Teacher's view on public education system's problems

[Samson]

"Let's just tack another hour on to the day. But let's make homework mandatory as well.
Teachers who do not assign homework are lazy teachers."

I see your point. However, let's assume a person is teaching in a socio economically deprived area and kids don't complete the in class work. They assuredly aren't going to do a lick of homework and frankly don't care if they learn or not. A teacher is going to assign homework and watch them never do it. WHat is the counter to that? And there are a lot of these scenarios. The teacher can't go home with them at night and make sure they are doing their homework.

Teachers who assign homework, knowing that it won't be done, are idiots.

I had the pleasure of spending an entire summer teaching and administering a Title I summer school. Two Four Hour classes a day.

Assign ONE thing at a time. Every day, be would begin: "Please write your name on your paper," then I walk around the room, check their names are written, give them 100%. Then we bein working Problem #1: Can you Copy what I do. Yes? you keep your 100%; No, you lose 10%. Check All papers....and so on and so forth finally I put up something they do one their own, grade, then move on.

Again not rocket science, but there's always some whiny academic that claims the method has its faults. The main problem is that it is hard for teachers. Most teachers have the fantacy that kids will naturally be interested in everything they say, they blather away for 15 minutes, assign 10 problems, then sit on their ass for the balance of the hour. These teachers are astonished when only a few students turn anything in the next day, and quickly assign "zeros," confident that giving the students that didn't give a shit to begin with will now be inspired.

 

[Jackson]

"Let's just tack another hour on to the day. But let's make homework mandatory as well.
Teachers who do not assign homework are lazy teachers."

I see your point. However, let's assume a person is teaching in a socio economically deprived area and kids don't complete the in class work. They assuredly aren't going to do a lick of homework and frankly don't care if they learn or not. A teacher is going to assign homework and watch them never do it. WHat is the counter to that? And there are a lot of these scenarios. The teacher can't go home with them at night and make sure they are doing their homework.

Teachers who assign homework, knowing that it won't be done, are idiots.

I had the pleasure of spending an entire summer teaching and administering a Title I summer school. Two Four Hour classes a day.

Assign ONE thing at a time. Every day, be would begin: "Please write your name on your paper," then I walk around the room, check their names are written, give them 100%. Then we bein working Problem #1: Can you Copy what I do. Yes? you keep your 100%; No, you lose 10%. Check All papers....and so on and so forth finally I put up something they do one their own, grade, then move on.

Again not rocket science, but there's always some whiny academic that claims the method has its faults. The main problem is that it is hard for teachers. Most teachers have the fantacy that kids will naturally be interested in everything they say, they blather away for 15 minutes, assign 10 problems, then sit on their ass for the balance of the hour. These teachers are astonished when only a few students turn anything in the next day, and quickly assign "zeros," confident that giving the students that didn't give a shit to begin with will now be inspired.

I had to smile when you wrote that the teacher sat on her ass the remaining time of the hour. Boy, isn't that the worst? That isn't what a teacher is. The teacher is walking around, seeing that they are working and they understand the assignments. Anyone can sit on the dufus after a lecture. The real teacher monitors and teaches while they are working. Catching errors as they happen is the fastest way to create understanding of material.

 

[Jackson]

Why are teachers thinking testing is so controversial? Tests make teachers become better teachers. You can evaluate yourself. You teach a lesson, review it, and give a quiz. If many of the students as a whole don't perform well on the quiz...it's time to reteach. Redo your plans and go over that material in depth perhaps in a different way. But you didn't get through to the kids and that means you didn't do your job well enough.

Those who find that quarterly or finals are the only tests that should be done, you're wrong. It's too late to remediate. Keep on top of the students' progress or lack of.

One thing I always did at the end of the year is sent out an evaluation on my program and my teaching to parents. Since I taught students who were supposed to fail the kdg, but instead went on the a modified first grade (with me and my adjusted curriculum but the same criteria to progress to the second grade), I retained usually 1/3 of the students and passed 2/3 with accelerated scores.

But it was important for me to know how they felt about my teaching, homework, motivational skills, ease of conferencing and whether they thought I was fair. I knew I was hard on passing students for they had to have proven standardized scores and reading levels within one month of actual grade level to be considered a success in my classroom. Some had scores approaching 3rd grade level in sub sections of reading literacy. Spelling was completely different from the regular classroom teachers. I taught high level multisyllabic words for decoding purposes.

Although students were retained, parents felt that their children learned more in my class that repeating kdg. and wanted to see the program continue.

