Math, science, technology? Yes! But what about reading and writing?

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by iwonderwhy2124

To read all of this is very disheartening. Admittedly, I was an atrocious high school student who was allowed to skate through. I was capable and intelligent, but I did not want to be there and I was stoned most of the time. Hence, I learned nothing. I could barely write a coherent paragraph, let alone a cogent essay.

Somehow I was accepted into a decent university (I think an admissions officer made a mistake! haha). I was appalled at myself and my peer's lack of ability. I couldn't even do a simple algebra problem. To put it bluntly, I did not belong there and neither did 90% of my fellows. But, at least I had the ability to get caught up, whereas many of my classmates just did not. I had to teach myself algebra and trigonometry in several weeks. But, I have a natural aptitude for these subjects. My writing and speaking abilities came only after many long years of reading literature and debating politics on the internet. I am self-taught in that regard.

I have seen many facets of what people are talking about here. I have seen the lowering of standards in educational institutions. I have seen pointless regurgitation of facts and how that is not conducive to learning. I have seen the students not caring. I have seen college students unable to do rudimentary things. So, what is the answer? How do we get this generation to turn back from the brink of being dunderheads and actually display the minimum amount of intelligence and education needed to succeed in this world full of people who are prepared to compete with us? I don't know. I wish I knew the answer. All I can say is that I thank God I am not a teacher. I would not be able to put up with the bull****.

We have lowered educational expectations because our students are capable of less. Kids have been coddled. The more they are coddled, the less they can do. Teachers blamed when Johnny doesn't learn. Couldn't possibly be Johnny didn't do his homework . I had a mom, just this past week, storm into my room and demand to know why her son got such a low grade on my test. I'm thinking her son can answer that question better than I can. She acted like it was my fault.

Kids expect prizes for everything they do. They expect praise for everything they do. And they expect extra credit if they do anything beyond what it takes to get the grade. It will be interesting to see what kind of world they make when they are adults and running the show.

You know, I'm not the brightest pea in the pod but I've always known the value of learning just to learn. I've always appreciated what a gift an education is. I don't believe this has anything to do with rote learning. We've been teaching kids by rote far longer than we've had kids who study only for the test. Kids just don't care. They haven't been taught to care. It's just about getting a prize or a pat on the back. That's what they grew up on. You reap what you sow.

My parents would not have dreamed of patting me on the back for grades. They never hung a paper on the refrigerator. Once grades were reported, they were, quickly forgotten and we were on to the next semester. They rarely attended a parent teacher conference, never helped with homework and didn't heap praise on us. They expected us to do what was expected of us and if a teacher complained, we got our butts kicked. Parents didn't blame teachers for a student's failure back then. I think too many of our kids have moms who made it their goal in life to deflect anything they percieved as challenging their child too much away from them. Now they can't rise to the challenge because they don't know how to.

[Nomadic9460678748]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

We have lowered educational expectations because our students are capable of less. Kids have been coddled. The more they are coddled, the less they can do. Teachers blamed when Johnny doesn't learn. Couldn't possibly be Johnny didn't do his homework . I had a mom, just this past week, storm into my room and demand to know why her son got such a low grade on my test. I'm thinking her son can answer that question better than I can. She acted like it was my fault.

Kids expect prizes for everything they do. They expect praise for everything they do. And they expect extra credit if they do anything beyond what it takes to get the grade. It will be interesting to see what kind of world they make when they are adults and running the show.

You know, I'm not the brightest pea in the pod but I've always known the value of learning just to learn. I've always appreciated what a gift an education is. I don't believe this has anything to do with rote learning. We've been teaching kids by rote far longer than we've had kids who study only for the test. Kids just don't care. They haven't been taught to care. It's just about getting a prize or a pat on the back. That's what they grew up on. You reap what you sow.

My parents would not have dreamed of patting me on the back for grades. They never hung a paper on the refrigerator. Once grades were reported, they were, quickly forgotten and we were on to the next semester. They rarely attended a parent teacher conference, never helped with homework and didn't heap praise on us. They expected us to do what was expected of us and if a teacher complained, we got our butts kicked. Parents didn't blame teachers for a student's failure back then. I think too many of our kids have moms who made it their goal in life to deflect anything they percieved as challenging their child too much away from them. Now they can't rise to the challenge because they don't know how to.

I can agree with some of what you've said, but I'm curious, do you have students who defy your expectations? Also, what, if anything, can you do to help those students who ARE interested in learning and do care to invest themselves? Are they left languishing?

Again, I don't envy your position, but have mounds of respect for your willingness to teach. Thank you for putting yourself out there.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

I can agree with some of what you've said, but I'm curious, do you have students who defy your expectations? Also, what, if anything, can you do to help those students who ARE interested in learning and do care to invest themselves? Are they left languishing?

Again, I don't envy your position, but have mounds of respect for your willingness to teach. Thank you for putting yourself out there.

I do have students who rise above but they have something in common. Parents who don't coddle them and have expectations of them. These kids don't have the parents who come in screaming that I lose their child's papers .

