...
Having said all of that, I have met some incredibly dumb teachers historically. How they got their jobs was a mystery to me, then and now.

Probably like 80% of Uni students, they crammed just enough the night before to get through the test (or through the job interview, using the degree they got by cramming the night before its test).

Re the "Teaching the test" complaint I agree with JoeJester. If the test is not faulty it actually tests the abilities, and if the student passes the test it shows that at least on the day of the test they had >x ability which is probably a lot more ability than many *graduating* high school students in our existing system.

If the tests are national standard and properly designed then there should be no problem. If someone complains about "teaching the tests" then what they are really saying is that the tests are faulty, not the system.

As for students of different ability they can be graded and sorted accordingly. The world needs stupid people too, and they may as well know early in life that they are going to have a career in serving fries (and improve their grades or deal with their future early) instead of finding out later. Remember Orwell's "Brave new world"? Sort them out early, and train them appropriately for their future.

 

Actually, in Brave New World, they were created in the womb, dumbed down with alcohol. I liked that book almost as much as 1984, and both still give me nightmares. But I liked them both, and consider both a public service.

Met a Mom who had never read 1984, I'm considering buying her a copy.

 

Off topic, but I was forced to read Animal Farm at school, and it's one of the worst books I've ever read so I have never picked up any of his other books.

 

Maybe it was the fact that you were forced to read it and at a young age.

I 've found myself reading books again later and find a whole new meaning.

 

As for students of different ability they can be graded and sorted accordingly. The world needs stupid people too, and they may as well know early in life that they are going to have a career in serving fries (and improve their grades or deal with their future early) instead of finding out later. Remember Orwell's "Brave new world"? Sort them out early, and train them appropriately for their future.

The problem is they have proven a direct connnection of the "Stupid people" having poor bad home lives, vs "Smart people: who come from rich families and large support systems.So untl we make schooling = for everyone we'll never even come close to breaking that cycle. Especially as it grows and kid1 had to work flipping burgers, and kid 2 gets a new mustang and parties all day, then kid 1 graduates with $50k in debt and kid 2 gets his education paid for and $100k to start his new practice. Lifes very unfair comparably in american history almost to its lowest point since slavery.

 

The requirements to get into teaching college are much less than those for most other colleges. The teaching course of study does not require much work, and is not very hard (highest graduation rate vs engineers with the lowest graduation rate). Teaching hours are 6 hours per day for ten months per year with extended holidays and days off. No forced overtime by unreal schedules. There is no competition with offshore labor for teachers; just keep their mouth shut, show up, and go through the motions.

Now tell me why their salary should be comparable to professionals in industry.

 

The requirements to get into teaching college are much less than those for most other colleges. The teaching course of study does not require much work, and is not very hard (highest graduation rate vs engineers with the lowest graduation rate). Teaching hours are 6 hours per day for ten months per year with extended holidays and days off. No forced overtime by unreal schedules. There is no competition with offshore labor for teachers; just keep their mouth shut, show up, and go through the motions.

Now tell me why their salary should be comparable to professionals in industry.

<snip>

Your ignorance is truly consternating...

 

The problem is they have proven a direct connnection of the "Stupid people" having poor bad home lives, vs "Smart people: who come from rich families and large support systems.So untl we make schooling = for everyone we'll never even come close to breaking that cycle. Especially as it grows and kid1 had to work flipping burgers, and kid 2 gets a new mustang and parties all day, then kid 1 graduates with $50k in debt and kid 2 gets his education paid for and $100k to start his new practice. Lifes very unfair comparably in american history almost to its lowest point since slavery.

IMO This would be more accurate if you used the words "educated" and "uneducated" instead of "smart" and "stupid". But if you insist on "smart" and "stupid" to describe people coming from rich/poor backgrounds, then you must consider which is the cause and which is the effect, and take into account genetics. Is it more likely that growing up without money and/or in a bad part of town and/or in violent family actually decreases a person's innate intelligence, or is it more likely that being born to "stupid", violent, poor people on the wrong side of town increases one's likelihood to be unintelligent and likely to perpetuate the cycle of unintelligent offspring, high crime, and failure to educate oneself?

