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.
No you would have Phillips Exeter going bankrupt because all of the parents pulled their kids out. Wealthy people don't opt for mediocrity. That is why they work hard so they afford excellence for their kids.
It'd take a long time to go bankrupt...the school has over $750,000,000 in the bank.
No you would have Phillips Exeter going bankrupt because all of the parents pulled their kids out. Wealthy people don't opt for mediocrity. That is why they work hard so they afford excellence for their kids.
You may be surprised. A lot of wealthy people, in fact most wealthy people I know, are just born that way and many of them have one or more parents before them who were also born that way. So, While they do not settle for mediocrity in things that their resources afford them they quite often do in other cases, wealth does not necessarily mean drive.
You may be surprised. A lot of wealthy people, in fact most wealthy people I know, are just born that way and many of them have one or more parents before them who were also born that way. So, While they do not settle for mediocrity in things that their resources afford them they quite often do in other cases, wealth does not necessarily mean drive.
but for the most part they are lavish with their kids and excellence in schooling. That is what I said
but for the most part they are lavish with their kids and excellence in schooling. That is what I said
I agree with that I just believe your conclusion does not follow very well. You also said.
..."Wealthy people don't opt for mediocrity. That is why they work so hard so they afford excellence for their kids."...
Often wealthy people are just born that way, simple as that, from birth they have more money than the vast majority of Americans so in this case they really do not have to work for anything also often mediocrity cannot be avoided simply with wealth as such some of the wealthy do opt for mediocrity in these areas (i.e. grades among other things). There nothing wrong with that, its just that a person's wealth and drive/hardwork often, but not always, have nothing to do with each other.
See it's more about retention. A weak teacher is usually inexperienced. So instead of "weak" or "bad", let's be more precise and state inexperienced.
My dad was a teacher. I almost became a teacher, actually I was a tutor for autistic children for a while. I also was a tutor for a third grade class.
A good teacher is simply more experienced. These teachers have been around the block. Most of my teachers that taught the advanced classes were there for 10-20 even 30 years. Unheard of in this type of environment. In most poor school districts, they are REALLY new teachers. Turnover is VERY high.
Frankly, inexperienced teachers would do much better in richer communities. The reason for this is because it is an easier transition. Also because there will still a lot of experienced teachers and a great support to learn.
Re-applying to a district of choice is a bad idea. There are MASSIVE paycuts to take into consideration (if my dad left, he would take a 20k a year cut to teach at a better district...since I was still young he couldn't afford it). He would have went from making 100k to about 80k a year (including summer work).
We should increase teacher salaries in poor districts to retain them. Even though you enter teaching not for the money, teachers do deserve "respect and self actualization".
I have a career of 36 1/2 years with lots of administrative and hiring experience. I stand by what I said. Inexperienced teachers can get eaten alive in wealthy communities by parents. Working in a high end top notch school is very demanding as the parents are and can be very demanding. It is easier to slide in a school with parents who don't care. I know and have seen average and weaker teachers run out of the door to less challenging schools or a change of careers. Folks change jobs all the time to find better working conditions. That is a part of life.
No offense to those that said it would not be possible to see gains, but I disagree. My mentor (whom I believe to be stellar) has been removed from her position to deal with ONE kid. She was originally in K, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Now, she's in a 3rd grade class and shadows the kid. He's that bad.
She's been glued to him for half a year. No, he's still not functional in the classroom. Yes, he still bullies other kids and doesn't care to learn anything (heck, he used to hide in closets half the day). But he HAS improved. On a daily basis he would walk out of class without telling anyone. Now, he rarely walks out and when he does, he stands behind the door waiting for someone to chase him (we don't). Now he peeks in the classroom to see how the adults responded to him leaving the room and he gradually makes his way back in.
My teacher did everything to earn this kid's trust. She never gave up on him, listened to his troubles, bought him rewards to earn, and cooked for him.
Under ideal circumstances (and I'm assuming we're doing this since we already have America's best teachers), the classrooms would be smaller (15 kids per class). Each class would also have one paraeducator to that would be able to work with small groups. Also, the teachers wouldn't just be dedicated, they would go beyond the duty. They would buy stuff for the kids, cook for them, sing for them, dance for them... They would be better parents than the kids' actual parents.
But the best teachers won't be gathered together and the worst, underperforming schools will continue to fail.
NO! I worked in the inner-city for a long time and I was very impressed with the teachers who stuck in there long term. They were beyond dedicated and were indeed "the best!"
We always joked that we would LOVE to have seen an experiment.....take all of our teachers and swap them out with Beverly Hill High for two years and see if either schools' scores changed.
The best teachers could not make significant gains unless there was home support as well.
Agreed. Fantastic teachers have limited impact without parental involvement to foster attitudes toward learning. Students' performance in school is far more tied to home support than any other factor. Great teachers cannot consistently make up for crappy parents.
its hard to teach algebra when you are being gang raped in the stairwell.
Where did that happen? I know many accounts in which NYC school districts will keep crimes out of the news and not let out what is really happening. One teacher told me this week that a student in one of the many Bronx high schools pulled down his pants in front of a female teacher and told her to service him. He was arrested for sexual assault. What kind of filth does that to any woman?
Agreed. Fantastic teachers have limited impact without parental involvement to foster attitudes toward learning. Students' performance in school is far more tied to home support than any other factor. Great teachers cannot consistently make up for crappy parents.
I know several public school teachers and almost all of them have mentioned that bad parents play a big factor in whether a student will excel in school or not. Bad parents can wipe out many gains made by good teachers very quickly.
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.
