Hogan orders Maryland public schools to start after Labor Day, sparking political fight (Baltimore: tax, costs)

[MidValleyDad]

Actually Math and History have changed (and continue to change) Our county has changed the method of teaching math several times in the last dozen years. History and how certain periods or events are interpretted and presented have changed (and continue to change) greatly since most of us went to school. There is also required training on how to handle certain conditions/events in the school that have to be taught to teachers and staff due to changing legal or societal changes.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by MidValleyDad

Actually Math and History have changed (and continue to change) Our county has changed the method of teaching math several times in the last dozen years. History and how certain periods or events are interpretted and presented have changed (and continue to change) greatly since most of us went to school. There is also required training on how to handle certain conditions/events in the school that have to be taught to teachers and staff due to changing legal or societal changes.

Not to mention the changes in methods and curriculum engendered by the adoption of NCLB and now Common Core.

CollegeBoard® is in the process of revising all the required curriculum to be taught in all the AP classes.

About 15 years ago Prince George's revised the curriculum for World History three times in a six year period.

Also included is the almost yearly changes in pupil accounting and attendance procedures, grading programs, accommodation requirements and evaluation criteria.

What people need to do is listen, really listen, to what people opposing the change in the school year are saying.

I'll give everyone a hint, it's not concern about the impact on average and above average students.

[Phyxius]

History - What happened and why?
Math - Follow instructions

[tw71]

I think this is a good question, actually. I was a little surprised at what a strong, knee-jerk reaction I got when I so much as hinted (over on a Facebook forum discussing these issues) that maybe the school districts could do without some of these random days off for "teacher development" and use the time towards a longer summer break instead.

The teachers seem to feel entitled to these work/training days and act like it's just hindering their ability to teach the class if they don't get all of them.

It seems to me the primary things changing that teachers might need to learn are technology-related. (Such changes as schools standardizing on using "Google Classroom" for students to turn in assignments.) But how much time is needed to get them up to speed on this stuff?

What I've observed as a parent of 3 kids is the tech-proficiency of teachers varies wildly. They all supposedly got the same training, yet some act like they can barely get around on a computer and don't know how to check their email, while others are "gung ho" for handling everything online. That tells me it has FAR more to do with their attitude and skill-sets they already possess than anything some teacher development days are enabling.

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

What is it nowadays that causes school systems to require Teacher development days? It should not be for changes to curriculum. What changes from year to year in any subject that requires the teachers to get more training?

For example, nothing should change in Math unless they start teaching higher levels of math in earlier grades. If anything the opposite has occurred over the long haul. History shouldn't change unless you are dealing with current events. Anyone who watches Watters World knows that current events are probably not being covered very well in our public schools. Have the laws of physics changed so much that science curriculum has to change from one year to the next?

As far as I can see the only changes occur as a result of the school administration trying to justify their higher pay level jobs. All the recent changes to methodology in teaching does not seem to be working very well, when our results are compared to other countries or cultures.

So, just what is it the teachers improve on when they get their days off from the classroom?

I think our public schools have strayed so much from the basics, that they are shortchanging our kids.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by tw71

I think this is a good question, actually. I was a little surprised at what a strong, knee-jerk reaction I got when I so much as hinted (over on a Facebook forum discussing these issues) that maybe the school districts could do without some of these random days off for "teacher development" and use the time towards a longer summer break instead.

The teachers seem to feel entitled to these work/training days and act like it's just hindering their ability to teach the class if they don't get all of them........

Once again, teachers don't set the in service days. The minimum number is CODIFED AS STATE LAW IN COMAR with additional days required for a school system as determined by the Maryland State Board of Education upon recommendation by the Maryland Secretary of Education.

Yeah, technology is a piece of in-service but even more time consuming is getting through the Common Core and evaluation metrics.

As a note, I have no dog in this fight, I retired two years ago. I just don't like seeing uninformed opinions based on a Facebook post.