I'm able to do more with my physics kids than my chemistry kids because everyone has to take chemistry to graduate so I get all kinds and have to try to get them all to pass. In physics, I do a lot of projects so they can go deeper into the subject matter.

I wish I could teach honors chemistry (don't have the lab for it if I had the time for a 4th prep) because it would be fun to have a group of kids capable of doing more just to see where they'd go. Unfortunately, they get what they get out of class and that's pretty much it. They know I'm available after school but they don't want more class time so they aren't the ones who show up.

[Charles Wallace]

From what I've observed of my high school English freshmen, the causes are severalfold:

1. Previous teachers did not grade on the accuracy of grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling.

I do. I take off one percentage point per error.

2. Previous teachers did not compel students to rewrite poorly-written material.

My policy is simple: if the work stinks so badly I can't in all conscience give it even a D, it gets returned to the student. A zero is put in the gradebook. The directions are reviewed with him or her and a copy of the directions is given to the student with his or her work. She or he may redo it -- or may eat the zero. Either way, the student has made a choice.

3. If a student fails to fix three of the errors previously made in the work, I don't regrade it. They get the work back again with a note that says, in essence, that if they make few or no changes to the work, I make few or no changes to the grade. I'm usually more polite, but the message is the same.

4. I don't give extra credit. I'm nice in that I have flexible due dates to accommodate rewritings, but that's all. Even then, I have a cutoff point.

5. I have a very clear rubric explaining what constitutes an upper-, middle-, and lower-tier paper.

It's interesting, though -- every year, I read the qualities of the middle-tier paper without telling the students what tier the qualities describe. Throughout, I'll use words such as "adequate," "average," "appropriate," and suchlike, e.g., "The thesis is present and is adequate. Each paragraph had an appropriate number of sentences. Sentences were written at grade level and were average in length, style, and variety." I'll then ask them, "What grade should this paper receive?"

I know it will come as no surprise to reveal that the students believe it should receive an A.

What this suggests to be is also pretty obvious: that students have been trained repeatedly to believe that doing the minimum requested of them constitutes superior work.

I think this is a difficulty for teachers, too, especially English teachers. If "C" is defined as "doing the job," then how does one define an "A"? An "A" is not necessarily/only "more of the same." Good rubrics in which teachers spell out very specifically what an "A" means -- and define it as possessing all of the qualities of the "C" AND ALSO the following XYZ traits -- would help immeasurably.

The problem is this: it takes a long, long time to grade papers. It takes FOREVER to mark up individual grammar errors and start subtracting. Teachers overburdened with large numbers of students are often encouraged by that fact alone to shortcut. Moreover, I've been told more than once by an administrator how subjective English is, that a B+ could surely be an A, that Mrs. Jones would go over our heads to the superintendent if Billy didn't receive a D rather than the F his work deserved.

How many teachers -- understandably -- cave?

You know how many times I've gotten a parent complaining that I gave her child a grade that was too high?

You know how many times I've gotten an administrator complaining I gave out too many A's?

This is part of the problem.

[Nomadic9460678748]

I have a friend who really wants me to become a teacher. She's a teacher. I respect her and love her dearly, but haven't the heart to tell her that there is no way in H-E double hockey sticks that I would become a teacher because I know I would find myself at loggerheads with some administrative demands. Plus, (and this is not meant to sound disparaging toward anyone on this board) I've known people who became teachers, not because they felt they could do something worthwhile for students, but because they couldn't figure out what else to do with themselves and decided becoming a teacher would be a nice fallback. Summers off, benefits, etc.

Charles and Ivory, you both sound like the type of teacher I'd aspire to be (you're definitely the type of teacher I would have loved to have seen more of as a student), but just reading your posts I am gathering that it's often something of an uphill struggle at times. Perhaps more than it should be.

If I were the parent of a student in one of your classes I'd probably say to my son or daughter, "Well, do you expect to attend a university? If so, this is just a taste of what you can expect in college. Think of it as preparation. No one's going to give you anything. You'll need to work your tail off for it!"

I'm not in favor of parents coddling their kids, but I do think there's a fine balance insofar as I'm for parental involvement that encourages students to strive for success upon the basis of their efforts. A parent should care about their child's success, but there are quite a few who seem to confuse engagement with outright obstruction.

This is so true, and so disappointing:

"What this suggests to be is also pretty obvious: that students have been trained repeatedly to believe that doing the minimum requested of them constitutes superior work."

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Charles Wallace

What this suggests to be is also pretty obvious: that students have been trained repeatedly to believe that doing the minimum requested of them constitutes superior work.

.

I totally agree. This is because they grew up getting prizes just for participating because mommy thought it might hurt their self esteem if they didn't win something.