I was born to poor folk. I was raised on the wrong side of town. I don't think it's crippled me mentally. There are plenty of "self made men", with "rags to riches" stories who would probably laugh at your assertions.

I agree, there are studies that correlate poor environment and low intelligence, but as I pointed out, they don't address, or at least fail to show in a scientific way, any cause or effect. The assertion is almost always made in the summary that poverty is the cause, but I don't buy it.

EDIT: there's also plenty of stupid people who come from rich backgrounds. Paris Hilton comes to mind...

 

Public school teachers deal w/ more neurosis in a week then a psychologist does in a month...

100's of little hormonal time bombs surrounding you all day, perhaps today is the day they bring in dad's pump shotgun to show you how they feel about a pop quiz..


Yea, 40k wouldn't get me near the place,it must be passion ...

 

There is ignorance, which is curable, then there is stupid, which terminal. Some folks are just going to be dumb until the day they die. The trick is telling the difference.

I have the highest reguard for teachers as a class, I could not do their job. Knowing the subjects beyond the level of the kids is usually easy, having the patience to teach it to someone who is going to have a bad day now and then is not. Doing this X30 per day is worse. There has to be skills there that can not be taught unless the seeds are there, and are basically self selecting.

The job has got to be one of the least pleasant out there, unless there is something in you that likes it to begin with. I don't have it, what ever it is.

Basically what luvv said.

 

IMO This would be more accurate if you used the words "educated" and "uneducated" instead of "smart" and "stupid". But if you insist on "smart" and "stupid" to describe people coming from rich/poor backgrounds, then you must consider which is the cause and which is the effect, and take into account genetics. Is it more likely that growing up without money and/or in a bad part of town and/or in violent family actually decreases a person's innate intelligence, or is it more likely that being born to "stupid", violent, poor people on the wrong side of town increases one's likelihood to be unintelligent and likely to perpetuate the cycle of unintelligent offspring, high crime, and failure to educate oneself?

I was born to poor folk. I was raised on the wrong side of town. I don't think it's crippled me mentally. There are plenty of "self made men", with "rags to riches" stories who would probably laugh at your assertions.

I agree, there are studies that correlate poor environment and low intelligence, but as I pointed out, they don't address, or at least fail to show in a scientific way, any cause or effect. The assertion is almost always made in the summary that poverty is the cause, but I don't buy it.

EDIT: there's also plenty of stupid people who come from rich backgrounds. Paris Hilton comes to mind...

The study took into account adopted kids natural kids, etc.. It boiled down to richer kids just plain getting more support and less stress then the poorer kids. Genetics have nothing to do with it, have you looked at the people running the world lately?

Paris Hilton is far from stupid, its know she fakes it for her tv persona. Shes actually incredibly smart. Name another girl that can do the stupid stuff she does and can actually get people to pay her to do it. Plus her only real accomplishment is being a Hilton. So to turn that into the fortune she has I'd say she's far from stupid.

 

In my humble opinion (and supported by experience) you can be "smart" and uneducated and keep going to school forever and remain "stupid". So, do we take life experience as an education, or do we define "educated" by strictly the diplomas that hang on the person's wall?

 

Genetics have nothing to do with it

Genetics have nothing to do with intelligence? I don't think we can continue this discussion after a statement like that.

In my humble opinion (and supported by experience) you can be "smart" and uneducated and keep going to school forever and remain "stupid". So, do we take life experience as an education, or do we define "educated" by strictly the diplomas that hang on the person's wall?

educated, to me, = diplomas on the wall.

Smart, to me, = being able to learn from experiences (the first time), or from other's experiences, and more importantly, being able to predict what will happen in any given scenario with little previous related experience.

A person who is both smart and educated, is a force to be reckoned with.

