NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7088383.stm


Remove bad teachers, says adviser

Poorly performing teachers meant pupils suffered, Sir Cyril said.

Sub-standard teachers should be removed from schools to make way for better colleagues, a key government education adviser has suggested.

Sir Cyril Taylor said he has estimated there are about 17,000 "poor" teachers in England.

They were unable to control classes and their presence was damaging the education of about 400,000 children, he told BBC Breakfast.

He called on head teachers to be stronger in getting rid of them.

no fucking shit. how much do they pay these fucking 'advisers' to come put with blatantly obvious crap like this. i've always thought giving tenure to teachers was a bad idea, practically every other sector is able to sack you if you're shit. what's so special about educators, eh?

Don't have enough of them, for a start.

half the people i know want to go into teaching, at least one of them does not deserve a teaching position. i hope she is never responsible for the future development of a child. more scarily, she also wants to be the mother of double figure kids. there's a force for social decline if ever there was one. her brother thinks he's jesus, like really, no shitting.

One of my mates is going into teaching, and he's the last person that I'd want teaching my kids, as he's ridiculously foul-mouthed and very immature.

BUT, I've also heard from other people he's a very, very good teach and acts properly in the classroom.

Don't have enough of them, for a start.

Its localised. There's plenty of unemployed teachers in Scotland and the North of England and not enough in London and the South.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7088383.stm



no fucking shit. how much do they pay these fucking 'advisers' to come put with blatantly obvious crap like this. i've always thought giving tenure to teachers was a bad idea, practically every other sector is able to sack you if you're shit. what's so special about educators, eh?
But thanks to the unionization of teachers, this advice is much easier to give than it is to act upon.

I'd be very cautious about how this is taken about, especially when you look at league tables affect on teaching (a local school NSB* has the main focus on league tables and the pupils that pumps out seem a tad "special")

*yes there is a school called Northampton School for Girls which happens to be full of crack heads and lesbians

One of my mates is going into teaching, and he's the last person that I'd want teaching my kids, as he's ridiculously foul-mouthed and very immature.

I always found that a good thing

One of my mates is going into teaching, and he's the last person that I'd want teaching my kids, as he's ridiculously foul-mouthed and very immature.


At least he can relate to the students.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7088383.stm

no fucking shit. how much do they pay these fucking 'advisers' to come put with blatantly obvious crap like this. i've always thought giving tenure to teachers was a bad idea, practically every other sector is able to sack you if you're shit. what's so special about educators, eh?

good luck.

One of my mates is going into teaching, and he's the last person that I'd want teaching my kids, as he's ridiculously foul-mouthed and very immature.

BUT, I've also heard from other people he's a very, very good teach and acts properly in the classroom.
dunno about the foul-mouth, but teachers that have a bit of immaturity can make learning fun.

My English teacher actually made Shakespear and other lit enjoyable with her antics.

Thank the lord for "quango" culture eh? I daresay this advisor was paid a great amount to come up with this particular gem as well.

Much as I, both aspiring to be a teacher (if other plans go awry), and having had a good relationship with my teachers, abhor the pressure Ofsted put upon teachers, and the formulaic, prosaic manner in which they seek to have lessons taught, I do think teachers should be accountable for their actions.

I'd be very cautious about how this is taken about, especially when you look at league tables affect on teaching (a local school NSB* has the main focus on league tables and the pupils that pumps out seem a tad "special")

*yes there is a school called Northampton School for Girls which happens to be full of crack heads and lesbians

NSB=NSG? Explain that one to me. :) Or is English just that different outside of Canada?

Typo?

I would love, honestly, for everyone who believes it is easy to be a teacher to spend one year doing it. Especially advisors, lawyers, and businessmen whose own little darlings go to private schools, and who do not have any experience or education about teaching, let alone in government-run or public schools.

I would love for them to experience what I do when I have students who are disruptive whose parents' attitude is, "Fuck you, they're your problem when they are there, not mine" and "I don't have time to check on whether he does his homework, why don't you?" and "he doesn't need school anyway, he's going to work for me," and "Well of course I had to keep her out of school, she had to take care of my younger children." Not to mention the ones who abuse their kids and leave it to us to get their kids help.

Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?

No more than all of you non-teachers do.

I would love, honestly, for everyone who believes it is easy to be a teacher to spend one year doing it. Especially advisors, lawyers, and businessmen whose own little darlings go to private schools, and who do not have any experience or education about teaching.

I would love for them to experience what I do when I have students who are disruptive whose parents' attitude is, "Fuck you, they're your problem when they are there, not mine" and "I don't have time to check on whether he does his homework, why don't you?" and "he doesn't need school anyway, he's going to work for me," and "Well of course I had to keep her out of school, she had to take care of my younger children." Not to mention the ones who abuse their kids and leave it to us to get their kids help. and let's not forget "How dare you teach my child ____!" and "you hurt my child's feelings... I SUE YOU!!!"

