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.
Survival of the fittest. Kids need to be taught this as early as possible.
The asians and indians picked up on it and look at how they have adjusted.
What's missed with this comment is the strain it puts on society-people like yourself!- when so many people get kicked to the curb. Those kids who were kicked to the curb when they were 12 and cutting up in 6th grade end up becoming the thugs, burglars and rapists of the world. I know, I know, you're thinking "no,no there are good and bad people and they are born that way". But such a thought is stupid. Nobody is born a robber, murderer or rapist. It's a long process that starts with difficult experiences earlier in life...like being kicked to the curb when they were 12 years old.
Yet maybe she just wasn't a good teacher and couldn't do the job?
In any other field, we would accept people being weeded out for lack of performance or inability to do the job. Why should teachers be different?
The parents of children at Charter schools are more involved. They are sending their kids to schools that produce better results and the teachers at Charter schools are working with them closely like that.
Many of the kids I knew at various top schools had parents who used school choice. Either they sent their kids to private schools or they moved to good areas with good public schools. Some did get into top public schools via testing.
They used various forms of school choice. Now between charter schools and public schools there is school choice.
And it's amazing you want parents to have Asian work ethic, but you don't want teachers to have an Asian work ethic. When I gave that article to a friend of mine who is Chinese, he said it sounded like a Japanese school. Intense pressure from and on the students. That is the Asian work ethic being put on both teachers and students.
The circumstances so many teachers face in their classrooms are so difficult, so next-to-impossible, that ANYBODY would struggle to get the job done. Which is why we've seen such a high turnover in the teaching profession for decades. At some point, reasonable, informed people have to conclude it's not always the teacher who can't get the job done. It's the rotten set of circumstances they are working in.
How many people here read the article, other articles on public education and this thread and thought "hey, I think I'd like spend a few grand and a couple years in grad school getting a teaching credential so I can make $40-$50k a year to work in this world!"??? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess not many of you did. Ever consider that most everybody else feels similarly to you on that? 'Personal preference' is the nice, easy out you've used to get out of such a discussion. But, some working conditions are so difficult/unfair/****ty that NOBODY prefers such a job! What if people just generally decide they do not want to become teachers? Who will actually fight to get these kids on the right course and get the 'results' you want? It's easy to sit in your private sector job and say "make it like my field, you don't produce you're fired". But, teaching in public schools filled with defiant kids whose parents can even be defiant and combative ain't the same thing. But many of you wouldn't get that...
The circumstances so many teachers face in their classrooms are so difficult, so next-to-impossible, that ANYBODY would struggle to get the job done. Which is why we've seen such a high turnover in the teaching profession for decades. At some point, reasonable, informed people have to conclude it's not always the teacher who can't get the job done. It's the rotten set of circumstances they are working in.
Which is why the Charter schools rightfully weed those kids out.
It allows a greater percentage of kids from poor neighborhoods to get good classroom learning environments and have a much better chance at a future.
I see what you're saying and I am 100% in favor of putting the garbage kids in separate schools. Perhaps school staff there can be devoted to dealing with kids with behavorial issues (who may even need medication). This allows teachers dealing with the normal to gifted kids to actually focus on teaching.
How many people here read the article, other articles on public education and this thread and thought "hey, I think I'd like spend a few grand and a couple years in grad school getting a teaching credential so I can make $40-$50k a year to work in this world!"??? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess not many of you did. Ever consider that most everybody else feels similarly to you on that? 'Personal preference' is the nice, easy out you've used to get out of such a discussion. But, some working conditions are so difficult/unfair/****ty that NOBODY prefers such a job! What if people just generally decide they do not want to become teachers? Who will actually fight to get these kids on the right course and get the 'results' you want? It's easy to sit in your private sector job and say "make it like my field, you don't produce you're fired". But, teaching in public schools filled with defiant kids whose parents can even be defiant and combative ain't the same thing. But many of you wouldn't get that...
Of course we get that. We wouldn't want our kids to go to school with those kids, and charter schools give poor people the same school choice that those in wealthier neighborhoods have. Separate the quality kids from the garbage kids and allow the quality kids to focus on education. Also the parents who send their kids to charter schools or private schools are more concerned about their children's future.
Allowing the STUPIDEST kids (or parents) to run the show is ridiculous and we are well past that. No more excuses.
Btw, teaching in even the worst public school is not the worst job anyone can have. Teachers have lots of vacation, including summers off that they can devote to other things. If you don't like it nobody is making you stay in it.
Which is why the Charter schools rightfully weed those kids out.
It allows a greater percentage of kids from poor neighborhoods to get good classroom learning environments and have a much better chance at a future.
I see what you're saying and I am 100% in favor of putting the garbage kids in separate schools. Perhaps school staff there can be devoted to dealing with kids with behavorial issues (who may even need medication). This allows teachers dealing with the normal to gifted kids to actually focus on teaching.
Well, sure. Or allow them an entirely different path outside of traditional schools. This type of thing will only happen if/when the public and policy makers realize what is actually going on in public schools. We're not there yet, obviously, as most still think it's just a matter of "fixing" the public schools. I.E. just hire better teachers etc. That's a simplistic view understandable for those who haven't worked in difficult public schools. Unfortunately, it is not nearly that simple.
Of course we get that. We wouldn't want our kids to go to school with those kids, and charter schools give poor people the same school choice that those in wealthier neighborhoods have. Separate the quality kids from the garbage kids and allow the quality kids to focus on education. Also the parents who send their kids to charter schools or private schools are more concerned about their children's future.
