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.
First off thank you for the kind words. I don't teach in Calvert though, just live there. My school system is actually the considered one of the worst ones in the state.The one whose most recent ex-Superintendent resigned when questions were raised about his PhD and whose predecessor is now in federal prison for bribery and corruption convictions. I rarely, if ever, complain about my salary but I weigh in on these threads when the "child care and summers off" crowd start in. Teachers as a rule work an awful lot of uncompensated time that nobody sees. After I'm through here I have to work on recommendation letters that I haven't had time to do at school. Generally these are for kids who have a "spotty" record but did well for me. I like to personalize those letters and have no set template where all I do is change the name.
Aghhh so you teach in PG county? Still well compensated but with a very different set of working conditions. That raises a number of discussion points that are good ones that I will pass on. Where you are the mere mention of which county you work in will enhance your stature or lower it. You can be doing a great job and people will assume because of the county certain things without knowing any better. Respect is often given as a result of what collectively the teachers in your district are doing and not what you as the individual teacher is doing. That can be frustrating.
Passionate, intelligent and comitted teachers are the ones who are always revising lesson plans, developing new strategies and constantly educating themselves on new methodologies and information in their fields. Your obviously don't know any of those. So, judging teachers on 'how hard they work' is ridiculous? Isn't that the matrix we use for ALL professions?
Yes, its ridiculous even in other professions. How hard someone works is not necessarily correlated with how good they are at something. You want to suggest that the teachers that do not work over the summer, etc are the bad ones. I suggest the ones that have to continuously work are ineffective and can't figure out how to manage their time well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
You taught 'fine'? Again, I disagree. I appreciate your honesty and concur, with your attitude, there is no way you could consider yourself an 'excellent' teacher.
You disagree about what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
I'm glad that you admit that being an 'expert' is a necessary but not complete requirement for good teaching. Teaching at the university level is a whole other enviroment than teaching in K-12. There you have a classroom of consumers rather than a captive audience...
I've already stated that having knowledge of the underlining subject matter is not enough to be a good teacher. Also, college in terms of the student base is not that difference than high school (especially community colleges, state colleges etc). Although, I have never been a high school teacher I have plenty of experience with high schools. Again, "teacher" is not the only job in education.
I teach in an elementary school as well as in a college. The difference is amazing. So, you can't really compare the two.
.
I have never suggested you can compare college to elementary school, I have suggested that high school is not dramatically different than college though.
As I stated else where I have little experience with elementary school. My comments about public education are more so regarding the secondary education system. I believe rather strongly that high schools should be run more like universities than elementary schools. Although, tenure has no place in the secondary education system. Middle schools should be somewhere in hmm....the middle.
Anyhow, our secondary system is really bad. Kids hardly learn anything useful, everything is taught in a way that detaches it from its historic and intellectual context. Having separate literature classes makes little sense, algebra classes are boring and a waste of time, science classes are taught with little historic and theoretical content. Everything is treated as a sort of skill or process, it does not matter if you understand it so long as you can do it.
The is little hope to fix it though, the only way you're going to fix it is with a strong governmental directive. The change won't come from the parents, teachers, etc. The wealthy will continue to put their kids in elite private schools.
I have never suggested you can compare college to elementary school, I have suggested that high school is not dramatically different than college though.
As I stated else where I have little experience with elementary school. My comments about public education are more so regarding the secondary education system. I believe rather strongly that high schools should be run more like universities than elementary schools. Although, tenure has no place in the secondary education system. Middle schools should be somewhere in hmm....the middle.
Anyhow, our secondary system is really bad. Kids hardly learn anything useful, everything is taught in a way that detaches it from its historic and intellectual context. Having separate literature classes makes little sense, algebra classes are boring and a waste of time, science classes are taught with little historic and theoretical content. Everything is treated as a sort of skill or process, it does not matter if you understand it so long as you can do it.
The is little hope to fix it though, the only way you're going to fix it is with a strong governmental directive. The change won't come from the parents, teachers, etc. The wealthy will continue to put their kids in elite private schools.
The affluent in the North East and Mid Atlantic states along with other parts of the nation send their kids to public schools with other affluent kids and they prosper. The wealthy may send their kids to private school but is that purely because of the education or is it also because of who they don't want their kids to go to school with? I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your comments but including mine with yours so folks will understand the context I am writing it in.