In fact, I even might agree with there being too many in-service days. I just get tired of teachers being blamed for things they have no control over, like the number of in-service days.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by MidValleyDad

Actually Math and History have changed (and continue to change) Our county has changed the method of teaching math several times in the last dozen years. History and how certain periods or events are interpretted and presented have changed (and continue to change) greatly since most of us went to school. There is also required training on how to handle certain conditions/events in the school that have to be taught to teachers and staff due to changing legal or societal changes.

Changing the method of teaching for what reason? My feeling is that it is more for justification of school administrator's jobs than it is for the students benefit. The teachers are supposed to be there to give the students the basic knowledge for them to get into the world or get into college after high school. Over the past 50 years, the success rate of these students has gotten worse, not better. 50 Years ago a freshman did not have to take courses to bring them up to speed in order to handle college level courses. I know that there are some high school graduates that do not need help. What is the percentage of home schoolers versus public schoolers that do not need the extra help?

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Once again, teachers don't set the in service days. The minimum number is CODIFED AS STATE LAW IN COMAR with additional days required for a school system as determined by the Maryland State Board of Education upon recommendation by the Maryland Secretary of Education.

Yeah, technology is a piece of in-service but even more time consuming is getting through the Common Core and evaluation metrics.

As a note, I have no dog in this fight, I retired two years ago. I just don't like seeing uninformed opinions based on a Facebook post.

In fact, I even might agree with there being too many in-service days. I just get tired of teachers being blamed for things they have no control over, like the number of in-service days.

The teachers lost control of what they do when they started thinking about their chances of being promoted out of the classroom into administrative positions. They should have resisted the trend to have too much administration and not enough classroom teachers.

Were they thinking about what their next job should be or were they just getting too lazy to create their own lesson plans/curriculum?

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

Changing the method of teaching for what reason? My feeling is that it is more for justification of school administrator's jobs than it is for the students benefit. The teachers are supposed to be there to give the students the basic knowledge for them to get into the world or get into college after high school. Over the past 50 years, the success rate of these students has gotten worse, not better. 50 Years ago a freshman did not have to take courses to bring them up to speed in order to handle college level courses. I know that there are some high school graduates that do not need help. What is the percentage of home schoolers versus public schoolers that do not need the extra help?

The reason for the remediation is because 50 years ago those students wouldn't have gone to college, many of them wouldn't have graduated from high school. Those days are gone.

If you want to know why things are the way they are look in the mirror. And sub for a few days. Pick your level.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

The reason for the remediation is because 50 years ago those students wouldn't have gone to college, many of them wouldn't have graduated from high school. Those days are gone.

And that is the crux of the problem. Why are they graduating from high school now? Who is telling these kids that they cannot succeed without a college degree (which, by the way, seems to be only a little more valuable than a high school diploma of 50 years ago)?

Methinks it has something to do with public school administration pushing too many of the kids away from technical education and into college prep studies, when they should be learning a trade that they can make a living at. Many of these jobs are such that they cannot be sent overseas, so there is a certain security in going that route. But I am digressing from the thread topic now, so I will stop at that.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

If you want to know why things are the way they are look in the mirror. And sub for a few days. Pick your level.

When I look in the mirror, I see someone who only took a few college courses after establishing a career path that started in the USAF, and ended up working in field service installing and maintaining CT and MRI scanners. While designing and manufacturing them can be done anywhere, someone has to install and maintain them. After a time I realized I loved my job and getting a college degree would only open opportunities to do something else that I had little desire to do.

Somewhere along the way, a college degree became the "only way for the future" and a lot of people that shouldn't be going to college, many of whom would have never graduated my high school curriculum, are going to college. Problem is the colleges are too willing to take their money, and do not care enough to say no to the ones that don't have a chance to succeed.

While I was in the USAF, I had a stint as a technical instructor in my technical field. After a three month course of training I was taught how to be an instructor, and after a few months in the classroom, I did fine as an instructor. This was in the 70's, and on the first day they videotaped us individually, talking about something we knew. It didn't matter what the content was. At the end of the course we watched the video tapes. Our progress was amazing.

So, yes. If I had the chance I could substitute teach, once I retire from what I am doing now. Problem is the teaching industry, if I am not mistaken, requires one to pay their way through their own institution before you can sit in front of a classroom.