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.
Human teachers will have less and less importance to the future of education. They will still have be important to trade schools but teachers will be replaced by robots. Robots can probably be just as good as humans and better for educational purposes. Kids can learn the importance of helping each other learn things better with the robots as trainers and guides.
Teachers will be replaced by counselors, because many students need counseling much more than they they due education because they are unable to learn much in their present condition. Eventually robots will be counselors as well.
And no, having big college degrees does not make someone a better teacher at all except possibly on a college level.
The days of human teachers and their unions are numbered.
Robots will replace them and kids will get the educations that they deserve and learn the importance of helping each learn which is a valuable lesson.
Last edited by Objective Detective; 11-15-2017 at 06:23 AM..
While I fully believe that offering equal educational opportunities to all is important, I do disagree with the way it is done in Texas. The Texas Robin Hood law just does not work. The basic premise of the policy is that the state identifies property "rich" school districts, and property "poor" districts based on very convoluted formula. Those districts identified as property "rich" then have a portion of their property tax revenue recaptured by the state. These recaptured funds are then distributed to the property "poor" districts. The utter ineffectiveness of this process is blatantly obvious in the San Antonio area. The Independent School District (ISD) where I reside is identified as property "rich", and around 60% of the property tax revenue is recaptured by the state. ISD's on the south, and east sides of San Antonio are deemed property "poor", and receive these recaptured funds from the state. Despite this windfall in funding, these ISDs routinely fail to achieve passing scores on the state standardized testing. Some have had multiple years of failing scores, resulting in the schools being reconstituted. This means the administrators and educators are replaced. These same districts have fully funded fine arts programs, where parents in our ISD must pay hefty fees, and have multiple fundraisers to have the same programs. These districts furnish students with iPads, or MacBooks, where our district relies on additional fundraisers to keep the school IT infrastructure for educators up to date, and with no devices for students.
Bottom line, throwing money at failing districts does not change performance. Root causes of educational challenges must be addressed, and application of more funding just doesn't do this. The parents must be engaged, and place importance on education. Students with family issues at home will not perform well in school. Students worrying about being able to eat after school will not perform well. Students going home to empty homes because the parents are having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet will not perform well.
Human teachers will have less and less importance to the future of education. They will still have be important to trade schools but teachers will be replaced by robots. Robots can probably be just as good as humans and better for educational purposes. Kids can learn the importance of helping each other learn things better with the robots as trainers and guides.
Teachers will be replaced by counselors, because many students need counseling much more than they they due education because they are unable to learn much in their present condition. Eventually robots will be counselors as well.
And no, having big college degrees does not make someone a better teacher at all except possibly on a college level.
The days of human teachers and their unions are numbered.
Robots will replace them and kids will get the educations that they deserve and learn the importance of helping each learn which is a valuable lesson.
I agree, 100%, and here's why...
My youngest kid had a dingbat AP English Lit teacher. Oh, she was degreed to the hilt at our state flagship university, UIUC (very competitive admissions, kids with ACT scores of 30 are routinely rejected), BUT because she taught a liberal arts course, everything was graded subjectively instead of objectively.
That teacher consistently criticized my kid's work, even complaining to us that kid was doing only C-level work while being capable of much more. My kid disagreed. We disagreed. Nothing we could do about it. The teacher graded purely subjectively, and our kid's interpretations of various works of English Literature and their themes didn't mirror the teacher's perceptions.
Well... lo and behold, AP Exam time comes around. My kid is the only one in the school's AP English Lit student population (out of 3 classes) to score a 5 (perfect score). Only 6.8% of AP English Lit test takers nationwide score a 5, and that self-selected test group consists of only high achievers, what with it being the College Board's AP program and all.
We ALL internalized that lesson... Liberal arts courses are nothing more than parroting the teacher's opinions and biases. If you can do that instead of thinking for yourself, you'll get the A.
I cannot wait to show this to both my friends, neither of whom make 81,000 as nyc public school teachers in the Bronx. I am sure plenty do but they do not. One is a middle school math and the other is a computer lab teacher. I just looked up one of their salaries and last year they made 60,975. Odd.