Teaching will continue to get more and more difficult, and educational standard will continue to decline, until the state education system rediscovers the advantages of streaming.

By this I mean segregating kids into different classes according to ability level. Yes, I know it's not at all politically correct to do that. I know it's difficult for kids to move up to a more advanced class if they do better. But the advantages to both kids and teachers far outweigh those problems.

Streaming means that teachers can provide more coherent lessons - teaching to a level which kids can understand, and building up their knowledge incrementally until the level of understanding and learning is raised sufficiently for assessment (examinations) to be carried out. Of course, I'm more in favour of continuous assessment (coursework) than exams (stressful and not representative of true ability in most cases).

It also means that teachers don't have to differentiate between different abilities in the same class. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, not even the teacher training lecturers at university who tried to explain it to us, knows how to do this properly. In some cases, people don't even know what it means.

But the one and only way it is possible to differentiate between abilities is to put those different abilities into different classes. Then you don't have so many kids that are either bored (because the material is too easy for them) or confused (because they don't understand whats being taught), and hence the amount of class disruption drops to a level which is manageable.

At the moment, classes of all ability levels are being touted as the way forward, with "inclusion" and "diversity" the main buzzwords of educational politics. Nice theory, but it doesn't really work. The only classes where it's just about manageable are "team teaching", where two or more teachers take one class. One does the teaching, the other manages the classroom (keeping order and helping kids who have problems). It also helps to have dedicated classroom assistants present to give special tuition to kids with learning difficulties (like autism or ADHD).
Fine in principle, but there aren't enough teachers to provide two for every class. And there probably isn't enough funding in the education budget to do this either. It's not going to happen.

Streaming is possible though. There have to be several classes for each year group anyway, to keep class sizes under 40 kids per lesson. I worked in a school which had over 2000 students, from year 7 to year 12. There was no good reason why streaming couldn't be done there, except that it didn't fit with the political ideology adopted by the headteacher, the education authorities or the government.

More to the point, all private schools operate streaming to some extent, as do all grammar schools (and all state run schools, up until about 20 years ago). It really is the most effective and efficient way of teaching. Screw the politics, tell the whingers and whiners to shut up and go away. Teach properly.

Teaching will continue to get more and more difficult, and educational standard will continue to decline, until the state education system rediscovers the advantages of streaming.

By this I mean segregating kids into different classes according to ability level. Yes, I know it's not at all politically correct to do that. I know it's difficult for kids to move up to a more advanced class if they do better. But the advantages to both kids and teachers far outweigh those problems.

Streaming means that teachers can provide more coherent lessons - teaching to a level which kids can understand, and building up their knowledge incrementally until the level of understanding and learning is raised sufficiently for assessment (examinations) to be carried out. Of course, I'm more in favour of continuous assessment (coursework) than exams (stressful and not representative of true ability in most cases).

It also means that teachers don't have to differentiate between different abilities in the same class. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, not even the teacher training lecturers at university who tried to explain it to us, knows how to do this properly. In some cases, people don't even know what it means.

But the one and only way it is possible to differentiate between abilities is to put those different abilities into different classes. Then you don't have so many kids that are either bored (because the material is too easy for them) or confused (because they don't understand whats being taught), and hence the amount of class disruption drops to a level which is manageable.

At the moment, classes of all ability levels are being touted as the way forward, with "inclusion" and "diversity" the main buzzwords of educational politics. Nice theory, but it doesn't really work. The only classes where it's just about manageable are "team teaching", where two or more teachers take one class. One does the teaching, the other manages the classroom (keeping order and helping kids who have problems). It also helps to have dedicated classroom assistants present to give special tuition to kids with learning difficulties (like autism or ADHD).
Fine in principle, but there aren't enough teachers to provide two for every class. And there probably isn't enough funding in the education budget to do this either. It's not going to happen.

Streaming is possible though. There have to be several classes for each year group anyway, to keep class sizes under 40 kids per lesson. I worked in a school which had over 2000 students, from year 7 to year 12. There was no good reason why streaming couldn't be done there, except that it didn't fit with the political ideology adopted by the headteacher, the education authorities or the government.

More to the point, all private schools operate streaming to some extent, as do all grammar schools (and all state run schools, up until about 20 years ago). It really is the most effective and efficient way of teaching. Screw the politics, tell the whingers and whiners to shut up and go away. Teach properly.

Streaming, with a return of selective education, would be far more effective, but I cannot deny streaming is necessary.

I would love, honestly, for everyone who believes it is easy to be a teacher to spend one year doing it. Especially advisors, lawyers, and businessmen whose own little darlings go to private schools, and who do not have any experience or education about teaching, let alone in government-run or public schools.