This was a Title I school, but parents had a positive first experience with school and the students never failed to meet the requirements of first grade when leaving my room. That is the way it should be in every classroom. If they don't meet the mandated mark, the are held back and get the chance to build a strong foundation. No social promotions. When parents realize their child can fail, it's interesting how they can show up for conferences, too.

Giving kids a chance...means not putting them in 6th grade,, reading at the 2nd grade level.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years.

So, not all teachers are alike.

Just sayin'....

 

[Esmeralda]

Not all teaching situations are the same.

 

[regent]

How would you fix the problem? What would you do? What do you suggest should be done? Or are you just venting? Certainly, your frustration is understandable.

I think we have created this problem by being more than a place of learning. We tried to be too much. We were the social engineers, the place for "feeling good", the place that picked up the pieces when the parents neglected their job. When we started to be more than what we were originally intended, we lost our way and became baby sitters, pseudo psychologists and forgot that there were lessons that we expected our students to learn. Instead, we just hoped they would learn them. And God forbid if we label a child "slow", or failed and student and made him or his parents feel bad......

We have to go back to the expectations that the students will learn the lessons or they will fail the grade! If parents get used to the idea there is a grading system in place and their child must score appropriately within that system to pass, they just may sow up for conferences! If we start in elementary, keep it strong in middle school and we might find the attitude difference in high school.

But, that means no more Healthy Bear in elementary, no more time for puppet shows and dance shows from the Fine Arts Division, no more days of Healthy Touch and Unhealthy Touch. Or Fireman Freddie Or Officer Jones on "How to cross the street" Parents have to do their jobs or the day will be lengthened to accommodate these times. And the unending candy sales and programs!

Let's just tack another hour on to the day. But let's make homework mandatory as well.
Teachers who do not assign homework are lazy teachers.

Make homework mandatory to prevent lazy teachers may be indicative of what's wrong with education.

 

[Samson]

Not all teaching situations are the same.

 

[Samson]

Make homework mandatory to prevent lazy teachers may be indicative of what's wrong with education.

Perhaps the first assignment should be to write a sentence in English.

 

[initforme]

"I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years."


Well you were surely overpaid and under worked. Not to mention you worked for the state gov't which means you were a "taker.".

Imagine there is a group of people who actually believe the above statement. Scary.

 

[BobPlumb]

"I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years."


Well you were surely overpaid and under worked. Not to mention you worked for the state gov't which means you were a "taker.".

Imagine there is a group of people who actually believe the above statement. Scary.

I had a teacher that had probably 400 or more students at one time, but that was chemistry in college. Class was held in an auditorium with a seating capacity of a couple hundred students.

 

[Jackson]

I have heard many people who have taught in the past and left say that teaching is the hardest job they have ever had. If you are doing it right, it is. But it is the most rewarding!

All of us were capable of choosing another profession with higher salaries resulting in the finer things in life. But other jobs are not a "calling" like I feel teaching is.

Bless those teachers that make a difference. And many of them are in this thread, I think!

 

[Esmeralda]

"I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years."


Well you were surely overpaid and under worked. Not to mention you worked for the state gov't which means you were a "taker.".

Imagine there is a group of people who actually believe the above statement. Scary.

I had a teacher that had probably 400 or more students at one time, but that was chemistry in college. Class was held in an auditorium with a seating capacity of a couple hundred students.

I've had that experience, at a large state university. Not the best way to learn and impossible for the teacher to get to know his/her students and give much one-to-one attention.

 

[Esmeralda]

How would you fix the problem? What would you do? What do you suggest should be done? Or are you just venting? Certainly, your frustration is understandable.

I think we have created this problem by being more than a place of learning. We tried to be too much. We were the social engineers, the place for "feeling good", the place that picked up the pieces when the parents neglected their job. When we started to be more than what we were originally intended, we lost our way and became baby sitters, pseudo psychologists and forgot that there were lessons that we expected our students to learn. Instead, we just hoped they would learn them. And God forbid if we label a child "slow", or failed and student and made him or his parents feel bad......

We have to go back to the expectations that the students will learn the lessons or they will fail the grade! If parents get used to the idea there is a grading system in place and their child must score appropriately within that system to pass, they just may sow up for conferences! If we start in elementary, keep it strong in middle school and we might find the attitude difference in high school.

But, that means no more Healthy Bear in elementary, no more time for puppet shows and dance shows from the Fine Arts Division, no more days of Healthy Touch and Unhealthy Touch. Or Fireman Freddie Or Officer Jones on "How to cross the street" Parents have to do their jobs or the day will be lengthened to accommodate these times. And the unending candy sales and programs!

