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.
Those are skills straight out an early 20th century school curriculum for those women planning to be housewives.
Why should a school waste precious resources on teaching those skills?
Come to think of it,I can't think of the last time I used those skills on the job.
I do not think I ever did.
We try to educate children for the life they will lead, not just the jobs they will have. That's a key difference between education and job training. In a broader sense, university is for education and trade school is for job training.
We try to educate children for the life they will lead, not just the jobs they will have. That's a key difference between education and job training. In a broader sense, university is for education and trade school is for job training.
Yes, but nursing and engineering are very popular college majors. And this "communications" major that's also popular these days is basically journalism, another job "training". My nursing instructors would roll over in their graves to see the word "training" applied to BSN nursing. We were "educated" not trained, according to them. And it's true. We were supposed to think, not do things by rote.
I swear, when general interest magazines need a topic for an article, they go with "why doctors so often get it wrong". It's a classic. I am sorry about your mother. But I'll agree with you, what do you know about medicine? Probably as much as our infamous president who said, "No one knew it was so complicated!" Actually everyone who ever worked in health care knows that!
The issue is not "What do I know about medicine?" The issue is what does a person have to do to learn any subject.
Do they have to sit in a classroom a certain number of hours or not? Whether the subject is medicine, electronics or aeronautical engineering does not matter. For some people the classroom may be the best method. That does not mean it is the best method for everyone.
The thread is "Rethinking Education", not any particular subject. Really powerful and inexpensive computers and software provide options that did not exist even 20 years ago. In 2000 Project Gutenberg had fewer than 2000 books. Now it is over 54,000. I think a lot of our "Professional Educators" do not want explore those options. So I suggest that people that want to learn things should bypass official channels even if they use official channels at the same time.
IBM flew me to Atlanta and Dallas for their training courses on various machines. That training was adequate for the job. But while I was in Atlanta I went to a Heathkit store and bought this:
Studying and doing machine code programming with that machine gave me greater understanding of computers than the narrow job specific training. That machine cost me $400 not counting the dumb terminal that was even more expensive. And IBM did not teach me to solder. I taught myself in high school.
But everyone is supposed to sit on their hands and wait for the "Professional Educators" to figure out which way is up and spoon feed them with educational pablum. Life is too short to pay people to waste your time. With the billions of dollars spent on education why doesn't the nation that put men on the Moon have National Recommended Reading List? Oh right, the educators could not agree on the books.
In regard to item 4...why shouldn't teachers and administrators be held responsible for whether or not students are learning?
You cannot tell that they are learning from these tests.
Teaching is not like making things in a factory. Students come to teachers with all kinds of abilities and disabilities. Sure, we need to know that the students are learning, but the tests do not tell us this. Also, how would math and reading scores show whether or not a teacher in another discipline was teaching well or poorly. Teaching is a collaborative discipline and using the test scores discourages teachers from collaborating with each other because their evaluations are competitive. Test scores used with other things may be helpful, but test scores alone just don't do much to tell us how effective a teacher is. Value-added measures are probably a bit better than just using the test scores.
At any rate, there is no perfect system, but we can evaluate teachers if we use our brains instead of just trying to tie things to the tests.
In regard to item 4...why shouldn't teachers and administrators be held responsible for whether or not students are learning?
Because you can't teach a student who doesn't want to learn. We should be held responsible for teaching and giving the opportunity to learn. We cannot however open their heads and pour the knowledge in. One of the classes I teach is geometry. It has an abysmal failure rate. I have lots of A's and B's but more E's than anything (this is historically true of geometry so it's not just me). Why? Because half of my students won't do their homework. Because they know their parents consider it MY job to MAKE them learn only I can't. My job is to teach. THEIR job is to learn. Judge me on whether or not I teach and whether the students who try to learn learn. There's not much I can do with the kid who wants to play on the phone his/her parents provide for him/her rather than learn what's being taught. At some point in their life they have to realize that they have a responsibility too.
I knew that school was my job growing up. I knew it was MY responsibility to learn what was being taught. n I knew that *I* would be the one in trouble if I didn't learn. So I learned. Today we blame everyone except the student and they know it. My only recourse as a teacher is to make it easier and easier to pass because I can't MAKE them learn. Teachers open the door. It's up to the student to walk through.