I would love for them to experience what I do when I have students who are disruptive whose parents' attitude is, "Fuck you, they're your problem when they are there, not mine" and "I don't have time to check on whether he does his homework, why don't you?" and "he doesn't need school anyway, he's going to work for me," and "Well of course I had to keep her out of school, she had to take care of my younger children." Not to mention the ones who abuse their kids and leave it to us to get their kids help.

Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?

No more than all of you non-teachers do.

nice strawman.

i've always thought giving tenure to teachers was a bad idea, practically every other sector is able to sack you if you're shit. what's so special about educators, eh?There's a difference between firing a teacher for being a poor teacher and firing a teacher for teaching something contrary to established social norms or in a new or unusual manner. The latter is what tenure is meant to protect, but unfortunately in protecting the latter, the former is protected as well.

nice strawman.

It's not a strawman. Kat's obvious walked more than a few miles in those shoes and she's seen enough to have come to that conclusion. Now she's saying it's someone else's turn to walk a mile in her shoes.

I would love, honestly, for everyone who believes it is easy to be a teacher to spend one year doing it. Especially advisors, lawyers, and businessmen whose own little darlings go to private schools, and who do not have any experience or education about teaching, let alone in government-run or public schools.

I would love for them to experience what I do when I have students who are disruptive whose parents' attitude is, "Fuck you, they're your problem when they are there, not mine" and "I don't have time to check on whether he does his homework, why don't you?" and "he doesn't need school anyway, he's going to work for me," and "Well of course I had to keep her out of school, she had to take care of my younger children." Not to mention the ones who abuse their kids and leave it to us to get their kids help.

Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?

No more than all of you non-teachers do.

Trust me, I have walked at least a quarter mile in your shoes when I did I guess you would call observation teaching and where I would have to do at least one lesson plan and teach the class. I did not like teaching that class, it was a nightmare. Teachers are over worked and under paid, I men people think "hey you get two months off". Well yea, that because during the months that school is in session, teachers are not only working at the school, but they're working at home too. When I was rejected from being a student teacher because of my speech problem, at first I was upset by it, but now that I'm excelling in the OT program, I consider it a blessing.

It's not a strawman. Kat's obvious walked more than a few miles in those shoes and she's seen enough to have come to that conclusion. Now she's saying it's someone else's turn to walk a mile in her shoes.

It's a strawman to the extent that up to that point noone had suggested that "all teachers suck", or - as KAt put it "Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?"

The initial quoted study suggested that about 17,000 teachers should be shown the door in the UK. Given that the UK ministry in charge of education provides a statistic of over 400,000 primary and secondary school teachers in the UK, a count of 17,000 teachers deserving termination represents about 4% of the teaching workforce.

So, in that respect, her diatribe does seem to address an argument that was not presented, but rather one that she is implying was made. That is pretty much the dictionary definition of strawman.

Frankly, you could probably find 4% in ANY profession who need to find another career. Indeed 4% would be lowballing the number in Congress... or any parliamentary house you'd care to mention.

Beyond that, Kat's assertions about what teachers face - especially with parents who refuse to work cooperatively in regards to issues with their kids - is bang on. Can't argue with her description of what teachers face one little bit. It's not a job I would want, or would excel at. I don't suffer idiots kindly.

I would love, honestly, for everyone who believes it is easy to be a teacher to spend one year doing it. Especially advisors, lawyers, and businessmen whose own little darlings go to private schools, and who do not have any experience or education about teaching, let alone in government-run or public schools.

I would love for them to experience what I do when I have students who are disruptive whose parents' attitude is, "Fuck you, they're your problem when they are there, not mine" and "I don't have time to check on whether he does his homework, why don't you?" and "he doesn't need school anyway, he's going to work for me," and "Well of course I had to keep her out of school, she had to take care of my younger children." Not to mention the ones who abuse their kids and leave it to us to get their kids help.

Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?

No more than all of you non-teachers do.
<3

How do you tell who the bad teachers are, though?

If you put reviewers in classes, it's amazing how closely even the worst teacher will stick to the letter of the proper teaching practice book.

If you look at results, then you don't know if it's a bad teacher or just a bad school with thick kids.

If you ask the children, well, they always think the teacher is crap, don't they?

How do you tell who the bad teachers are, though?

If you put reviewers in classes, it's amazing how closely even the worst teacher will stick to the letter of the proper teaching practice book.

If you look at results, then you don't know if it's a bad teacher or just a bad school with thick kids.

If you ask the children, well, they always think the teacher is crap, don't they?

No, above a certain age kids know who the good teachers are and who the bad ones are - and by extension so do the involved parents. Below that age, well if otherwise bright students consistently are arriving at the next class ill-prepared on the core knowledge that was supposed to have been taught - then there is clearly a problem with the previous teacher.

