Teacher's view on public education system's problems

[SAYIT]

I don't. Nothing that you have said in the last seven pages indicates that you have had any courses in education or comprehend the challenges in education.

That pretty much describes the average teacher.

It reads like something ripped from the headlines of a Faux news report. You don't find it the least bit odd? At all? Basic concepts missing and you don't find this the least bit odd?

I find nothing incredible about the OP's experience but indeed rather typical. What I find more than a bit odd is your shrill and disrespectful attempts to avoid dealing with the points raised by the OP. Do you act this insipidly in real time or do you save it for this board?

 

[Samson]

It reads like something ripped from the headlines of a Faux news report. You don't find it the least bit odd? At all? Basic concepts missing and you don't find this the least bit odd?

Well, I've already admitted that I did an internet search for phrases in the OP that might indicate it was some cut-n-paste or a bot. You can try the same and perhaps be more successful, I found nothing. Obviously I found the OP somewhat suspicious.

Also suspicious is the greater concern the OP has demonstreated defending your accusations, and the focus on more global issues (like unions), rather than those that actually effect the classroom teacher's POV: I spent 6 years as a teacher and administrator, and the fact that I was or was not unionized never crossed my mind as something that effected my job or the system that employed me.

However, real or not; what is the relevance?

There are MANY teachers who, despite whatever training they may have, were unable to grasp basic concepts or implement them effectively. As evidence, one simply needs to access attrition rates. Few teach more than five (5) years. The OP has only taught since February, so I would not expect him to be terribly organized, or for students to be on their best behaviour. If he continues to be "frustrated," then I doubt he'll last more than a year or two.

out of curiosity, what basic concepts?

[MENTION=25837]squeeze berry[/MENTION]

For example, to motivate students teachers often employ some sort of Punishment/Reward system. Call it Carrot and Stick, or whatever. It is amazing how many teachers do not have any system, and many that do, only employ punishment, with no rewards.

Of course, the systematic basis is that the punishments and rewards are MEANINGFUL to whoever is receiving them. Many teachers feel good grades are a reward, and bad grades are a punishment. This is because theachers are all academic creatures, where the relationship between punishment and bad grades is very natural: You may as well threaten teachers with 100lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails as give them a "zero" as a grade. The vast majority of students want a "C." Motivating poor students with grades is a rookie mistake.

 

[Samson]

AP, Honors, and Regular, ESE, etc. But in reg classes you can have students who greatly fluctuate in reading levels. Also in the 9th grade classes you can have students in there solely based on their behavior (because middle schools in my district give out conduct grades).




Are you suggesting that all schools are equal?

States have different titles of schools (specifically those in lower socioeconomic areas). Is that not true?

First, I'm suggesting that unless you've taught in more than one school, that you would not be able to compare your experience with any other school. The fact that you would detail the example, without contrast, is frankly a little weird.

Second, I have not made any such comparative suggestion myself, but you could quite easily find yourself in different schools, but with the same classroom challenges. Conversely, you could find yourself in very similar schools, and find different classroom challenges.

Finally, I have no idea what the phrase "States have different titles of schools," is supposed to mean. Each school is named differently. Depending on the state, each school may be given a rating, or "grade" based on a variety of rubrics, but none is based on the economic class of the students.

However I would admit that lower rated schools serve lower socioeconomic areas.

Regardless, classroom management techniques of either high or low rated schools are the same.

Not true. In Florida schools where the population is from a lower socio-economic statuses are known as "title 1" schools. It's completely separate from the actual grade that the school is given.

Florida Department of Education: Title I Programs & Academic Intervention Services

No.

A "Title I" program or service is a federally funded service; like free and reduced lunch programs. All schools have these. Typically a "Title I" school is one where many students receive these programs. Title I has nothing to do with how the school is ranked by the state, but obviously, schools with many lower socioeconomic students will also struggle with socioeconomic problems.

You seem to want to focus on these broader issues rather than the more basic: Regardless, classroom management techniques of either high or low rated schools are the same. Do you have a point? In particular, since you claim in the thread's title that you have a "Teacher's View," certainly you know that basic teaching techniques are employed regardless of how much Title I funding a school receives. Why should this be an issue?

 

[JT8691]

First, I'm suggesting that unless you've taught in more than one school, that you would not be able to compare your experience with any other school. The fact that you would detail the example, without contrast, is frankly a little weird.

Second, I have not made any such comparative suggestion myself, but you could quite easily find yourself in different schools, but with the same classroom challenges. Conversely, you could find yourself in very similar schools, and find different classroom challenges.

Finally, I have no idea what the phrase "States have different titles of schools," is supposed to mean. Each school is named differently. Depending on the state, each school may be given a rating, or "grade" based on a variety of rubrics, but none is based on the economic class of the students.

