If we are going to have public schooling, especially compelled public schooling, we must take care of the human needs of children.

Perhaps you are overthinking it all. American children used to be a pretty tough, resilient breed who bounced back from personal life trauma and went on to perform at least adequately—academically speaking. The last thing America needs is an intensified nanny state coming out of the public education sector. What America is not is Soviet Russia of the 1970's where political officer cadre buzzed around every aspect of a school student's life ensuring his or her development of absolute faith in and allegiance to The Party. American government must never seek to emulate such a level of state worship, not ever. What children at large need more than anything else is to be unplugged from social media, online space, video games and all electronic devices. The internet is killing mankind, rotting his spirit from within, corrupting his mind and atrophying his collective physique. Further, it is parents, not teachers, who should be taking the lead at all times in the healthy and safe development of their children. The State needs to GTF out of the lives of American children and stay out.
Are you a TEACHER?

You are 100% INCORRECT

I have been a teacher
Worked in every grade from preschool to high school
 
Big Hack Attack


That is Marxist. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." We will only make progress if we reward ability first and up front. There's no reason, except a Commie one, to not give superior students the same immediate material rewards we give superior athletes from childhood on. Until then, we must use our brains to wipe out those who created this intelligence-insulting education.
Disgusting comments
 
Are you a TEACHER?

You are 100% INCORRECT

I have been a teacher
Worked in every grade from preschool to high school
I think the educational system does what it believes it needs to do to "teach, nurture, and care for" students. The proof however is "in the pudding".
 
Last edited:
I think the educational system does what it believes it needs to do to "teach, nurture, and care for" students. The proof however is "in the pudding".
Why so many QUOTATION MARKS?

The children I taught learned what was specified in the curriculum
They were nurtured
Supported
Cared for

I feel sorry for you
 
Why so many QUOTATION MARKS?

The children I taught learned what was specified in the curriculum
They were nurtured
Supported
Cared for
Quotation marks sometimes indicate sarcasm. ;)

You taught them what you believed they needed to know, not what they actually needed to know.

Did you "nurture" these problems away?

I feel sorry for them.
 
Last edited:
Still true for the large majority of children. I see children from impoverished homes whose mothers crossed the border to have them and never taught them a syllable of English go through a three-year bilingual program and end up in PAP English by 7th grade.

The difference from now and the past is that we don't expel secondary students who misbehave and we don't encourage failing students to simply drop out and become auto mechanics and whatnot. We keep every student in school, whether they thrive there are not. This in the name of equality. That's the main reason schools seem to be failing. We are failing the same students that we used to get rid of. Getting rid of them was its own kind of failure, I believe you would agree.

That is a strong argument for ending the public schools, not for neglecting public school children once they are forced to attend.

Public school will always be a mouthpiece for someone's political agenda, that's the nature of giving people a captive audience. In my school days, the agenda was pretty basic American patriotism, combined with a reasonable level of concern for the flaws in our history. No one much objected to that. What has become so outrageous is that now it is the woke agenda that is being pressed. Almost no one wants that, but that's what happens when we turn kids over to the state.

Clearly. Best decision we ever made was to keep our young children away from video games. I had played this game in the seventies as a teenager:

View attachment 657475
Just little electronic dots for players, but it captured my mind, took it off fishing, talking, reading, or anything else. No Nintendo for the Flops kids, even though my mom refused to baby sit them if they couldn't play video games. /rant

Yes, they should. But a percentage of them will not and I know of no way to change that.

Then we must end public schools.
Video games probably replaced television as the big distraction from those other activities. Television was responsible for ending those social activities in my day.
 
Quotation marks sometimes indicate sarcasm. ;)

You taught them what you believed they needed to know, not what they actually needed to know.

Did you "nurture" these problems away?

I feel sorry for them.
???
 
The Bored of Education

If schoolwork wasn't so intentionally boring, trivial, and irrelevant, such desperate escapism from it wouldn't happen.
A good teacher can make all the difference. The problem with education is that it is produced for the mass (read, class), not the individual. The teacher establishes a three-way relationship between her/him self, the subject, and the class. Whereas the relationship should be between the teacher, the subject, and the individual.

"Nothing causes the student to sit up and pay attention more than being called upon by the teacher to participate." -Woodznutz
 
Last edited:
Quotation marks sometimes indicate sarcasm. ;)

You taught them what you believed they needed to know, not what they actually needed to know.

Did you "nurture" these problems away?

I feel sorry for them.
Post reported

Dumb jealous cow
 
First, let me state that I am both a public school teacher and a person who is libertarian. As a libertarian, I would not object to public schools being phased out completely. I am confident that, in the absences of public schools, I would earn a far larger salary than my district determined scale. Point is that the "if" in my statement is sincere.

Since the answer to whether we will have public school is an overwhelming "yes," that the Twoparties agree on, we have to take a realistic look at what a child needs in order to learn in a public school.

A hungry child will not learn.
An exhausted child will not learn.
A sick child will not learn, if his sickness makes him too uncomfortable to concentrate.
A child who cannot see the board will not learn, in the absence of special accommodations.
A child who dreads the weekend due to abusive or negligent parents will learn perhaps Mon - Thurs, but will not learn on Friday.

My fellow/sister teachers often complain and lament that "we have to parent" some kids. They are right, that is exactly what we often have to do. We parent the kids, because the parents won't. That's what the welfare state has taught them is the way to behave.

If I were to suggest that we simply allow those kids to stay home, those same teachers would sputter with outrage. Because those kids have a "right" to a public school education. Because public school is the great equalizer. But is it?

A child experiencing any of the above is not getting an equal education to a child with an identical demographic, parental education and socioeconomic background whose parents provide the care the students needs, and appropriate time and location in which to study. If we are to be the equalizers, we must find ways to close those gaps.

When I taught at an elementary school we ran "Grizzly Bear Camp," which was an after school program that let kids study and do homework in the library for 90 minutes after school, followed by play time and a snack in the gym, and a bus ride home. It was a great success. In Junior High, they have after school "tutorials," but they are more a case of "You're behind in your work, so you are assigned to after school tutorials." Not nearly as helpful to kids with inadequate parenting.

If a child has a visual impairment severe enough to be classified as a disability, the school will spare little expense in providing equipment for that child to be able to access materials. If a child needs glasses and can't see the board, but the parent is too lazy to provide them, they kid is just out of luck. Why? Any schools budget can easily absorb the cost of prescription eyeglasses.

We feed the kids free breakfast and lunch and continue that into the summer. That's good. Our counselors will provide school supplies and a backpack to kids whose parents will not buy them. Good again. But we should be providing any other needs that arise as well. Let a committee decide who has the need, since educators insist on committees. But get the kids taken care of, don't chastise them for not being ready to learn.
You make some good points but leaving education to be decided by profit margin is unwise.
 
Not in MY district

When I teach

YES

ABSOLUTELY
Have you taught your students the best way to floss? Oral health is a big problem among adolescents. How about your obese kids, have you guided them to a healthier weight? Have you had "the talk" with each student privately regarding sex?

I have dozens of such questions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top