Other hints:
If a class full of students who were well-behaved last year (or term) are suddenly unruly this term - there is probably a problem.

If a teacher keeps sending a comparatively hight stream of students each and every year to the office for discipline, then they probably are unable to control the classroom.

If the teacher displays a poor attitude in the staff room to other teachers, odds are that this attitide is reflected in their teaching.

Teaching a class is not done in a vaccum, and able administrators will know who their weak employees are.

There's a difference between firing a teacher for being a poor teacher and firing a teacher for teaching something contrary to established social norms or in a new or unusual manner. The latter is what tenure is meant to protect, but unfortunately in protecting the latter, the former is protected as well.

Actually, no. It doesn't protect the former. All tenure does is make it so that the teacher cannot be fired without a reason.

No, above a certain age kids know who the good teachers are and who the bad ones are even in High School, the majority of students would support a bad but fun teacher over a good but unpopular one. How much weight should the student's opinion hold?
and by extension so do the involved parents. *snicker*

Below that age, well if otherwise bright students consistently are arriving at the next class ill-prepared on the core knowledge that was supposed to have been taught - then there is clearly a problem with the previous teacher. and determining which student is 'bright' could go undetected for many grade levels. also, a bright student can be great in math, but terrible in english. Ddoes that mean the english teacher is bad?

I have poor math skills and I will tell you it's not the Teacher's fault.

Other hints:
If a class full of students who were well-behaved last year (or term) are suddenly unruly this term - there is probably a problem. and that would indicate what. that the current teacher can't control the class or that the previous teacher used extreme measures to insure obediance?

If a teacher keeps sending a comparatively hight stream of students each and every year to the office for discipline, then they probably are unable to control the classroom. I don't recall any of my teachers sending anyone to the principal for discipline. guess all the teachers in my school are great then. ;)

If the teacher displays a poor attitude in the staff room to other teachers, odds are that this attitide is reflected in their teaching. so a teacher, for example, who is against teaching say... abstinance only, and is strongly against it while the rest of the faculty is for it is a bad teacher?

Teaching a class is not done in a vaccum, and able administrators will know who their weak employees are. and that may run contrary to many of your indicators.

In response to the streaming thing, it's absolutely the best way to go. Especially if coupled with selective teacher training, with those more likely to be patient and empathetic going to the less 'advanced' classes, with the focus on life skills rather than higher order learning, and those teachers who are fearsomely intelligent or who know what they're on about from their own knowledge rather than a textbook teaching the advanced classes.

Here in Melbourne there is streaming of a sort. Many public schools, particularly the mid to upper quality suburban ones have advanced mathematics classes, or often foundation maths, and students are organised accordingly. It works much better. At my particular school, we only gain entrance based on academic ability, and the whole student body is therefore (in theory) smarter than average, and our school pushes us harder than the state requires. This is the best thing I could possibly imagine for myself, and it seems like the whole school community feels the same.

On the other hand, a number of my close friends go to a school which is essentially designed for industry experience, in trades mostly, for those students who are not exceptionally skilled in the standard fields of academia. They are much happier there than at other schools.

I know its un-PC, and I do appreciate the emotional distress which may initially result if an individual is deemed on the lower end of the scale, however I feel this is one of the few instances where education officials have to decide for long-term benefit rather than short term emotional well-being.

--ka-snip!--

I've often considered being a teacher, and indeed I still am, however the daunting workload and the lack of recognition for that work is very off-putting. Seriously, you teachers do an amazing job. I honestly don't think I have your patience or dedication.

On the other hand, teaching also strikes me as one of those things to have a passion for, so maybe its not so bad if you have that passion. Its hard to tell.

Thing is, teachers always talk about how they don't make that much money.

They are paid on salary and work less than 180 days a year, not counting sick days and vacation and all the other benefits they get. They don't have to work holidays and they can just assign work out of the book if they are in a bad mood.

Teachers being underpaid should be in the thread about arguments you hate.

Thing is, teachers always talk about how they don't make that much money.

They are paid on salary and work less than 180 days a year, not counting sick days and vacation and all the other benefits they get. They don't have to work holidays and they can just assign work out of the book if they are in a bad mood.

Teachers being underpaid should be in the thread about arguments you hate.

You do realise how much work they actually do though, right? As in, working 10 hours a day during the term, more when there's a shitload to mark, plus all their extra stuff they have to do when on "holidays", such as teacher assessments, extra marking, and their own learning of the latest new fangled techniques the authorities decide to implement.

Oh, and that doesn't even cover all the emotional shit they cop from ungrateful pupils.