 

Genetics have nothing to do with intelligence? I don't think we can continue this discussion after a statement like that.


educated, to me, = diplomas on the wall.

Smart, to me, = being able to learn from experiences (the first time), or from other's experiences, and more importantly, being able to predict what will happen in any given scenario with little previous related experience.

A person who is both smart and educated, is a force to be reckoned with.

So would you agree that there are stupid educated people out there ???

p.s. there is nothing worse than an ignorant post doc...

 

So would you agree that there are stupid educated people out there ???

definitely!

 

What do you get with lots of life experience, and a touch of education......

Loosewire

 

Genetics have nothing to do with intelligence? I don't think we can continue this discussion after a statement like that.

Your taking me out of context.Of coarse genetics have a small role but upbringing and the lifestyle you had growing up, and your parents social status were much more important in determining who got successful jobs and who didn't. Genetics didn't really even play into it.

 

... genetics have a small role but upbringing and the lifestyle you had growing up, and your parents social status were much more important in determining who got successful jobs and who didn't. Genetics didn't really even play into it.

The nature versus nurture debate has been raging for at least 150 years. The pendulum seems to swing back and forth with experts claiming that one extreme is more significant than the other. It seems to me that, like all pendulums, time will eventually provide a settling to an equilibrium between the two extremes.

Surely, both are critically important to creating an intelligent and productive member of a human society. Good parents are involved with both aspects; but, in our modern world, good teachers are a critical part of the dissemination of the nurturing portion of the mix. Such an important role should not be left to just anyone, but only to the most dedicated and caring people available.

The role of a teacher has less to do with knowledge and testing and more to do with guidance and molding a mind into an independent free-thinking being who appreciates the importance and joy of learning, with knowledge on how to engage in the process of learning. In the end, no one can truly teach another. The best we can do is inspire others to want to teach themselves, and give them the tools to do it.

To use a metaphor, planting a seed that grows into an apple tree is better than offering an apple. I don't know if any test or standardized metric can ever truly measure this aspect of teaching. How do you measure the weight of future crops directly from seeds you are planting today? It seems impossible to me.

 

How do you measure the weight of future crops directly from seeds you are planting today? It seems impossible to me.

There are yield estimates. There is soil analysis on which chemical needs to be applied where ... and Agricultural is a very big GPS user ... from maping the soil to spraying the crops for the highest yield possible. And when disaster strikes, there is "insurance".

There is no "insurance" in education.

I've not seen any metrics provided by the teachers, those on the front lines of this battle. I've seen the teacher union oppose alot of metrics.

What is the objective here? Till the country can settle on the objective, they will roam aimlessly about. If we are looking to develope productive citizenship, we will have to say what that looks like?

How many Pell Grants are given out annually to those who are attending remedial classes? I mean those who just graduated High School and started College in the fall, not those who went to work and then decided to hit the books.

 

What is the objective here? Till the country can settle on the objective, they will roam aimlessly about. If we are looking to develope productive citizenship, we will have to say what that looks like?

Above I gave my opinion about what the objective should look like. Developing citizens that become free thinkers and value education throughout their life is an important end goal and is more important than any metric applied immediately. Such people will automatically find their path and excel and also will become productive members of society that educate themselves continually throughout their lives.

One of my better teachers in high school had a simple goal. He wanted to make sure that his students did not become people that he described as "dead from the neck up". It is possible to drill students and test them and apply metrics in a way that makes the students and the teachers and the schools all look great. But, if the students grow to later become dead from the neck up, because it was all a requirement and not a joy, then the system has failed.

I think this teacher is likely to have succeeded better than most others in achieving his goal ( it certainly stuck with me). Personally, I would rather have teachers that have their own objectives such as this one, rather than those worried about factory-like metrics that require looking at numbers on a data sheet. Any good teacher knows when they are and when they are not reaching a student. They don't need a metric to tell them that. If metrics are needed to weed the bad teachers out from the group, fine, but I doubt they will be applied in that way. And, the good teachers shouldn't need the metrics.