Why is it odd? Other factors weigh in. How long have your friends been teachers, for example? How many of the higher paid teachers have advanced degrees? In addition, teachers who double as coaches can make $120K in the high school my kids attended. This will raise the average.
Average salary is just that. You'll always find people at both ends of the spectrum.
My youngest kid had a dingbat AP English Lit teacher. Oh, she was degreed to the hilt at our state flagship university, UIUC (very competitive admissions, kids with ACT scores of 30 are routinely rejected), BUT because she taught a liberal arts course, everything was graded subjectively instead of objectively.
That teacher consistently criticized my kid's work, even complaining to us that kid was doing only C-level work while being capable of much more. My kid disagreed. We disagreed. Nothing we could do about it. The teacher graded purely subjectively, and our kid's interpretations of various works of English Literature and their themes didn't mirror the teacher's perceptions.
Well... lo and behold, AP Exam time comes around. My kid is the only one in the school's AP English Lit student population (out of 3 classes) to score a 5 (perfect score). Only 6.8% of AP English Lit test takers nationwide score a 5, and that self-selected test group consists of only high achievers, what with it being the College Board's AP program and all.
We ALL internalized that lesson... Liberal arts courses are nothing more than parroting the teacher's opinions and biases. If you can do that instead of thinking for yourself, you'll get the A.
Those dealing with stabilizing of the family and keeping the kid in the school. It does no good to spend money fixing a school and then have three quarters gone before the school year is over.
Might be as simple as arranging transport for the kid if he moves locally. Or providing significant housing aid to the family to keep them where they are. Or it might even involve removing the child from the family...a response that is done far too seldom pretty much because it costs too much.
The percentage of kids most of us have been talking about attend school, but they're disruptive. They haven't been taught to respect adults or authority. So transportation isn't an issue. I'm not sure most of them are moving, either, since we're talking about very poor areas where they may be living in government funded housing.
So no, throwing more money after bad isn't going to help those kids.
Until you change the culture in which they grew up, no amount of money is going to change who they are.
The principal who brought me to the inner-city school used to say all the time, "I don't know why people who don't like schoolchildren want to be schoolteachers." I see it all the time, along with the low expectations and the teachers who are just there to babysit and pick up a paycheck. I want to run them out, but there are no replacements available. I say all the time that we have a shortage of INCOMPETENT people--people who are willing to be teachers albeit unable to teach. We can't get enough warm bodies in front of the students as it is, and I don't see that improving.
I agree it is sad. Most teachers usually do want to move out to "easier" districts. That is why I truly do think that raising the criteria and prestige of becoming an educator will bring in many people who otherwise would not want to enter the field.
FWIW, I considered being a teacher like the many people in my family. I love children and most of my volunteerism is with children and teenagers (I don't particularly enjoy those middle school aged kids though!). I didn't get into teaching (my mom is still trying to get me to change careers) because I get paid a lot more in my current career. I also don't have to deal with too many idiotic adults. My mom complains the most in her job about some of the parents of the children and her co-workers. She also has a principal who is new and very disorganized and stand-offish with the teachers. I don't have to deal with all that drama. I know many people like myself who originally thought about being educators but who changed their minds due to the drama and beaurocracy you have to endure as a teacher. Summers off don't make up for it IMO. I get 6 weeks of vacation off at my regular day job already plus 3 weeks of sick time and all major holidays and most of the federal holidays already. So I have a lot of perks I wouldn't want to give up.
Love, love, lifeexplorer. (((lifeexplorer))) Lots of hugs. (This is what I do when my students spew.)
My goodness what vitriol!
Perhaps you don't have much experience with the whole Michelle Obama lunch makeovers that made the news for the past few years, but there is a lot of food that is required to be put on the trays that many students don't eat. Students have been trading food in the lunchroom for at least the last fifty years, to the best of my recollection. That you assumed that students must steal food to take it home is far, far from the truth. I regularly take home fruit that would otherwise get thrown in the garbage. With a mother who grew up in tightly-rationed WWII England, Thou shalt not waste is our family's 11th commandment.