Let's just tack another hour on to the day. But let's make homework mandatory as well.
Teachers who do not assign homework are lazy teachers.

Make homework mandatory to prevent lazy teachers may be indicative of what's wrong with education.

I don't think it is a good idea to assign homework just to assign homework, and that's what happens when you make it mandatory. The real issue is what happens in the classroom, what happens between the students and teacher, and whether or not the teacher uses effective teaching methods. Assigning homework just because is simply adding busy work to the course. Not useful at all.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years."


Well you were surely overpaid and under worked. Not to mention you worked for the state gov't which means you were a "taker.".

Imagine there is a group of people who actually believe the above statement. Scary.

So, learn to use the quote function like an adult. The quote you made is of me.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years."


Well you were surely overpaid and under worked. Not to mention you worked for the state gov't which means you were a "taker.".

Imagine there is a group of people who actually believe the above statement. Scary.

I had a teacher that had probably 400 or more students at one time, but that was chemistry in college. Class was held in an auditorium with a seating capacity of a couple hundred students.

I was a High School and Middle School Music Educator, which means I taught:

Middle School Band
7th grade Chorus
8th grade Chorus
Middle School General music
High School Marching Band
High School Concert Band
High School Pep Band
High School 9th grade Chorus
High School Concert Choir
The school musical.

I also substituted for the HS Orchestra whenever the Orchestra director was sick.

I never had a study hall, because my day went through from start to finish, without end. I remember days when I hit the bathroom at 6 am, again at 6 pm.

That meant putting together 6-7 marching band shows a year, plus festivals, plus competitions. Then, in concert season, the obligatory 3 concerts per year, plus sight-reading placement tests for band seating, plus local and then, if we got a I, state concert band competition.

it also meant prepping kids who auditioned for either the McDonalds national band or the NBA all honors National Band, or the All-State (Ohio) band. I usually had one or two kids who made it that far.

That also meant the obligatory 3 concerts per year per choral group, plus the prep for the school musical, everything from building the set, to doing the staging rehearsals to rehearsing the orchestra to coaching the singers to selling tickets. This also meant teaching sight-singing to most kids, who, unless they are crossovers from other instruments, have no idea what a note looks like.

This also meant organizing, hosting and preparing small ensemble for the yearly solo-and-ensemble competition. It also meant the ability to accompany my own choral ensembles and write my own marching band arrangements.

The also meant the ability to carry clarinet reeds with me at all times, never knowing when a clarinet reed would go kaputt, to having portable heaters in marching season to bring the Sousaphones halfway up to temperature before going out onto the field, to dealing with catfighting majorettes and jealous non-majorettes, to assembling the band at the last instant once because the Superindendent decided that we would play the final Bush rally in Ohio on election day, 1992. I got the call at 1 am and by 6 am, my marching band was assembled and ready to go.

This still meant writing the usual evaluations that all teachers have to write, attending in-services that didn't do me a damned bit of good, etc.

it also meant giving private lessons to kids on certain instruments, for instance, converting a High School tenor in Choir to play Horn 3 in the concert band.

This also meant attending band and choir booster meetings, fundraising to get enough money to buy the next needed oboe or english horn and also participation of the ensembles in civic activities like church ice-cream bazaars, or funerals for known community members who passed on.

It often meant teaching the full day, then having marching band rehearsal until 4, show choir until 5:30, a private lesson until 6:30, then the pep band for the basketball game until 9:30 - and then, I graded papers from that morning's general music class full of seventh graders who were still learning how to rhyme together 3 words into a coherent sentence.

I usually kept three extra pairs of clothes in my office: marching band suit, marching band practice shorts and shirt, extra suit for evening meetings, etc.

The one blessing was that the HS faculty was strongly behind me, for I also released kids in the few off days of the year to prep for their SAT tests, etc.

I had no assistant. 400 kids.

After 7 years, it was just too much.

 

[BobPlumb]

"I was a teacher for 7 years, and don't remember ever getting to sit on my ass, ever. I do remember having upwards of 400 students and a workload that no human being could keep up with. And I remember being completely exhausted after 7 years."


Well you were surely overpaid and under worked. Not to mention you worked for the state gov't which means you were a "taker.".

Imagine there is a group of people who actually believe the above statement. Scary.

I had a teacher that had probably 400 or more students at one time, but that was chemistry in college. Class was held in an auditorium with a seating capacity of a couple hundred students.

