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.
It's well known that teachers blame parents for just about everything. There was even a thread about it on here. I can't find it with CD's search engine. I just ignore such postings any more.
There are so many different variables when it comes to kids and the kind of education they need that it would be cool if there were different options or different kids which is why I like parts of the super libraries idea presented in the OP.
Some kids would do well with coming to school part time and getting the basics, but having ample opportunities outside of school for extracurricular activities, yet other kids don’t have that same opportunity and would be better served by going to school full time and having those needs met at school.
Some kids are self motivated and would do well with having a lot of choices and and the ability to choose to follow their interests. These types of kids would pursue their interest beyond the confines of the classroom. Other kids need more structure and direction overall to pursue their education.
Some kids need explicit reading instruction, others will learn to read easily with little to no instruction. Some kids will fly through math and it will click, others need to go at a slower pace.
So many variables which is why I like hearing different ideas.
I guess the smart, well motivated kids could do well with the library model. Then there are the kids in the middle who usually need a human being to relate to who can help them through the rough spots. This is where the teacher really needs to get to know the kid and understands that kid's particular way of learning. You don't teach the same way to all kids--some learn best by seeing, some learn best by doing, some by hearing, etc.
Then there's the bottom of the barrel--those kids who come from really bad backgrounds and have more to think about than learning stuff in a classroom. They need something like a combination teacher-social worker and they need one on one instruction. These kids are hurting and when they are acting out, they are very disruptive to everyone else.
And then you have the kids who are just very slow to learn. They may be good at other things but not academic endeavors. I had one kid who barely learned to write his first name by the end of first grade. Upon investigation, it turned out his parents were illiterate. He couldn't play the games at recess because he couldn't remember the rules. I don't know, maybe today he would be in some sort of special class, but it goes to show that one size does not fit all.
The overachievers could probably make do with the library school but the rest need human contact and help and guidance. We used to try to individualize our teaching style to suit that particular kid's learning style but it would take more teachers to do it right. Hard for one teacher to individualize teaching 25 different kids.
Last edited by in_newengland; 10-20-2019 at 01:14 PM..
...
And even in the rich towns, a lot of the kids today are so spoiled and coddled that if a teacher looks at them the wrong way, the parents are right there, ready to fire the teacher or sue the school for daring to speak that way to their spoiled brat. And I'm talking about some of the richest suburbs in the Boston area because I have a close relative who taught there and saw it all. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
...
The overachievers could probably make do with the library school but the rest need human contact and help and guidance. We used to try to individualize our teaching style to suit that particular kid's learning style but it would take more teachers to do it right. Hard for one teacher to individualize teaching 25 different kids.
Why do teachers look down on top students? Why are they "over"achievers instead of good students? Why are they "spoiled and coddled and spoiled brats?" I saw this as a student. Again as a parent. And often in online forums. Sympathy for the bottom students, empathy for the average, and thinly veiled disdain for the "spoiled overachievers." I don't understand it.
Why do teachers look down on top students? Why are they "over"achievers instead of good students? Why are they "spoiled and coddled and spoiled brats?" I saw this as a student. Again as a parent. And often in online forums. Sympathy for the bottom students, empathy for the average, and thinly veiled disdain for the "spoiled overachievers." I don't understand it.
I don't know. "Over achievers" usually just means smart kids, at least that's the way I've seen it used.
The spoiled and coddled that I'm referring to are the products of the so-called "helicopter parents" that we keep hearing about. Read any of these forums and you'll know what I mean. They can do no wrong.
But I think I agree with you that the really smart kids lose out in some ways because they don't need very much help. I'm probably in the minority in that I never liked how the smart kids were lumped in with all the other kids and were kind of dragged down. Some smart kids get to go to schools for the gifted but I've seen them suffer from too much pressure.
Probably the smart kids are now the ones who would be sent to the library schools. ??
My kid was just plain smart in a class full of gifted kids. Those kids (the plain smart ones) can also fall through the cracks, get overlooked, etc. They aren’t overachieving or under achieving so they just fly below the radar and get a pretty average experience. They aren’t noticed or given extra opportunities like the gifted kids and they aren’t causing problems nor do they necessarily need extra help so they can just float through. I think school as it stands can miss the mark for kids in all of the groups.