The affluent in the North East and Mid Atlantic states along with other parts of the nation send their kids to public schools with other affluent kids and they prosper. The wealthy may send their kids to private school but is that purely because of the education or is it also because of who they don't want their kids to go to school with? ....
From my experience the wealthy folks do not in general send their kids to public schools in the East/Mid-Atlantic. But maybe that was just the areas I lived in. The community would have to be big enough to have schools that service them, but usually the wealthy communities are smallish and spread out. Also, just to be clear. When I say wealthy, I mean upper-class not upper-middle class.
I think its because the education and the environment. I'll probably offend people by saying this, but its usually the upper-class that understand the value of proper education in Humanities, Mathematics, Science, etc. It is not surprising that the Middle-class/lower middle class school systems do not put great value on these things because the people they service do not put great value in them. The teachers are also a function of the same intellectual environmental.
From my experience the wealthy folks do not in general send their kids to public schools in the East/Mid-Atlantic. But maybe that was just the areas I lived in. The community would have to be big enough to have schools that service them, but usually the wealthy communities are smallish and spread out. Also, just to be clear. When I say wealthy, I mean upper-class not upper-middle class.
I think its because the education and the environment. I'll probably offend people by saying this, but its usually the upper-class that understand the value of proper education in Humanities, Mathematics, Science, etc. It is not surprising that the Middle-class/lower middle class school systems do not put great value on these things because the people they service do not put great value in them. The teachers are also a function of the same intellectual environmental.
But when it's all said and done, those upper class children don't ever have to worry about money, since what I think you are saying is that they are from WEALTHY families and not from families per say who have parents who both have double six figure incomes. The bottom line is this, we educate our society so that our future generation can be smarter than the previous generation learning from the mistakes of the previous generation so that we can have life long learners and productive citizens in the work force.
But when it's all said and done, those upper class children don't ever have to worry about money, since what I think you are saying is that they are from WEALTHY families and not from families per say who have parents who both have double six figure incomes.
I would suggest that most upper-class Children have to worry about money, the parents do not give unlimited hand outs. They just have better opportunities. Not only do they in general have better educations, but their parents are likely to give them seed money for a business, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antredd
The bottom line is this, we educate our society so that our future generation can be smarter than the previous generation learning from the mistakes of the previous generation so that we can have life long learners and productive citizens in the work force.
There is no reason to believe this is what actually occurs. People are not getting "smarter" generation after generation, if anything its the opposite.
This is one of the fundamental problems with the school system, one that does not have a good solution. Lower middle class schools produce lower middle class students with all that that entails, likewise for middle class schools, etc. Its hard to turn brass into gold....
I would suggest that most upper-class Children have to worry about money, the parents do not give unlimited hand outs. They just have better opportunities. Not only do they in general have better educations, but their parents are likely to give them seed money for a business, etc.
There is no reason to believe this is what actually occurs. People are not getting "smarter" generation after generation, if anything its the opposite.
This is one of the fundamental problems with the school system, one that does not have a good solution. Lower middle class schools produce lower middle class students with all that that entails, likewise for middle class schools, etc. Its hard to turn brass into gold....
So a poor kid like me who's mom was on welfare should be poor and in jail, using your logic?
So a poor kid like me who's mom was on welfare should be poor and in jail, using your logic?
Huh? I don't recalling saying anything about you.
Anyhow, If you are referring to my comment about people not getting smarter generation after generation, well then I'm talking about aggregates here. Obviously, there will be some individuals that do much better than their parents, there will be some that do worse. In the aggregate I see no evidence to suggest that people are getting "smarter" generation after generation.
You seem to have a problem noting the difference between aggregates and universal generalizations. Saying "People in general are not getting smarter generation after generation" is not the same statement as "Every child is less or just as smart as his/her parents".
The affluent in the North East and Mid Atlantic states along with other parts of the nation send their kids to public schools with other affluent kids and they prosper. The wealthy may send their kids to private school but is that purely because of the education or is it also because of who they don't want their kids to go to school with? I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your comments but including mine with yours so folks will understand the context I am writing it in.
Here in Fl many affluent people send their kids to private schools because the public schools are awful NOT because of who is in the public schools. In other areas (I have lived in wealthy areas in NY and CT also) nearly everyone attends public schools.
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.