Besides, the point of education is not just to assign lessons from out of the book when they're having a crap day, its to actually TEACH. That's what they're not paid for, but that's their job. Or would you rather have under-educated children? Oh won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!?!

In response to the streaming thing, it's absolutely the best way to go. Especially if coupled with selective teacher training, with those more likely to be patient and empathetic going to the less 'advanced' classes, with the focus on life skills rather than higher order learning, and those teachers who are fearsomely intelligent or who know what they're on about from their own knowledge rather than a textbook teaching the advanced classes.

Here in Melbourne there is streaming of a sort. Many public schools, particularly the mid to upper quality suburban ones have advanced mathematics classes, or often foundation maths, and students are organised accordingly. It works much better. At my particular school, we only gain entrance based on academic ability, and the whole student body is therefore (in theory) smarter than average, and our school pushes us harder than the state requires. This is the best thing I could possibly imagine for myself, and it seems like the whole school community feels the same.

On the other hand, a number of my close friends go to a school which is essentially designed for industry experience, in trades mostly, for those students who are not exceptionally skilled in the standard fields of academia. They are much happier there than at other schools.

I know its un-PC, and I do appreciate the emotional distress which may initially result if an individual is deemed on the lower end of the scale, however I feel this is one of the few instances where education officials have to decide for long-term benefit rather than short term emotional well-being.

My Local Education Authority must be different to lots of others in the UK since we do stream here. The downside of selection as opposed to streaming is the difficulties of relative development. If you select at 11 say, anyone who's developing late and might be potentially very intelligent gets an inferior education because they got cut off at a particular age. And students from 'better' class backgrounds (wealthier etc) tend to have advantages in schools of this sort because of home life, support, even tutoring etc.

Streaming is beneficial in that it gives the student the level of teaching they are best suited for at that time. Selection isn't since it cuts things off at a particular age and hence leaves some students screwed.

Streaming is beneficial in that it gives the student the level of teaching they are best suited for at that time. Selection isn't since it cuts things off at a particular age and hence leaves some students screwed.

I can see what you mean, however I would suggest that by the age of, say 15, a large amount of development has occurred if it is going to, and with most selective/streaming schools and programs, there is no exclusivity... promotion and demotion, if you want to look at it that way, occur all the time, and rightly so.

However, your point about socio-economic factors has weight. It is a shame, but then, those with bad home lives etc. often do poorly in the "ordinary" system anyway, even if they are brilliant, so I'm not sure the selection/streaming process would really make that much difference in overall academic performance for such individuals.

The problem with streaming is that whatever age you start to stream your pupils at will be too soon. You cannot tell at twelve or thirteen or fifteen or eighteen or twenty-one what a person may achieve later in life, and to restrict them based upon test results at some young age is to deny the possibility - and deny them the opportunity - to better themselves.

Are you the exact same person you were at thirteen? Because I know I am not, and if my future had been mapped out at thirteen I would not be enjoying it very much at twenty-one.

As for teacher salaries, the problem is precisely that they are salaries. Paying teachers a flat rate allows you to ignore the hours teachers actually put into the job. If teachers actually worked the hours they're contracted for they would be paid just fine; but I have known teachers, and in my experience they work about twice the number of hours they get paid for. If it were decreed suddenly that teachers be paid by the hour, you'd see pay going a long way up.

It's not a strawman. Kat's obvious walked more than a few miles in those shoes and she's seen enough to have come to that conclusion. Now she's saying it's someone else's turn to walk a mile in her shoes.

yes it is. nobody made the assertion that teaching is easy and nobody said all teachers suck. she just took a comment that bad teachers should be easier to sack and ran with it for one of her little rants.

I can see what you mean, however I would suggest that by the age of, say 15, a large amount of development has occurred if it is going to, and with most selective/streaming schools and programs, there is no exclusivity... promotion and demotion, if you want to look at it that way, occur all the time, and rightly so.

However, your point about socio-economic factors has weight. It is a shame, but then, those with bad home lives etc. often do poorly in the "ordinary" system anyway, even if they are brilliant, so I'm not sure the selection/streaming process would really make that much difference in overall academic performance for such individuals.

As long as promotion/demotion is continuous I'd define it as streaming and support it. It's where there's selection that splits with a no-going back policy that I disagree with it.

I would love, honestly, for everyone who believes it is easy to be a teacher to spend one year doing it. Especially advisors, lawyers, and businessmen whose own little darlings go to private schools, and who do not have any experience or education about teaching, let alone in government-run or public schools.

I would love for them to experience what I do when I have students who are disruptive whose parents' attitude is, "Fuck you, they're your problem when they are there, not mine" and "I don't have time to check on whether he does his homework, why don't you?" and "he doesn't need school anyway, he's going to work for me," and "Well of course I had to keep her out of school, she had to take care of my younger children." Not to mention the ones who abuse their kids and leave it to us to get their kids help.

Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?

No more than all of you non-teachers do.


And this particular rant was formed from the outrageous idea that teachers should be accountable for their failures?

I appreciate the difficulty teachers face. I was fortunate enough to go to a school where most were bloody good, and the students were all of decent intelligence, however, from what the teachers said of pervious schools, the fault lies with an increasingly large group of impossible students as much as it does poor teachers.

As long as promotion/demotion is continuous I'd define it as streaming and support it. It's where there's selection that splits with a no-going back policy that I disagree with it.

That renders education little more than a nursery for the competitive, professional world. How on earth do you expect to stimulate genuinely original, intellectual thought and passion amongst students when they are obliged to be eternally afraid of being dropped a set?

As much as selective education might well disadvantage some, it is far better as a vehicle for social mobility than simply dumping every child into a grey concrete jungle of a comprehensive school at 11.

snip...the fault lies with an increasingly large group of impossible students as much as it does poor teachers.

Woud you advocate then making education NOT compulory or, at least, a more easily revocable right? Would you 'segregate' these so called 'imposible' students?

IMHO I think it'd be interesting if a classroom seats were determined in a similar fashion to team selection. There are twenty desks in two classrooms. The teachers get their choice of student (among a pool of say, eighty). These two classes are the advanced class. Next come two more teachers and classrooms and they get next pick, determining the standard class.. etc. etc. But the class size is REDUCED as the selection proceeds, so that the most troubled students end up in the smallest classes. They then are least able to interrupt other students learning as well as get more personalized attention.
In advanced grades instead of the students rotating between classes and subjects, the primary instructor brings in 'specialists' (other teachers by subject) The teachers are all paid incentive according to how much the students improve their scores on standardized tests from the end of the prior year to the end of the current year. Teachers who consistently fail are eliminated.... (Muhahaha!)

Svalbardania, I'm not saying that teaching isn't a tough job, I'm just saying that they make much more for approx. 180 days a year than a lot of other tough jobs do with a two week vacation per year.

I couldn't deal with teaching below say a community/junior college level where the students are adults and pay to be there.

It's a tough job, but I don't think they are nearly as underpaid as people claim. They make it sound like teachers earn minimum wage or something. I think the average teacher's salary in the US is around $50,000. I repeat, that's for approx. 180 days a year, which include plenty of special events and they certainly don't teach every period. I don't know where you get 10 hours from, but the teachers at my high school were there at about the same time as the students and left around the same time too. Plenty of them were screwing around during their free period's and then bitched about having to grade tests that night.

That renders education little more than a nursery for the competitive, professional world. How on earth do you expect to stimulate genuinely original, intellectual thought and passion amongst students when they are obliged to be eternally afraid of being dropped a set?
.

WTF? I don't give a shit-stick if the kids learn 'genuinely original, intellectual thought and pasion' - whatever the fuck that is supposed to consist of...

I care if kids graduate from gradeschool able to read and do simple arithmatic; graduate from middle school understanding the primary rules of grammar, basics of science and algebra; and high school a core understanding of history, government, more advanced math, complex grammar, and basic life skills (checkbook, personal finance, work ethic, etc.)

I don't give a flying fuck if they can't discuss the existential benefits of modern dance compared to neo-classical opera -wth or without original intellectual thought and passion! If that is something they want to pursue then they can do so in college or as their hobby ON THEIR OWN DIME. I only care that they graduate with the skills needed to become self-sufficient members of society - and frankly in the US the schools fail that goal in Hindenburg-proportion tragic fashion*; Oh the humanities!


*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/dropout_factories

WTF? I don't give a shit-stick if the kids learn 'genuinely original, intellectual thought and pasion' - whatever the fuck that is supposed to consist of...

I care if kids graduate from gradeschool able to read and do simple arithmatic; graduate from middle school understanding the primary rules of grammar, basics of science and algebra.; and high school a core understanding of history, government, more advanced math, complex grammar, and basic life skills (checkbook, personal finance, work ethic, etc.)

I don't give a flying fuck if they can't discuss the existential benefits of modern dance compared to neo-classical opera -wth or without original intellectual thought and passion! If that is something they want to pursue then they can do so in college or as their hobby ON THEIR OWN DIME. I only care that they graduate with the skills needed to become self-sufficient members of society - and frankly in the US the schols fail that goal in Hindenburg-proportion tragic fashion*; Oh the humanities!


*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/dropout_factories

And clearly the best remedy for a failing education system is simply to creata an overly competitive, prosaic system in which the self same anti-intellectual ideals that now define politics and business are espoused as creating good citizens?

I'd sooner see a genuinely academic education system, given that work ethic, personal accounting and the like are skills developed through decent parenting, not a prosaic education.