However I would admit that lower rated schools serve lower socioeconomic areas.

Regardless, classroom management techniques of either high or low rated schools are the same.

Not true. In Florida schools where the population is from a lower socio-economic statuses are known as "title 1" schools. It's completely separate from the actual grade that the school is given.

Florida Department of Education: Title I Programs & Academic Intervention Services

No.

A "Title I" program or service is a federally funded service; like free and reduced lunch programs. All schools have these. Typically a "Title I" school is one where many students receive these programs. Title I has nothing to do with how the school is ranked by the state, but obviously, schools with many lower socioeconomic students will also struggle with socioeconomic problems.

You seem to want to focus on these broader issues rather than the more basic: Regardless, classroom management techniques of either high or low rated schools are the same. Do you have a point? In particular, since you claim in the thread's title that you have a "Teacher's View," certainly you know that basic teaching techniques are employed regardless of how much Title I funding a school receives. Why should this be an issue?

I never said that they were "rated". I said that they were viewed differently from the districts. For example we have Title 1 AND another term that the DISTRICT assigns to schools in impoverished areas. Also, I simply said that all schools aren't equal, and provided the title 1 as evidence that different schools have different needs.

The major problem with your point is that you're not encouraged to use the same teaching techniques for the lower socio-economic schools are you're supposed to for other schools. (At least in my district).

It's why my district made me take the Haberman Assessment Test:

http://www.habermanfoundation.org/starteacherprescreener.aspx

As you can see its sole purpose is designed to ensure that the classroom techniques are specifically intended for lower income schools.

 

[Samson]

Not true. In Florida schools where the population is from a lower socio-economic statuses are known as "title 1" schools. It's completely separate from the actual grade that the school is given.

Florida Department of Education: Title I Programs & Academic Intervention Services

No.

A "Title I" program or service is a federally funded service; like free and reduced lunch programs. All schools have these. Typically a "Title I" school is one where many students receive these programs. Title I has nothing to do with how the school is ranked by the state, but obviously, schools with many lower socioeconomic students will also struggle with socioeconomic problems.

You seem to want to focus on these broader issues rather than the more basic: Regardless, classroom management techniques of either high or low rated schools are the same. Do you have a point? In particular, since you claim in the thread's title that you have a "Teacher's View," certainly you know that basic teaching techniques are employed regardless of how much Title I funding a school receives. Why should this be an issue?

I never said that they were "rated". I said that they were viewed differently from the districts. For example we have Title 1 AND another term that the DISTRICT assigns to schools in impoverished areas. Also, I simply said that all schools aren't equal, and provided the title 1 as evidence that different schools have different needs.

The major problem with your point is that you're not encouraged to use the same teaching techniques for the lower socio-economic schools are you're supposed to for other schools. (At least in my district).

It's why my district made me take the Haberman Assessment Test.

In all fairness I don't know how new this concept is in education, but it does exist (at least in my district).

Your point remains unclear.

What on Earth could "you're not encouraged to use the same teaching techniques for the lower socio-economic schools are you're supposed to for other schools," mean?

Why wouldn't you employ the same classroom techniques in all schools? Perhaps an example would help you articulate your issue: Exactly what classroom teaching technique seems to be the most different?

Particularly strange is how anyone teaching only for 4 months would be aware of any differences even if they did exist: In how many schools have you taught? You evaded the question because the answer is ONE (1), maybe. How do you have any basis for comparison?

In answering you may want to be aware, there's not much You are going to teach Me about the subject of teaching.

I have taught both AP Physics at a nice suburban high school, and 8th grade Math at a "Title I" school.

 

[Samson]

... my district made me take the Haberman Assessment Test:

The Haberman Foundation - Star Teacher Pre-Screener

As you can see its sole purpose is designed to ensure that the classroom techniques are specifically intended for lower income schools.

Actually, they made you take the test to see if you'd make a good teacher IN ANY ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING A TITLE I SCHOOL:

Which of the following do you think you do not need outside a Title I School:?

Dimensions Assessed

1.Persistence predicts the propensity to work with children who present learning and behavioral problems on a daily basis without giving up on them for the full 180 day work year.

2.Organization and Planning refers to how and why star teachers plan as well as their ability to manage complex classroom organizations.

3.Values student learning predicts the degree to which the responses reflect a willingness to make student learning the teacher's highest priority.

4.Theory to Practice predicts the respondent's ability to see the practical implications of generalizations as well as the concepts reflected by specific practices.

5.At-Risk Students predicts the likelihood that the respondent will be able to connect with and teach students of all backgrounds and levels.

6.Approach to Students predicts the way the respondent will attempt to relate to students and the likelihood this approach will be effective.