I have a theory that as the need for mom's to stay at home diminished because of modern appliances that take the work out of housework, having fewer kids, higher quality day care being available and the need for a second income, many women who wanted to stay at home invented a reason. The reason became the kids. Suddenly, they were the center of the universe. Life HAD to revolve around them. Their day had to be coordinated. Every detail looked after and yes, mommy's special little snowflake needed a prize just for showing up because we can't have their feelings hurt you know. Why would these kids think they need to put in any effort at all? Everything they've ever done has been met with accolades. They think anything they do is A+ work.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a parent in for parent teacher conferences with her daughter. Her grade was low but the girl told her mom that she KNEW she'd gotten a B on the test she'd taken that day. I pulled her test. It was a D-. This is how far off her ability to assess her own work is. She was sure she had gotten a B. She studied, retook the same test and still got a D a week later. It astounds me that I can give them the exact same test a week later and they do just as poorly if not worse.

I have to admit I do give extra credit but it's truely extra. In order to qualify for extra credit assignments, you have to have completed every assignment during the term. I find that the only kids who do extra credit are the higher end kids who want their grades boosted. I make sure my extra credit is meaningful and an extra assignment. Just before mid terms and finals I'll give an extra credit lab that's harder than my normal labs. Usually, it's only the upper end kids who want to boost their grade that take me up on it. I refuse to give extra credit for paper, Kleenex and hand sanitizer like the other teachers do. Might as well just hand me a 5 dollar bill and say "raise my grade". I'm amazed my school doesn't have a policy against this.

[xavier132487]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

Interesting. I can't imagine that it would serve any purpose to have science and engineering students commit exclusively to "creative" writing. I'm not in favor of such rigidity. I would definitely like to see STEM students given the opportunity to take writing courses specific to their purposes. I'm not a scientist but love to read science journals and have purchased the occasional copy of the New England Journal of Medicine. However, because I'm NOT a scientist I'll often stick with the more text-rich articles and permit myself slow, close readings of articles with lots of calculations and diagrams. I consider it a welcome challenge.

That I can agree with. Luckily, they DO have a writing program in ECE. It's coupled with a lab, but a large chunk of your grade depends on how well you can write technical papers. Even if you fail every lab, you can pull of a C if you do well on writing.

[John23]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

They don't care to learn. They just want the check mark.

One of my issues is my, so called, "gifted" kids. You'll see thread after thread about how they deserve something different in education only they don't want it. They don't want deeper work. They want easy A's. My students complain all the time about their honors courses being hard and about having to work for a grade. They're lazy. They're used to mommy doing for them. They're used to prizes just for participating. They've been coddled. They just want the grade. Learning for the sake of learning is a foreign concept to them. They want something in return.

Last year, I wanted to do an intro to stoichiometry lab where the kids make S'Mores. It's a great lab for teaching concepts like limiting reagents. When I asked my students to bring in the chocolate bars we'd need I got "Are we getting extra credit?". When I said no, they refused to ask their parents to participate. This year, kids will ask to print things in my room. I'll tell them no because I buy my own paper for my room. They'll then offer to bring some in IF I give them extra credit. THEY want to print in my room, and I'm supposed to give them extra credit for bringing in the paper?

Kids, today, don't do anything just because it's right or for personal growth or to be nice. Those concepts are foreign. They only know what's in it for them and that is their only motivation. So they study for the test just to get a grade. My chemistry kids get mad when they find that concepts they learned before keep coming back. I get "I thought we were done with that". It's, literally, out of their heads the day after the test.

Where did the coddling come from? Why wasnt George Washington coddled? Where was the coddling of Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Einstein.

Some kids don't want to learn, or advanced college level learning just isnt for them. Nothing wrong with it. I think a good majority of highschool students (say 25-30%) should leave after 15/16 and go into vocational, tech training, autobody work, mechanical work, etc.

In a typical highschool, I'm sure there's 10-15% who would like to know how Einstein developed his theory of relativity. Is it good to deny the top students the ability to learn at a deeper level than their peers?

I think they'd be great role models for the entire highschool. The highschool I went to had 2,000 students, so I'm using that as a reference. If a 100-200 really learn the depth of Einsteins thought process or imagination. Or learned about Ben Franklin, or any number of people, it may inspire the other 400-500 that are lagging.

It isn't fair in school to treat everyone the same, and try to give everyone the same knowledge at the same speed. It doesn't allow for breakthroughs or self discovery. The great thinkers of the past didn't go to these factory type schools.

At my highschool, we had the academic decathlon. But it doesn't provide students information that they can use outside of class to inspire them to be the next Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc. Modern schools produce paper, diplomas, awards, honors, gpa's, etc. But they don't produce the small seeds in students minds to produce future breakthroughs.

What I dont understand, why do we assume that our students are cabable of such little work? Why were students expected to do more a 100 years in a one room school house, with little or no resources?

On the subject of great scientists, there's also Richard Feynman. In one of his books, he talked about how hard it is to know something. How easy it is to fool yourself, make mistakes. Not check experiments correctly. I dont think any highschool or college student comes close to that.

I dont believe the arguements about family problems, parental problems, family turmoil. There was plenty of turmoil 80-100 years ago, but it didnt prevent people from getting an education. I think students have almost been programmed over the last 50 years to do less and expect less. Regardless of what they're truely capable of.