Woud you advocate then making education NOT compulory or, at least, a more easily revocable right? Would you 'segregate' these so called 'imposible' students?

IMHO I think it'd be interesting if a classroom seats were determined in a similar fashion to team selection. There are twenty desks in two classrooms. The teachers get their choice of student (among a pool of say, eighty). These two classes are the advanced class. Next come two more teachers and classrooms and they get next pick, determining the standard class.. etc. etc. But the class size is REDUCED as the selection proceeds, so that the most troubled students end up in the smallest classes. They then are least able to interrupt other students learning as well as get more personalized attention.
In advanced grades instead of the students rotating between classes and subjects, the primary instructor brings in 'specialists' (other teachers by subject) The teachers are all paid incentive according to how much the students improve their scores on standardized tests from the end of the prior year to the end of the current year. Teachers who consistently fail are eliminated.... (Muhahaha!)

I'd rather see resources focused upon exceptionally able students, not fuckwits, simpletons and juvenile delinquents.

I've never understood why selective education isn't implemented the world over really. It gives those born able but not sufficiently rich for private education a better chance to succeed than in a comprehensive school system.

I'd rather see resources focused upon exceptionally able students, not fuckwits, simpletons and juvenile delinquents.

I've never understood why selective education isn't implemented the world over really. It gives those born able but not sufficiently rich for private education a better chance to succeed than in a comprehensive school system.

I would agree in principal - but one has to acknowledge that the more gifted and talented students are not as challenging (difficult) to work with as the trouble cases - particularly if the troubled cases are removed from their environment.

As the parent of a gifted student I would see value in the trouble cases being removed. As a parent of a trouble case I would see value in the kid getting more individual care. As a TEACHER of a troubled student I would see value in being given the opportunity to work with them closer. As a teacher of the advanced students I would see value in not having to deal with troubled students.

Everyone wins.

I would agree in principal - but one has to acknowledge that the more gifted and talented students are not as challenging (difficult) to work with as the trouble cases - particularly if the troubled cases are removed from their environment.

As the parent of a gifted student I would see value in the trouble cases being removed. As a parent of a trouble case I would see value in the kid getting more individual care. As a TEACHER of a troubled student I would see value in being given the opportunity to work with them closer. As a teacher of the advanced students I would see value in not having to deal with troubled students.

Everyone wins.

Focus resources upon an able student and they can achieve truly exceptional, memorable things. Focus resources upon the stupid and they might, at best, attain mediocrity.

Frankly, I'd sooner see brilliance than more mediocrity.

And clearly the best remedy for a failing education system is simply to creata an overly competitive, prosaic system in which the self same anti-intellectual ideals that now define politics and business are espoused as creating good citizens?

I'd sooner see a genuinely academic education system, given that work ethic, personal accounting and the like are skills developed through decent parenting, not a prosaic education.

You overreaction is funny. 'Anti-intellectual' and 'overly competitive' are two of my favorites. particularly since there is virtually no competition within the current education system and 'intellectual' is certainly not going to do much for a graduate who can't read - nor for the drop out. Since when is teaching basic skills 'anti-intellectual'? Without them a person is DOOMED to anti-intellectual hell forever. Those things are simply for students who have mastered their primary education. So far that is not a common enough result. That shit is the dessert and so far about 30% - 50% of students never finish the main course.

That renders education little more than a nursery for the competitive, professional world. How on earth do you expect to stimulate genuinely original, intellectual thought and passion amongst students when they are obliged to be eternally afraid of being dropped a set?

As much as selective education might well disadvantage some, it is far better as a vehicle for social mobility than simply dumping every child into a grey concrete jungle of a comprehensive school at 11.

Because genuinely original intellectual thought and passion is what keeps them in the higher sets.

And selective is not good for social mobility, higher class students often being coached/prepared/etc into higher scores, and is inherently unfair on later developers.


Focus resources upon an able student and they can achieve truly exceptional, memorable things. Focus resources upon the stupid and they might, at best, attain mediocrity.

Frankly, I'd sooner see brilliance than more mediocrity.

Some will achieve said things. From a purely economic point of view, as a whole it's probably better to have a large number of decently skilled workers with a few very good ones than a couple of brilliant ones and lot of unskilled ones. And brilliance tends to win out on its own in any case.

Focus resources upon an able student and they can achieve truly exceptional, memorable things. Focus resources upon the stupid and they might, at best, attain mediocrity.

Frankly, I'd sooner see brilliance than more mediocrity.

ummm. no, you are incorrect. There is a threshold of diminishing returns. There is an efficient frontier. Gifted students in a selective environment absolutely do not require the same resources to achieve their highest potential as compared to troubled students. It is not a difficult concept to grasp once you get off your intellectual-elitist high-horse.

even in High School, the majority of students would support a bad but fun teacher over a good but unpopular one. How much weight should the student's opinion hold?