I was a High School and Middle School Music Educator, which means I taught:

Middle School Band
7th grade Chorus
8th grade Chorus
Middle School General music
High School Marching Band
High School Concert Band
High School Pep Band
High School 9th grade Chorus
High School Concert Choir
The school musical.

I also substituted for the HS Orchestra whenever the Orchestra director was sick.

I never had a study hall, because my day went through from start to finish, without end. I remember days when I hit the bathroom at 6 am, again at 6 pm.

That meant putting together 6-7 marching band shows a year, plus festivals, plus competitions. Then, in concert season, the obligatory 3 concerts per year, plus sight-reading placement tests for band seating, plus local and then, if we got a I, state concert band competition.

it also meant prepping kids who auditioned for either the McDonalds national band or the NBA all honors National Band, or the All-State (Ohio) band. I usually had one or two kids who made it that far.

That also meant the obligatory 3 concerts per year per choral group, plus the prep for the school musical, everything from building the set, to doing the staging rehearsals to rehearsing the orchestra to coaching the singers to selling tickets. This also meant teaching sight-singing to most kids, who, unless they are crossovers from other instruments, have no idea what a note looks like.

This also meant organizing, hosting and preparing small ensemble for the yearly solo-and-ensemble competition. It also meant the ability to accompany my own choral ensembles and write my own marching band arrangements.

The also meant the ability to carry clarinet reeds with me at all times, never knowing when a clarinet reed would go kaputt, to having portable heaters in marching season to bring the Sousaphones halfway up to temperature before going out onto the field, to dealing with catfighting majorettes and jealous non-majorettes, to assembling the band at the last instant once because the Superindendent decided that we would play the final Bush rally in Ohio on election day, 1992. I got the call at 1 am and by 6 am, my marching band was assembled and ready to go.

This still meant writing the usual evaluations that all teachers have to write, attending in-services that didn't do me a damned bit of good, etc.

it also meant giving private lessons to kids on certain instruments, for instance, converting a High School tenor in Choir to play Horn 3 in the concert band.

This also meant attending band and choir booster meetings, fundraising to get enough money to buy the next needed oboe or english horn and also participation of the ensembles in civic activities like church ice-cream bazaars, or funerals for known community members who passed on.

It often meant teaching the full day, then having marching band rehearsal until 4, show choir until 5:30, a private lesson until 6:30, then the pep band for the basketball game until 9:30 - and then, I graded papers from that morning's general music class full of seventh graders who were still learning how to rhyme together 3 words into a coherent sentence.

I usually kept three extra pairs of clothes in my office: marching band suit, marching band practice shorts and shirt, extra suit for evening meetings, etc.

The one blessing was that the HS faculty was strongly behind me, for I also released kids in the few off days of the year to prep for their SAT tests, etc.

I had no assistant. 400 kids.

After 7 years, it was just too much.

That certainly explains the large number of students and the work load.

 

[Samson]

After 7 years, it was just too much.

Seven Years seems like a pretty good stint.

What was it that finally broke you?

Sousaphones halfway warmed up?

Carrying clarinet reeds?

Catfighting majorettes?




Seventh graders.

 

[Andylusion]

How would you fix the problem? What would you do? What do you suggest should be done? Or are you just venting? Certainly, your frustration is understandable.

Well I don't think that there's a quick fix, it's going to take generation(s) to fix. But in an ideal world the following changes I think could be done realistically either immediately or within the end of the decade:

-End tenure of teachers. Not every teacher on tenure sucks. In fact most teachers at my schools are very good at what they do. There are a handful of ones who shouldn't be teachers though

-Pay teachers based on performance. Where I live we kind of have this. If we meet certain criteria (student test grades improvements, in-class evaluations of us, etc.) we get bonuses at the end of the semester.

-Don't just pass students through just because they completed their work. Many kids do a half-butted job on their work and hand it in and get A's. They then expect that to happen in EVERY class they take, and in the "real world" after school. The easy A's are given for 2 main reasons: A)school/county encourages it, OR B)the teacher is too lazy to grade the work for content, and just grades on completion (this is more rare, but I have heard a few teachers actually say this).

-Give teachers more control of their classrooms. Recently it's becoming more and more rigid on what teachers can and cannot teach in their classrooms and HOW they do so. Basically we're given books that tell us all of the lessons that we have to teach. The exact lessons/work. The problem with this obviously is that a class may not be on that level yet, or be above that level and the work isn't right for that classroom. The book cannot make that decision based on the class, but the teacher can.