Fortunately for me and my students my district spends $$ on prepping them for the state tests so the scores look good in spite of some of their poor choices. The tests we're judged by doesn't look like the curriculum we're asked to teach anyway. So we pass them and prep them for the state test and call it a day. What else can we do if we want to keep our jobs?
You cannot tell that they are learning from these tests.
Teaching is not like making things in a factory. Students come to teachers with all kinds of abilities and disabilities. Sure, we need to know that the students are learning, but the tests do not tell us this. Also, how would math and reading scores show whether or not a teacher in another discipline was teaching well or poorly. Teaching is a collaborative discipline and using the test scores discourages teachers from collaborating with each other because their evaluations are competitive. Test scores used with other things may be helpful, but test scores alone just don't do much to tell us how effective a teacher is. Value-added measures are probably a bit better than just using the test scores.
At any rate, there is no perfect system, but we can evaluate teachers if we use our brains instead of just trying to tie things to the tests.
F.
I don't think you actually read and thought about my post. You simply reacted.
All I asked was why shouldn't teachers and administrators be held responsible for whether or not students are learning? I didn't say that standardized testing should be used to evaluate teachers.
1. Either one thinks that we should just trust all teachers, or one thinks they need to be evaluated. The question is "how". In 13 years of teaching it kinda burned me, as an above average teacher, to be earning the same pay as some total incompetents. In the 13 years I taught, I had some evaluators that were right on target, and others that were incompetent themselves. For example, one incompetent principal (who was so incompetent he later ended up in a "60 Minutes" segment) wrote me up for not personally repairing the plumping in my lab sinks and fixing the venetian blinds. On the other hand, I had some evaluators whose write-ups really taught me things that were invaluable for the rest of my career.
2. As both a teacher and as an administrator I heard teachers complain that evaluations were unfair because they were not based on data. Later, when data began entering the picture (though it was never specifically included in evaluations in FCPS) I heard those same teachers say that evaluations shouldn't include data because data reflected students, not teachers. Translation -- we just don't want to be evaluated. And frankly, it's like that in all professions and services.
3. What do you do when one math teachers (we'll call her Carol) has the highest failure ratio (based on her own grading system, not standardized testing) by a factor of 2-4, year after year after year after year? And for her it's only "the student's fault" or "the parent's fault", despite the fact that class placements are based randomly by computer assignment. And then, when we do start testing under NCLB, she continues to have a far higher failure rate than the other 7 teachers in the department.
So, anecdotal information is seen as not being fair by teachers. Data is seen as not being fair by teachers. Guess they should be the only people in the school system who are not evaluated. Students are evaluated. Building administrators are evaluated. District administrators are evaluated. The superintendent of the school system in evaluated (by the Board of Education). The Board of Education is evaluated by the voting public. The state superintendent is evaluated. The governor is evaluated. The president of the United States is evaluated. But no, apparently teachers are a protected class whom we all are just supposed to trust. Well, trust is no longer in America's vocabulary, hence website such as RateMy.Teacher.Com.
I don't think you actually read and thought about my post. You simply reacted.
All I asked was why shouldn't teachers and administrators be held responsible for whether or not students are learning? I didn't say that standardized testing should be used to evaluate teachers.
1. Either one thinks that we should just trust all teachers, or one thinks they need to be evaluated. The question is "how". In 13 years of teaching it kinda burned me, as an above average teacher, to be earning the same pay as some total incompetents. In the 13 years I taught, I had some evaluators that were right on target, and others that were incompetent themselves. For example, one incompetent principal (who was so incompetent he later ended up in a "60 Minutes" segment) wrote me up for not personally repairing the plumping in my lab sinks and fixing the venetian blinds. On the other hand, I had some evaluators whose write-ups really taught me things that were invaluable for the rest of my career.
2. As both a teacher and as an administrator I heard teachers complain that evaluations were unfair because they were not based on data. Later, when data began entering the picture (though it was never specifically included in evaluations in FCPS) I heard those same teachers say that evaluations shouldn't include data because data reflected students, not teachers. Translation -- we just don't want to be evaluated. And frankly, it's like that in all professions and services.