Allowing the STUPIDEST kids (or parents) to run the show is ridiculous and we are well past that. No more excuses.
Btw, teaching in even the worst public school is not the worst job anyone can have. Teachers have lots of vacation, including summers off that they can devote to other things. If you don't like it nobody is making you stay in it.
A couple of key points working off of what you say here:
1) If what you say is true, you must also realize that how we currently evaluate schools and compare them to one another is deeply flawed. If you're a teacher or admin at a regular school that must deal with the defiance and disruption...you aren't competing fairly with those who are able to cut out defiant kids. You're test scores or any other performance metric should be assumed to be much lower...even if the performance and skill of the educators is equal or greater to those in other schools. Very few people get that. They just want to point to test scores and say "see, school A is better than School B". Stupidity.
2) What I said was, given all of the factors, there isn't going to be much interest in the teaching profession. There's not much interest in working in the fields and picking tomatoes, either. But, there are people that do it. Also, because of many factors listed, even those who do give it a shot will often "fail" due to the unrealistic set of circumstances they will be put in. So, you have low interest in the field to begin with, and then you fire off all of the teachers who "fail", and what are you left with? A revolving door of "failures" and a disillusioned public. There simply won't be nearly enough competent, committed people available to teach everybody. Parents demand a good teacher for their kids, and not enough people want to bother with the career to where supply of good teachers meets demand. Pretty much where we already are today.
The result is the "elite" and wealthy will leave the system all together and educate their own kids. The gap and degree of separation between disadvantaged kids and the privileged will grow even greater. And then what we really have is a civil rights issue. We can end up like so many 3rd world countries where a select few are FILTHY rich and then most of society is dirt poor and generally a dangerous place to live.
A couple of key points working off of what you say here:
1) If what you say is true, you must also realize that how we currently evaluate schools and compare them to one another is deeply flawed. If you're a teacher or admin at a regular school that must deal with the defiance and disruption...you aren't competing fairly with those who are able to cut out defiant kids. You're test scores or any other performance metric should be assumed to be much lower...even if the performance and skill of the educators is equal or greater to those in other schools. Very few people get that. They just want to point to test scores and say "see, school A is better than School B". Stupidity.
2) What I said was, given all of the factors, there isn't going to be much interest in the teaching profession. There's not much interest in working in the fields and picking tomatoes, either. But, there are people that do it. Also, because of many factors listed, even those who do give it a shot will often "fail" due to the unrealistic set of circumstances they will be put in. So, you have low interest in the field to begin with, and then you fire off all of the teachers who "fail", and what are you left with? A revolving door of "failures" and a disillusioned public. There simply won't be nearly enough competent, committed people available to teach everybody. Parents demand a good teacher for their kids, and not enough people want to bother with the career to where supply of good teachers meets demand. Pretty much where we already are today.
The result is the "elite" and wealthy will leave the system all together and educate their own kids. The gap and degree of separation between disadvantaged kids and the privileged will grow even greater. And then what we really have is a civil rights issue. We can end up like so many 3rd world countries where a select few are FILTHY rich and then most of society is dirt poor and generally a dangerous place to live.
The elite and wealthy long ago left public education and sent their kids to private schools. This is nothing new.
And no we won't end up a third world society. Every leftist when they don't get their way screams that.
Well, sure. Or allow them an entirely different path outside of traditional schools. This type of thing will only happen if/when the public and policy makers realize what is actually going on in public schools. We're not there yet, obviously, as most still think it's just a matter of "fixing" the public schools. I.E. just hire better teachers etc. That's a simplistic view understandable for those who haven't worked in difficult public schools. Unfortunately, it is not nearly that simple.
But you aren't really advocating helping or doing anything for the disruptive kids.
You're actually wanting to hold back kids who have promising futures and deny them a chance at a decent career and you're using these disruptive kids as an excuse when I'm not so sure you care about them either. You care about one thing, projecting teachers who are deemed to be poor performers and are pulling up endless excuse after excuse.
A lot more is understood about mental health and treatment. Those kids, as they are kicked out of better schools will need to be dealt with and as school choice expands it will be more of an issue . Right now they are focused on improving the education of students who can respond to better teachers and teaching methods.
The disruptive kids often come from horrible homes (or may have biochemical issues) and those needs need to be dealt with separately. Perhaps special education can be expanded (and if some of their issues are dealt with at least some of these kids may be able to join the others in the better schools).
The elite and wealthy long ago left public education and sent their kids to private schools. This is nothing new.
And no we won't end up a third world society. Every leftist when they don't get their way screams that.
The wealthy and elite never sent their kids to public school. Even if the public school top notch a wealthy or private person will still send their kids to private. Why would someone that is elite and wealthy send their kids to the same public school with the dregs of everyone else in this city? Education throughout the history of America and in NYC has been private, self taught or home schooled for most of its time. Public education only came around in the mid 19th century. In the 19th century America and in cities like NYC did not have much of a middle class, most were poor, working class and wealthy rich, but this began to change in the late 19th century. Roosevelt, Astor, Schermorhn, Guggenheim, Vanderbilt, House of Morgan, Rockerfeller and other old money families that existed 100 or more years ago never sent their kids to public school. NYC has been an elite city since the British governorship fled Whitehall street at city hall in 1783 and turned it over to Washington and friends. The only person I can think of that his an elitist that send their kid to public school was President Jimmy Carter which turned out to be a disaster. Sorry if I jumped around 225 years or so in this country.
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.