7.Survive in Bureaucracy predicts the likelihood that the respondent will be able to function as a teacher in large, depersonalized organization.

8.Explains Teacher Success deals with the criteria the respondent uses to determine teaching success and whether these are relevant to teachers in poverty schools.

9.Explains Student Success deals with the criteria the respondent uses to determine students' success and whether these are relevant to students in poverty schools.

10.Fallibility refers to how the teacher plans to deal with mistakes in the classroom

The fact that Dimension #8 and #9 includes relevance "in poverty schools" does NOT make them irrelevant in any other school.

 

[Disir]

That pretty much describes the average teacher.

It reads like something ripped from the headlines of a Faux news report. You don't find it the least bit odd? At all? Basic concepts missing and you don't find this the least bit odd?

I find nothing incredible about the OP's experience but indeed rather typical. What I find more than a bit odd is your shrill and disrespectful attempts to avoid dealing with the points raised by the OP. Do you act this insipidly in real time or do you save it for this board?

Of course you do.

His points were addressed.

They were not geared towards you.

 

[Unkotare]

Nothing that you have said in the last seven pages indicates that you have had any courses in education or comprehend the challenges in education.

The same could be said of you. Why the big act? What are you hiding, you faker?

Do you have a problem with basic terminology?

Do you have a problem with insecurity?

 

[Disir]

The same could be said of you. Why the big act? What are you hiding, you faker?

Do you have a problem with basic terminology?

Do you have a problem with insecurity?

Not at all.

 

[JT8691]

... my district made me take the Haberman Assessment Test:

The Haberman Foundation - Star Teacher Pre-Screener

As you can see its sole purpose is designed to ensure that the classroom techniques are specifically intended for lower income schools.

Actually, they made you take the test to see if you'd make a good teacher IN ANY ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING A TITLE I SCHOOL

A few things:

-They only make you take the test if you're applying for Title 1 schools.

-If they wanted you to used the same techniques at Title 1 and other school then why would they test you on teaching techniques before allowing you to apply for a Title 1 school, as opposed to other schools? There would be no point in doing so.

-The overwhelming majority of Haberman focuses on lower-income schools.

 

[Samson]

... my district made me take the Haberman Assessment Test:

The Haberman Foundation - Star Teacher Pre-Screener

As you can see its sole purpose is designed to ensure that the classroom techniques are specifically intended for lower income schools.

Actually, they made you take the test to see if you'd make a good teacher IN ANY ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING A TITLE I SCHOOL

A few things:

-They only make you take the test if you're applying for Title 1 schools.

-If they wanted you to used the same techniques at Title 1 and other school then why would they test you on teaching techniques before allowing you to apply for a Title 1 school, as opposed to other schools? There would be no point in doing so.

-The overwhelming majority of Haberman focuses on lower-income schools.

Your point remains unclear.

What on Earth could "you're not encouraged to use the same teaching techniques for the lower socio-economic schools are you're supposed to for other schools," mean?

Why wouldn't you employ the same classroom techniques in all schools? Perhaps an example would help you articulate your issue: Exactly what classroom teaching technique seems to be the most different?

Particularly strange is how anyone teaching only for 4 months would be aware of any differences even if they did exist: In how many schools have you taught? You evaded the question because the answer is ONE (1), maybe. How do you have any basis for comparison?

In answering you may want to be aware, there's not much You are going to teach Me about the subject of teaching.

I have taught both AP Physics at a nice suburban high school, and 8th grade Math at a "Title I" school.

 

[Unkotare]

there's not much You are going to teach Me about the subject of teaching.

That statement right there suggests you may have forgotten the very first lesson.

 

[Samson]

there's not much You are going to teach Me about the subject of teaching.

That statement right there suggests you may have forgotten the very first lesson.

Thanks for another thoughtful contribution to the thread.


Now you can get back to bickering with Disir about other Deep Thoughts.

 

[BobPlumb]

Harry Wong would be so proud!

just kidding

 

[Disir]

No.

 

[BobPlumb]

42

 

[Unkotare]

there's not much You are going to teach Me about the subject of teaching.

That statement right there suggests you may have forgotten the very first lesson.

Thanks for another thoughtful contribution to the thread....

Avoiding it suggests a weakness in your character.

 

[Samson]

That statement right there suggests you may have forgotten the very first lesson.

Thanks for another thoughtful contribution to the thread....

Avoiding it suggests a weakness in your character.

***yawn***

 

[Unkotare]

^ Another form of avoidance...

 

[BobPlumb]

[ame=http://youtu.be/1sONfxPCTU0]Can We All Just Get Along? For The Kids & Old People? RODNEY KING SPEAKS! - YouTube[/ame]