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.
If all INCOMPETENT teachers were FIRED, how many would be left?
Would there be enough good teachers left to be able to educate our children?
I have met some pretty extraordinary teachers in my life. I've also met some teachers that were clearly in the wrong career.
While I see people supporting the teaching community as a whole and standing up against "accountability", I can't help but think of some of the awful teachers I've encountered.
Teachers that did not feel the need to change their ways, or attempt to improve themselves because of their job security. Teacher who had a dozen excuses as to why they couldn't do a better job.
Ironically some of these teachers who fell back on blaming everyone else, were the first teachers to blame a student or parent for making "excuses".
Funny how that works. You can't teach a child. Well, instead of trying to find a way to get through to them, lets just blame somebody else!
I know it's a frustrating profession. I can only imagine how difficult it is. But, if you can't find a way to do your job without taking it out on your students, then it's time for another job.
I think a similar question could be asked of parents, students, and society as a whole:
If all incompetent parents were forbidden to raise their children anymore, how many parents would be left?
If all incompetent students were expelled from school, how many school-children would be left?
If all incompetent people in society were shot, how many people would be left?
Education isn't a two-way street. It's a multi-faceted situation, requiring cooperative behavior from the teachers, students, parents, administration, and society. When ONE of those fails, the entire system fails. If you have an amazing teacher, a set of awesome parents, in a perfect society, and ONE child messes up, then the failure will ripple outward and negatively affect the whole system. Teachers, parents, siblings, administrators, and society can't be *as* competent dealing with the masses, when their attention is drawn to a single trouble student. Something has to give.
And the same goes with a single teacher. The board of ed can't be *as* effecient with their school system, if their attention is focused on a single educator.
The same goes for parenting - parents can't be as efficient providors for their children, if one of them has issues or is absent, because it's less attention on providing for the children, and more attention to the needs of the adult. Even justifiable needs (such as a single mom who works full time to make ends meet) is still less focus on the child, and more focus on the adult's needs.
The same goes for society. Society is a little busy these days, dealing with health care, politics, economic breakdown, ecology, clean air, winter expenses and heating fuel costs rising, technology, reality TV, you name it, society is dealing with it. The more "stuff" we add to society's plate, the less effort they put into raising the leaders of tomorrow, today.
Well, realistically no teachers would be left with the way "incompetent" is assessed today. If there is one non-passing student, then eventually all teachers become incompetent.
I personally know 3 Teachers that I would not wish on my children so I know 3 who would be out of a job. The other teachers I know are wonderful and actually teach their students.
I think a similar question could be asked of parents, students, and society as a whole:
If all incompetent parents were forbidden to raise their children anymore, how many parents would be left?
If all incompetent students were expelled from school, how many school-children would be left?
If all incompetent people in society were shot, how many people would be left?
Education isn't a two-way street. It's a multi-faceted situation, requiring cooperative behavior from the teachers, students, parents, administration, and society. When ONE of those fails, the entire system fails. If you have an amazing teacher, a set of awesome parents, in a perfect society, and ONE child messes up, then the failure will ripple outward and negatively affect the whole system. Teachers, parents, siblings, administrators, and society can't be *as* competent dealing with the masses, when their attention is drawn to a single trouble student. Something has to give.
And the same goes with a single teacher. The board of ed can't be *as* effecient with their school system, if their attention is focused on a single educator.
The same goes for parenting - parents can't be as efficient providors for their children, if one of them has issues or is absent, because it's less attention on providing for the children, and more attention to the needs of the adult. Even justifiable needs (such as a single mom who works full time to make ends meet) is still less focus on the child, and more focus on the adult's needs.
The same goes for society. Society is a little busy these days, dealing with health care, politics, economic breakdown, ecology, clean air, winter expenses and heating fuel costs rising, technology, reality TV, you name it, society is dealing with it. The more "stuff" we add to society's plate, the less effort they put into raising the leaders of tomorrow, today.