3. What do you do when one math teachers (we'll call her Carol) has the highest failure ratio (based on her own grading system, not standardized testing) by a factor of 2-4, year after year after year after year? And for her it's only "the student's fault" or "the parent's fault", despite the fact that class placements are based randomly by computer assignment. And then, when we do start testing under NCLB, she continues to have a far higher failure rate than the other 7 teachers in the department.
So, anecdotal information is seen as not being fair by teachers. Data is seen as not being fair by teachers. Guess they should be the only people in the school system who are not evaluated. Students are evaluated. Building administrators are evaluated. District administrators are evaluated. The superintendent of the school system in evaluated (by the Board of Education). The Board of Education is evaluated by the voting public. The state superintendent is evaluated. The governor is evaluated. The president of the United States is evaluated. But no, apparently teachers are a protected class whom we all are just supposed to trust. Well, trust is no longer in America's vocabulary, hence website such as RateMy.Teacher.Com.
I never said teachers should not be evaluated, but my posts were related to testing and using that to evaluate teachers. It does not work. You are correct when you say that the question is how should teachers be evaluated, though.
1. Is true. So how do we evaluate the evaluators?
2. I see no reason not to use data, but you have to be sure the data is accurate and that it reflects what the students are learning. So far, I have not seen any good systems for that.
3. In the case of that teacher, I would say she needed to be mentored by the better teachers and given a chance to do better. The problem with that though is that often, you have a teacher who does not want to change. And we don't really like to encourage improvement by collaboration in the US. It is done well in Japan and Finland without the need to point fingers at the teacher who is not doing as well as the other teachers. That kind of competition for accolades and money does not work either.
Teachers are evaluated just as much as any other profession, but the problem is figuring out a good system that really tells us who is good and who is bad.
Those are skills straight out an early 20th century school curriculum for those women planning to be housewives.
Why should a school waste precious resources on teaching those skills?
Come to think of it,I can't think of the last time I used those skills on the job.
I do not think I ever did.
Sexist much? What do any of these have to do with women?
So you never had to produce a report or fill out a spreadsheet? Great for you, but a lot of people do that every day. Touchtyping is a key skill for anyone using a computer. Makes you a whole lot more efficient than hunt and peck. Use it at work every single day and it makes me a lot more efficient than those engineers who just learned on their own.
As for cooking and sewing, those are basic life skills that anyone needs unless they plan to eat fast food or microwave every day. Most people do eat you know. And things have to be mended, buttons replaced, etc.
Basic life skills. Right alongside balancing a bank account, paying bills, understanding interest rates and debt. Heck, being able to just count change.
I never said teachers should not be evaluated, but my posts were related to testing and using that to evaluate teachers. It does not work. You are correct when you say that the question is how should teachers be evaluated, though.
1. Is true. So how do we evaluate the evaluators? I can only speak for the system where I was a principal. We were trained a lot, and we were evaluated...more often than experienced teachers.
2. I see no reason not to use data, but you have to be sure the data is accurate and that it reflects what the students are learning. So far, I have not seen any good systems for that. So "you" have to do the best you can. It's like most things in life...if you wait for what's perfect, you will always wait and never act.
3. In the case of that teacher, I would say she needed to be mentored by the better teachers and given a chance to do better. The problem with that though is that often, you have a teacher who does not want to change. And we don't really like to encourage improvement by collaboration in the US. It is done well in Japan and Finland without the need to point fingers at the teacher who is not doing as well as the other teachers. That kind of competition for accolades and money does not work either. Okay...and if we have the other top notch teachers mentor the teacher doing poorly, then you'll say we are just putting more work on teachers. But you're absolutely right...with the "off base" teacher it may have nothing to do with anything beyond just not wanting to change. The funny thing is that the teachers who are doing poorly and don't want fingers pointing at them, are usually the same teachers who are hell on wheels in student evaluation; ironic. So the best teachers shouldn't be paid more than the poor teachers?
Teachers are evaluated just as much as any other profession, but the problem is figuring out a good system that really tells us who is good and who is bad.
My responses are in blue. BTW, good response post!
Should be taught by parents. I swear, I don't know how these "life skills" advocates think any subject matter can be taught if the whole day is taken up with this plus "trades" which you also advocate.
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.
