and again....every time the educaitonal winds blow a different direction. You need a means to identify what is working and what isn't so you know what to keep and what to change. As things are now, this is, entirely, up to each individual teacher and based on their whims. THAT will get you exactly what you have because that's the way it's always been done.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 08-25-2011 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
632 posts, read 962,652 times
Reputation: 691
Its available on YouTube in its entirety if anyone wants to watch it without having to switch to different parts.

Anyways, I have a couple of questions and comments I thought of while watching this:

1.) I believe that by high school, regardless of what school district you went to, the kids that have a firm foundation and are independent thinkers by this point will succeed no matter what.

I know quite a few students at my college who came from towns smaller than my local EMS, fire, and police departments combined and graduated at the top of there class who were on the same level as those who went to suburban schools like the one's in Plano, TX.


2.) Who are the idiots that spend $$$$ on gyms and admin. buildings? Its a shame that most kids in America can't even compete with students from developing nations while over here, we pour money into schools like there's no tommorrow!

Why not spend less on the actual building and put kids in shacks (there not as bad as everyone may say they are) and pay teachers MORE for being able to improve students academic performance and keeping them motivated.

Give teachers the freedom to teach rather than restrict them because when these kids get to college they will have certain professors who will blow there midns away with regards to there opinions on politics or science.


3.) Isn't it unfair to compare American students to students in other countries for the most part because, in America, a classroom is diverse whereas in let's say Korea, a classroom consists of mostly Koreans?

I wonder what would happen if students were seperated by race or at least gender, I wonder how this would affect performance.

Controversial yes, but its worth doing a study about...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2011, 08:50 AM
 
2,113 posts, read 2,245,747 times
Reputation: 1758
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRage View Post
3.) Isn't it unfair to compare American students to students in other countries for the most part because, in America, a classroom is diverse whereas in let's say Korea, a classroom consists of mostly Koreans?

I wonder what would happen if students were seperated by race or at least gender, I wonder how this would affect performance.

Controversial yes, but its worth doing a study about...
Why would a classroom of mostly Koreans be not diverse? They will not all think the same, like the same subjects, learn the same way.

I agree with your first two points (but not the shacks suggestion, that is a bit extreme).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2011, 05:18 PM
 
2,922 posts, read 2,915,721 times
Reputation: 3507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindy_Jole View Post
Why would a classroom of mostly Koreans be not diverse? They will not all think the same, like the same subjects, learn the same way.

I agree with your first two points (but not the shacks suggestion, that is a bit extreme).
They may not think the same way, but they will very likely share the same value system and cultural habits.

Diversity includes such basic differences as the cultures of eye contact. In Korea, the students would likely not look teachers in the eye as a matter of respect and the teachers would know that. In the US, eye contact behaviors vary widely, with problems occurring when the teacher expects eye contact and a student who is ingrained with a conflicting cultural behavior can't comply. When I consider the diversity of other countries, I think of those types of cultural patterns. This is becoming a problem in a lot of European countries that have begun to see widespread immigration from refugees or other EU countries.

In the US, there isn't even always a cultural norm in a school due to the various cultures that attend and work there. It can be a major challenge for schools to develop an identity that can help motivate the students to do well on the tests required by NCLB, results that don't always affect the individual student, but rather the school where the student is enrolled. Contrast this with countries where the rigorous student exams determine the future of the student, not the teachers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 01:19 AM
 
102 posts, read 144,308 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Apparently, I went from being a bad teacher to being a good teacher when I switched jobs last year. There must have been a magic download over the summer or something....
I had exactly the same experience. I was a bad teacher when I worked in an impoverished community where English was not the native language of the kids and where parent support was low. Then I taught at a school that drew primarily the students of univeristy professors and I was AMAZING. Went back to the ghetto school and turned right back into a bad teacher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 01:25 AM
 
102 posts, read 144,308 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
I'm telling you that the difference is the kids not me. This is pretty subjective. The definition of a good teacher is very situational. That makes it subjective. Each school gets to decide what their definition of a good teacher is.
I agree. Frankly a monkey could've taught the kids to read at one of my schools. They couldn't have NOT learned it if they tried. The average first grade reading score was in the mid-90th %ile. Sure, some teachers have better classroom management skills and handle disruptive students better than others. But we can't all be Jaime Escalante, just as not all surgeons can be the very best and not all chefs can be the very best. In a school where it takes an extraordinary teacher to control a class, it isn't reasonable to compare the teachers to those in easier circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 03:18 AM
 
553 posts, read 874,526 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by wsop View Post
The difference is the particular needs of your students and school. Your old school and students needed a teacher with stronger classroom management skills, which you admitted is not one of your strong points.

Better to be in a position where you utilize your strengths, however, it never hurts to work on your weaknesses, or even to admit you have some weaknesses and go from there.
What weakness? being unable to discipline students that sit and smoke in your class with their feet on their desks? That stand up and walk? That hawl and yell and make "witty comments"? If the administration of the school does not back you up what do you do? Haha. You are obviously a parent, not a teacher who asks for miracles and calls it "classroom management skills".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,346 posts, read 80,885,074 times
Reputation: 17413

Americans are NOT stupid - WITH SUBTITLES - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 01:20 PM
 
4,044 posts, read 5,958,466 times
Reputation: 3819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
Well, nothing shocking and certainly not unusual. I am in fact surprised that the lamentations about generalizing or selection bias haven't shown up yet.

Contemporary Americans are the first in the World to develop as human beings almost exclusively on a shallow mass-media, carefully and purposefully crafted by cynics (Mainly TV). This, combined with the reality that a sense of true community, in which people feel free to naturally and spontaneously converse with one another (converse, not "small talk") has long been killed in this country.
In other cultures, the answers to such questions are mainly learned via meaningful interaction and conversations with others, not by dutifully studying in schoo - though that can't hurt either.

Then how would you expect these people to know anything? Seriously. They don't have inferior genes compared to people in other countries. They were simply brought up in a killer social environment - or complete lack thereof.

Have you checked what's on TV recently? We are now just seeing the ruins of cultural and educational genocide in this country.
It is bad; and it is going to get worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top