My kid was just plain smart in a class full of gifted kids. Those kids (the plain smart ones) can also fall through the cracks, get overlooked, etc. They aren’t overachieving or under achieving so they just fly below the radar and get a pretty average experience. They aren’t noticed or given extra opportunities like the gifted kids and they aren’t causing problems nor do they necessarily need extra help so they can just float through. I think school as it stands can miss the mark for kids in all of the groups.
Yes, I think so too. They tend to teach to the common denominator, the average. But what else can they do.
When I went to school, there was tracking. I don't know if this is still done, but it's probably looked down upon now. It started in 7h grade and you might be in an "A" class for English, a "D" class in math, a "B" class in history/social studies, etc.
It worked that way all the way up through high school. The smarter kids were not held down by having to listen to the teacher explain things over and over so the slower kids could get it. The A class went really fast and had loads of homework and individual research papers and projects, the B class a little less so, the C class less so. I think the E class eventually developed into vocational and business (for which there were few teachers and offerings, unfortunately. Those kids didn't fit in with this competitive high school and the boys usually dropped out and joined the military.) So my school suited the smart and medium kids and didn't help the slower kids much.
I like the idea of tracking. I was no genius but being in with the really smart kids helped me because we had a lot of classroom discussions (in English and history mostly) and I paid attention and really listened when the future Harvard Law School graduates or future Dartmouth or Princeton kids got into debates with each other and with the teacher. I hated it when the bell rang and class was over. Hey--how are these Library Students ever going to get that sort of exposure? Maybe they'll have class discussions? There's no substitute for human interaction.
It's well known that teachers blame parents for just about everything. There was even a thread about it on here. I can't find it with CD's search engine. I just ignore such postings any more.
Yep.
If public school teachers made $100K out of the box, would they still complain about parents and how "hard it is" to be a teacher?
Are they holding out & would be "better" teachers if they made more $$?
Last edited by Informed Info; 10-20-2019 at 10:55 PM..
The original purpose of universal education was to see that everyone was indoctrinated in the rigid one-size mantra. Christian ethics, free market capitalist economics, English language, republican democracy, penal justice, and all the rest. To minimize the risk that a troublesome rebellion could gain a foothold.
If public school teachers made $100K out of the box, would they still complain about parents and how "hard it is" to be a teacher?
Are they holding out & would be "better" teachers if they made more $$?
No, I don't think it would make a difference. The job is the same whether you make $40K or $100K. One problem is that the highest paid school teachers are in the easier, wealthier school districts. It doesn't make sense that the teachers in the worst school districts make the least amount. Many of these teachers deserve "combat" pay.
Yes, I think so too. They tend to teach to the common denominator, the average. But what else can they do.
. I think that’s why it’s important to explore alternatives.
Quote:
When I went to school, there was tracking. I don't know if this is still done, but it's probably looked down upon now. It started in 7h grade and you might be in an "A" class for English, a "D" class in math, a "B" class in history/social studies, etc.
It worked that way all the way up through high school. The smarter kids were not held down by having to listen to the teacher explain things over and over so the slower kids could get it. The A class went really fast and had loads of homework and individual research papers and projects, the B class a little less so, the C class less so. I think the E class eventually developed into vocational and business (for which there were few teachers and offerings, unfortunately. Those kids didn't fit in with this competitive high school and the boys usually dropped out and joined the military.) So my school suited the smart and medium kids and didn't help the slower kids much.
I like the idea of tracking. I was no genius but being in with the really smart kids helped me because we had a lot of classroom discussions (in English and history mostly) and I paid attention and really listened when the future Harvard Law School graduates or future Dartmouth or Princeton kids got into debates with each other and with the teacher. I hated it when the bell rang and class was over. Hey--how are these Library Students ever going to get that sort of exposure? Maybe they'll have class discussions? There's no substitute for human interaction.
Schools try to do “differentiation” these days which means they try to meet each child where they are at. I’m not sure how well they can really do it though, it’s a pretty impossible task when one has 25 to 30 kids to try to teach.
I don’t think we have to take the superlibrary ideas as presented and without tweaking it or even just taking bits and pieces of it and figuring out different ways of meetings kids educational needs. There’s no reason why you couldn’t use bits of the idea and also incorporate meaty discussions, debate opportunities, etc. The original idea did have classes as a component. There would be human interaction.
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.