Well, realistically no teachers would be left with the way "incompetent" is assessed today. If there is one non-passing student, then eventually all teachers become incompetent.
How would you define incompetent, and by that definition how what percentage of teachers would you consider incompetent.
If there is a more approrpriate word that I should be using, please feel free to let me know.
I think a similar question could be asked of parents, students, and society as a whole:
If all incompetent parents were forbidden to raise their children anymore, how many parents would be left?
If all incompetent students were expelled from school, how many school-children would be left?
If all incompetent people in society were shot, how many people would be left?
Education isn't a two-way street. It's a multi-faceted situation, requiring cooperative behavior from the teachers, students, parents, administration, and society. When ONE of those fails, the entire system fails. If you have an amazing teacher, a set of awesome parents, in a perfect society, and ONE child messes up, then the failure will ripple outward and negatively affect the whole system. Teachers, parents, siblings, administrators, and society can't be *as* competent dealing with the masses, when their attention is drawn to a single trouble student. Something has to give.
And the same goes with a single teacher. The board of ed can't be *as* effecient with their school system, if their attention is focused on a single educator.
The same goes for parenting - parents can't be as efficient providors for their children, if one of them has issues or is absent, because it's less attention on providing for the children, and more attention to the needs of the adult. Even justifiable needs (such as a single mom who works full time to make ends meet) is still less focus on the child, and more focus on the adult's needs.
The same goes for society. Society is a little busy these days, dealing with health care, politics, economic breakdown, ecology, clean air, winter expenses and heating fuel costs rising, technology, reality TV, you name it, society is dealing with it. The more "stuff" we add to society's plate, the less effort they put into raising the leaders of tomorrow, today.
How would you define incompetent, and by that definition how what percentage of teachers would you consider incompetent.
If there is a more approrpriate word that I should be using, please feel free to let me know.
Since you started the thread, how would you define incompetent?
I think there is a difference between "incompetent" and "ineffective."
The other piece of this equation--which obviously isn't the focus of this thread--is who would be replacing these "incompetent" or "ineffective" teachers? If the incentives aren't there to attract quality candidates into the field, simply firing tens of thousands of teachers isn't going to improve educational outcomes.
Since you started the thread, how would you define incompetent?
I think there is a difference between "incompetent" and "ineffective."
The other piece of this equation--which obviously isn't the focus of this thread--is who would be replacing these "incompetent" or "ineffective" teachers? If the incentives aren't there to attract quality candidates into the field, simply firing tens of thousands of teachers isn't going to improve educational outcomes.
ESPECIALLY when you're dealing with municipalities hit economically, with taxpaying residents who refuse - or can't afford - to pay for "quality" educators. The higher the standards you place, the higher the paycheck. You have to determine WHO is going to pay the bill, and then convince the payers to come up with the money. People move out of state over things like taxes, so you can't just expect people to fork it up.
If all INCOMPETENT teachers were FIRED, how many would be left?
Would there be enough good teachers left to be able to educate our children?
I have met some pretty extraordinary teachers in my life. I've also met some teachers that were clearly in the wrong career.
While I see people supporting the teaching community as a whole and standing up against "accountability", I can't help but think of some of the awful teachers I've encountered.
Teachers that did not feel the need to change their ways, or attempt to improve themselves because of their job security. Teacher who had a dozen excuses as to why they couldn't do a better job.
Ironically some of these teachers who fell back on blaming everyone else, were the first teachers to blame a student or parent for making "excuses".
Funny how that works. You can't teach a child. Well, instead of trying to find a way to get through to them, lets just blame somebody else!
I know it's a frustrating profession. I can only imagine how difficult it is. But, if you can't find a way to do your job without taking it out on your students, then it's time for another job.
Who "stands up against accountability"? Nobody I know. Of course I should be held accountable for things I have control over. People stand up against being held accountable for things which are out of their control.
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.
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.