As far as a good teacher, let's try any teacher. When you have to put warm bodies without any teaching credentials into a classroom because you can't get qualified candidates to put in applications you by definition do not have a good teacher. When the qualified teacher says "These kids can't learn anything so there's no use in trying to teach them," and actually follows through by not teaching them, you by definition do not have a good teacher. These are the two main issues in my district. There are no candidates to teach in our schools. Period.
Extra curricular activities are the main reasons that some students come to school at all. Moreover, even at a bad school like mine, most of the students who participate and have even minimally acceptable GPAs are offered some kind of assistance at our state's universities. They are woefully unprepared, but then university standards are not the same everywhere, and most of the students who can raise their game for college do so.
As I've said in another thread, I think in response to you, our foster care system is already overloaded and children are routinely left or returned to homes no better than the ones they are in.
Kids in gangs are kids too, and some of them can be turned from a life of crime with a positive school experience. I have several students in jail for carjacking, but I have others who have promised me that they would never put a gun in someone's face like that. They may lie, but gang members usually have a thing for loyalty. When they know someone cares for them, it's harder to lie to them or break a promise.
And dating. Really? You think there is a high school anywhere in this country where many of the students are swooning over their special someone? In my inner-city school, one of the issues I nag about most in the hallways is PDA. It's inappropriate, but the kids who are sweet on each other are usually sweet to everyone.
I can only imagine that someone has hurt you so badly that you want others to suffer. I hope you find some joy in helping those you care about, because you certainly don't seem to want to care about those who are not close to you. I'm sorry that you had a negative school experience, but that usually makes people hope that others have it better than they. Not a universal sentiment, clearly.
Nobody hurt me. I was resentful at the time but I am happy that my parents helped me to focus on useful things and not waste my time with extra curricular activities. I was able to graduate from high school, college and then graduate school.
I don’t want anybody to suffer. I believe everyone should choose their own path in life as long as they are willing to suffer the consequences and they don’t force others to pay for their choices.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. Interest in learning comes stems from motivation at home. If the parents aren't interested in teaching their kids to respect authority, why on earth would you think giving them stuff at school would do anything?
On the bold - children are naturally interested in learning. They may not want to learn the "boring" stuff that gets taught in school, but a great teacher can use the interest of the children and make most boring subjects a little less boring.
FWIW even though my mom is an educator today, this is actually her 3rd career. She was a teen mom on welfare when I was born. She drank a lot and worked a lot when she was in her 20s. She never came to parent teacher conferences, never checked up on my homework, nothing really. She nor my dad (who was very present in my life even though my parents were not married) did much of anything to make me "interested in learning."
I just was a child who loved to learn and especially who loved to read. We often had our utilities off in our home when I was a child and in the summers especially, I remember walking or riding our bikes to the library (which was about 3/4 of a mile from our house) and getting there when they opened and staying there until they closed. We did this everyday because the library had lights and air conditioning. I also participated in the reading challenges they had every summer. I used to read 8 and sometimes 20 books in one day because I'd read a lot of short books. I normally won the summer reading challenge nearly every year due to this. My mom never took me to the library. I wanted to go and I made my brother go with me.
I got all As in school. No one really made me interested in getting As. I just liked to be the best I could be. No one taught me this. My older brother was similar and we often competed with each other about all sorts of things including foot races and how fast we could read how fast we could recite math facts, etc. Most kids, if you sit and observe them, love learning and they will constantly find a way to learn what they are interested in and they will be competitive about things that are important to them.
The principal who brought me to the inner-city school used to say all the time, "I don't know why people who don't like schoolchildren want to be schoolteachers." I see it all the time, along with the low expectations and the teachers who are just there to babysit and pick up a paycheck. I want to run them out, but there are no replacements available. I say all the time that we have a shortage of INCOMPETENT people--people who are willing to be teachers albeit unable to teach. We can't get enough warm bodies in front of the students as it is, and I don't see that improving.
Why should anybody work under unworkable conditions like afraid of being stabbed? If the children don’t want to learn - ironic as someone said children are naturally willing to learn, why should the teachers do more while being paid the same?
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.