Being in a fun class tends to imply that the teacher is making learning the subject fun. This is a good thing. I don't remember having many teachers where I enjoyed the class and did nothing, but perhaps I was just lucky.



*snicker*


Well, perhaps you've never been an involved parent when it comes to education. This does not imply simply involved with your children, but involved with the school. Having gone in to volunteer with field trips, special events, and the library - you get to witness firsthand how the teachers interact with the kids.

So snicker all you want, however it simply shows your complete ignorance on what it takes to be deeply involved in your children's education.


and determining which student is 'bright' could go undetected for many grade levels. also, a bright student can be great in math, but terrible in english. Ddoes that mean the english teacher is bad?


No. However if children who previously excelled at math consistently exit from a given teacher's class unprepared for the next level, but then manage to catch up and resume their mastery of the subject in the next class - clearly there is an identifiable gap.


I have poor math skills and I will tell you it's not the Teacher's fault.


Agreed. For math, YOU would not be an indicator for this teacher's general competence - except that if you kept up it might be indicitiave of an exceptional teacher.

We are talking about examining trends, not nitpicking individuals. And a GOOD school administrator and teachers who receive the students AFTER a given teacher will be all to aware of the trend.


and that would indicate what. that the current teacher can't control the class or that the previous teacher used extreme measures to insure obediance?


Use of extreme measures, again, would become common knowledge. I think you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Every student in every school knows which teachers are the hard cases. And most parents do too. It is hardly a secret in most instances.

I don't recall any of my teachers sending anyone to the principal for discipline. guess all the teachers in my school are great then. ;)


Or maybe you had a crappy administrator who passed out the word to deal with things in-class because they couldn't be bothered. A situation where no student across the entire school ever got sent to the office sounds suspect. Incompetence, after all, is not restricted to single positions


so a teacher, for example, who is against teaching say... abstinance only, and is strongly against it while the rest of the faculty is for it is a bad teacher?


WTF? Now you are arguing curriculum over teaching quality. Different subject entirely

and that may run contrary to many of your indicators.

Not at all. You are making the mistake of trying to pick out individual exceptions to point out possible discrepencies. Of course those happen. And there are some students who will excell even with the worst teacher because they take it upon themselves to learn the material despite the idiot in front of the class.

But when it comes to teaching, it is overall class performance matched up against other teachers with the same students in the same subject area which demonstrates ability.

Maybe that concept escapes you, however it doesn't for those who have to deal with them. Be those people students, parents, other teachers, and administrators.

I've had some great teachers in my life that I admire, but most of them have been... not so great. I've been bullied worse by teachers than I have by fellow students. Teachers can get away with anything so they do whatever they want. I dislike the absolute power and the arrogance that comes with it.

Are there terrible teachers? Absolutely. Do some need to be removed from the school system? Absolutely. Does it mean all of us suck?

No more than all of you non-teachers do.Yups, there's two-three problems there, like:
A disproportional number of nutters becoming teachers, because the profession takes a disproportional amount of shit in our societies, and thus is unattractive to a disproportional number of suitable individuals.
A lack of teachers, because the profession takes a disproportional amount of shit in our societies.
A lack of good teachers to replace the bad ones, because...

But fuck it. Smunk can teach my kids, if we ever adopt any :p

Yups, there's two-three problems there, like:
A disproportional number of nutters becoming teachers, because the profession takes a disproportional amount of shit in our societies, and thus is unattractive to a disproportional number of suitable individuals.
A lack of teachers, because the profession takes a disproportional amount of shit in our societies.
A lack of good teachers to replace the bad ones, because...

But fuck it. Smunk can teach my kids, if we ever adopt any :p

Haha, jokes aside you're probably right in many ways. Teaching SHOULD be a higher-order profession.

And I don't want Smunk teaching my kids... she'll probably make them better than me at everything, and I'm not sure I have a strong enough ego for that :P

Haha, jokes aside you're probably right in many ways. Teaching SHOULD be a higher-order profession.Yes it should, and all levels of education should be tax funded and provided for free for all citizens. Businesses typically invest 10-30% of their revenue in R&D. Especially for entities as monstrously huge as our societies, not to prioritize education at least as highly, strikes me as counterproductive, and I suspect it could even be argued to be suicidal.And I don't want Smunk teaching my kids... she'll probably make them better than me at everything, and I'm not sure I have a strong enough ego for that :PIt was a joke, but I want people with similar attitudes and resources to educate my hypothetical kids. If I put them with 22 other little bastards in a classroom with an underpaid, overworked and possibly under qualified teacher, I wouldn't consider myself a fit guardian.