What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why do teachers always blame the students?

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
374
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
Usually, the teachers that other teachers respect, have this in common, that they blame the students for not fully understanding the curriculum. They also say, that the good student needs no teaching. How does this make sense? Can you achieve a degree or any kind of certificate, by just self teaching and no teachers? And if so, then do teachers want to make themselves redundant? I don't understand. How does this work?
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
374
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
Usually, the teachers that other teachers respect, have this in common, that they blame the students for not fully understanding the curriculum. They also say, that the good student needs no teaching. How does this make sense? Can you achieve a degree or any kind of certificate, by just self teaching and no teachers? And if so, then do teachers want to make themselves redundant? I don't understand. How does this work?



Upon what do you base these claims?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.


Thread win!
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
52,591
Reaction score
21,800
Points
2,320
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.

They should also provide personal security for each teacher, since teachers are forbidden from cold-cocking a misbehaving wanna-be thug.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
A good student can just follow along with the educational texts and not only understand but internalize the meanings. Even average students can do this without a great deal of help.

The disadvantaged students need a creative and dedicated teacher to understand where the student is educationally, take them where he is and help him progress with different teaching methods, energetic enthusiasm and motivational techniques to help him understand the basic meaning of the material. There is nothing better than finally reaching a student where he reaches a goal and can apply the knowledge. That is why teaching is not a job for the people who just "want a job." It is a profession not for the weak in spirit. Great teachers get their real reward when the student finally "gets it!"
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.

They should also provide personal security for each teacher, since teachers are forbidden from cold-cocking a misbehaving wanna-be thug.
Respect brings respect. I have never had a student want to cold cock me. But, I did appreciate my most difficult students because they have had experiences that bring unwelcome attitudes. Listen and learn from them.

I once had a boy who was in trouble all the time. I sat with him and he divulged much of what he had done. I told him it was not to late to "go straight." He said it was too late. He said he had a rap sheet as long as my arm. He was twelve. I really liked him and actually thought maybe I could help. But after accosting a child in the bathroom, and a litany of other offenses, he was sent to Boys Town. I actually missed talking with him.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.

They should also provide personal security for each teacher, since teachers are forbidden from cold-cocking a misbehaving wanna-be thug.
Sometimes I thought I could use security from parents but that wasn't often.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.

They should also provide personal security for each teacher, since teachers are forbidden from cold-cocking a misbehaving wanna-be thug.






Don't overdo it.
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
374
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
Yes, I heard and there were a lot of these people in the 19th century. Interestingly, there is none in the 21st.
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
374
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
Usually, the teachers that other teachers respect, have this in common, that they blame the students for not fully understanding the curriculum. They also say, that the good student needs no teaching. How does this make sense? Can you achieve a degree or any kind of certificate, by just self teaching and no teachers? And if so, then do teachers want to make themselves redundant? I don't understand. How does this work?



Upon what do you base these claims?
A teacher told me that a good student needs no teacher. That stroke me as a contradiction, coming from a teacher.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
Yes, I heard and there were a lot of these people in the 19th century. Interestingly, there is none in the 21st.
education is not as valued as it was historically. It has been tainted with social engineering at the expense of academics.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
Usually, the teachers that other teachers respect, have this in common, that they blame the students for not fully understanding the curriculum. They also say, that the good student needs no teaching. How does this make sense? Can you achieve a degree or any kind of certificate, by just self teaching and no teachers? And if so, then do teachers want to make themselves redundant? I don't understand. How does this work?



Upon what do you base these claims?
A teacher told me that a good student needs no teacher. That stroke [sic] me as a contradiction, coming from a teacher.

One teacher told you this, once?


And how about the other claims?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
Yes, I heard and there were a lot of these people in the 19th century. Interestingly, there is none in the 21st.
education is not as valued as it was historically. ....



Yes it is.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Who said the teachers blame the students. A good student will learn despite a bad teacher but average and low students will excell with good teachers. That's why I feel the best teachers should teach in the inner cities. Those jobs should should pay more exponentially and attract the best we have nationally.
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
Yes, I heard and there were a lot of these people in the 19th century. Interestingly, there is none in the 21st.
education is not as valued as it was historically. ....



Yes it is.
Sports are more important to the "good parent." They often spend more time teaching their kids how to throw a curve ball than actually take a look at their homework and start a discussion on what they are learning. As a nation, we often find that we've failed our children. Look at the millennials. The parents support them with expensive phones and time in batting cages instead of creating a dialogue with how they can improve their grades. The one with the most electronic toys and trophies "win" the game and lose their future.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
But can a good student learn without any teacher at all, or does he still need a bad teacher at least? Also, I agree with your statement about the inner city teaching.
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
Yes, I heard and there were a lot of these people in the 19th century. Interestingly, there is none in the 21st.
education is not as valued as it was historically. ....



Yes it is.
Sports are more important to the "good parent." They often spend more time teaching their kids how to throw a curve ball than actually take a look at their homework and start a discussion on what they are learning. As a nation, we often find that we've failed our children. Look at the millennials. The parents support them with expensive phones and time in batting cages instead of creating a dialogue with how they can improve their grades. The one with the most electronic toys and trophies "win" the game and lose their future.



That's an empty generalization based on your frustration with a perception of an entire generation. Keep some perspective.
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,502
Reaction score
7,905
Points
290
Location
Nashville
Yes. History has proven that people can learn on their own without the help of a teacher. Look at Abraham Lincoln. He had one year of formal education. But his love for reading never dissipated and he was considered a real scholar.
Yes, I heard and there were a lot of these people in the 19th century. Interestingly, there is none in the 21st.
education is not as valued as it was historically. ....



Yes it is.
Sports are more important to the "good parent." They often spend more time teaching their kids how to throw a curve ball than actually take a look at their homework and start a discussion on what they are learning. As a nation, we often find that we've failed our children. Look at the millennials. The parents support them with expensive phones and time in batting cages instead of creating a dialogue with how they can improve their grades. The one with the most electronic toys and trophies "win" the game and lose their future.



That's an empty generalization based on your frustration with a perception of an entire generation. Keep some perspective.
Actually, there's 3 kinds of parents...poverty living where many are living through existing crisis and sometimes the children cannot be their priority. They love them, but find their daily living is more important than seeing the future for the children, the middle class who can perceive their child's future. They may be struggling, but want better for their kids and the "elite parent" who feels that the extra tutoring time is taking up time from their kid's tennis lessons.*

That is when the teacher should be the Great Motivator and be able to move the kids closer to reaching their potential.

* That is not to say, that the parents are "lost" for good. Treat them as your second educational opportunity and keep them abreast of the good their child does in school. Let them know when they have done a good job bringing up their children.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
102,431
Reaction score
13,907
Points
2,180
There are not "3 kinds of parents," there are 3 million kinds. Generalizations are generally worthless.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top