-The parent situation obviously can't be addressed by the school system/teachers. I can't make parents care about their student's educational success/future. This has to be done through society as a whole.

-Give teachers more control of their classrooms.

Agreed, or in other words, get the Federal Government completely out of education. Leave it to the states, and push states for more academic freedom to teach as teachers see best to teach. Leave it to the parents to enforce quality education.

The Federal government has no business being in education at all.

-End tenure of teachers.

I don't know of any other aspect of society which has "tenure", and I disagree with the idea at the most fundamental level.

-The parent situation obviously can't be addressed by the school system/teachers.

Yes it can, but it requires a fundamental change in our view of education. When you tell people they have a 'right' to education, and that it is the 'responsibility of the government', then yeah, people are going to think they don't have to do anything, and it's your job to fix their kids.

The solution is to kick those kids out of school. When you FORCE parents to deal with their kids, suddenly they'll take the time and effort to make their kids do well in school.

-Pay teachers based on performance.
-Don't just pass students through just because they completed their work.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. I would love to do that.... but here's the issue.

Think back to those kids that you had as a teacher. And you went to the parents, and they don't care, and then you went to the student, and they don't care....

What do you do? How can you force a student to learn, if he doesn't want to?

Well you can't. As I told you, my mother was a public school teacher. She had several students like this. They didn't care. Their parents didn't care. And there was nothing she could do about it.

One student caused so much of a problem, he was in the principals office two days every week.

Now of course, if you are missing 2/5ths of the class time, you tend to fail all of your tests.

If you penalize teachers on performance, when they have students that they simply can't teach... what do you do? Is it fair to cut the pay of teachers, for having students who refuse to learn?

This is why you end up with teachers passing kids who have not learned anything. Teachers are not going to accept this.

Remember Atlanta school system cheating deal? Go read up on that. The teachers said over and over, the reason they did it was because if the students failed, they would be penalized or even terminated.

So... they cheated. They had the same problem over in the UK some years back, where government handed down some 'performance based system', and the result was teachers padded the numbers.

And by the way, this applies to everything. The whole VA scandal, is all about government setting a standard "you must provide care in this time frame", and since the VA hospital administrators have no control over that, they simply told their people "meet the requirements", and since the people at the hospital had no control over that, they simply.... cut the list.

Same thing happened in the NHS in the UK. The UK government said you must provide care in a specific time frame, and so they had the 'official waiting list', and then the 'unofficial waiting list'.

When you make up arbitrary requirements, people are going to do what they have to, in order to keep their jobs, and not get in trouble. If they have to pad the grades, in order to keep their jobs, then they are going to do it.

Instead, the solution again, as I said above... kick the bad students out. Education is not a right. It is a privilege to be earned. When students have to earn an education... they will.

 

[Samson]

... Leave it to the parents to enforce quality education.

.....The solution is to kick those kids out of school. When you FORCE parents to deal with their kids, suddenly they'll take the time and effort to make their kids do well in school.


....Instead, the solution again, as I said above... kick the bad students out. Education is not a right. It is a privilege to be earned. When students have to earn an education... they will.

Essentially, you are saying public education should NOT be manditory.

The bad students will be left at home with bad parents, who will simply drive them to the other side of the country and abandon them.

Then what do you suggest happens next?

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but there is a valid arguement for creating some sort of "LAST RESORT." Within most school systems this is known as an "Alternative Campus." Kids are still required to attend school, but are simply warehoused seperately from other students to give those that may have an opportunity to teach and learn the chance to do so without distraction.

Expulsion is the next, and final step

 

[BobPlumb]

... Leave it to the parents to enforce quality education.

.....The solution is to kick those kids out of school. When you FORCE parents to deal with their kids, suddenly they'll take the time and effort to make their kids do well in school.


....Instead, the solution again, as I said above... kick the bad students out. Education is not a right. It is a privilege to be earned. When students have to earn an education... they will.

Essentially, you are saying public education should NOT be manditory.

The bad students will be left at home with bad parents, who will simply drive them to the other side of the country and abandon them.

Then what do you suggest happens next?

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, but there is a valid arguement for creating some sort of "LAST RESORT." Within most school systems this is known as an "Alternative Campus." Kids are still required to attend school, but are simply warehoused seperately from other students to give those that may have an opportunity to teach and learn the chance to do so without distraction.

Expulsion is the next, and final step

If public education were thought of as a privilege rather than a right, perhaps it would be more respected. Today's college degree is yesteryear's high school diploma.