Steve Jobs runs his big mouth again...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ

I might not, but it's becoming apparent from your attitude and comments in this thread alone that you sucked as a teacher.

It's ok, being a good teacher is a lot harder than inexperienced kids like Kuci presume. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs where you can be good at and earn your living.

My attitude sucks now sure. That's not who I was when I started. In fact I was overly optimistic and naive like a lot of people here. My positive attitude was more of a liability though. The teachers with experience and worse attitudes did a better job probably because they knew more what to expect and how to deal with it.

Seriously, you guys just can't know.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I did my job. You have no idea what you are talking about. Teachers can do thier jobs even if no students learn. Think about it.

But they wouldn´t do their job right IMHO.
It´s part of the teachers job to present the knowledge to the kids, but another important part is IMHO, to present it in a way that it gets interesting enough for the kids so they are stimulated to be engaged into the stuff.

Lessons where no student does learn anything in class are worthless, a waste of the pupils and the teachers time as well as a waste of the taxpayers money.

IMHO this is what the quality aof a teacher is about, presenting the stuff so that as much pupils as possible in the class understand it and even might find it (the stuff) interesting.
(with teachers in some districts needing more talent in this than teachers ijn other districts)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


But they wouldn´t do their job right IMHO.
It´s part of the teachers job to present the knowledge to the kids, but another important part is IMHO, to present it in a way that it gets interesting enough for the kids so they are stimulated to be engaged into the stuff.

Lessons where no student does learn anything in class are worthless, a waste of the pupils and the teachers time as well as a waste of the taxpayers money.

IMHO this is what the quality aof a teacher is about, presenting the stuff so that as much pupils as possible in the class understand it and even might find it (the stuff) interesting.
(with teachers in some districts needing more talent in this than teachers ijn other districts)

while I agree that it should be the teachers job to make the lessons as interesting as possible, I don't think that that makes most students learn more, at least not from my experience. I worked my ass off to make my lessons as stimulating as possible, and the students had a lot of fun, but I don't think they learned more. It might have made a difference on their behavior a bit, however they didn't do homework still and didn't study for tests. Worse, they seems to pay less attention when the lesson wasn't as fun.

edit: Oh and I'll argue that there is never a waste of time in the classroom as long as the teacher is doing his/her job. Students have a right to be there that's the way we have it set up. We also choose that they can sit there and waste time not learning. So if we get what we wanted I don't think it's a waste of time.

[monolith94]

Part of the problem is that the majority of parents are now too lazy to teach their children how to behave properly, how to be polite and courteous. Even the best teacher will have a hard time teaching a class when they have to spend half their time asking kids to be quiet, sit down, to please listen to what they're saying, etc. I know - I've been working as a substitute teacher for a while now. Parents today have taught their kids nothing when it comes to treating others well.

[Jon Miller]

I am amazed at the simplistic nature of many of the positions.

Education imparted is a function of several factors that involve teachers, students, parents, and the community. Included in those factors are ones that can't be changed (there exists some natural skill at teaching, there exists some natural intelligience needed to grasp concepts).

I use to have a much longer, and more complicated, post before my work computer crashed.

My own education precollege was almost entirely a funtion of myself (and parents earlier in life, before 1990). I wasn't involved in my community, the schools I went to were generally poor. I pretty much ignored all teachers... I did have one that engaged me and that I enjoyed classes with/etc, but he was a humanities and literature teacher (in highschool), and I haven't used that education much in the 9 years since I graduated highschool.

Jon Miller

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's because it is. It's not a matter of perception, but the simple fact that the ROI for society is higher for other jobs that require tertiary education than for teachers.

so why are we blaming teachers if we arent giving an incentive for better people to teach? society is to blame for making education attract less than stellar candidates.

[Arrian]

Part of the problem is that the majority of parents are now too lazy to teach their children how to behave properly, how to be polite and courteous. Even the best teacher will have a hard time teaching a class when they have to spend half their time asking kids to be quiet, sit down, to please listen to what they're saying, etc. I know - I've been working as a substitute teacher for a while now.

I generally agree that parents are part of the problem, but to be fair: substitute teachers always get less respect from students, even good students.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
so why are we blaming teachers if we arent giving an incentive for better people to teach? society is to blame for making education attract less than stellar candidates.

You're the one who critized me for (you thought) assuming smarter people were automatically better. Particularly in the lower grades, a good teacher isn't necessarily the smartest and best-educated in the subject.

[MRT144]

I'm not the one claiming that teachers arent intelligent. It just seems to be the prevailing perception that youd have to be an idiot, a masochist, a kiddie fiddler, or genuinely good person to teach.

Again, if the perception is that teachers arent good because we arent attracting the best candidates then how do we resolve this?

[Arrian]

One of the worst teachers I had was extremely smart. He couldn't teach for ****, though, 'cause it was all so bloody obvious to him that he didn't really understand why we lesser beings didn't understand.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly what I was getting at, Arrian

[Arrian]

He would've made a good speciality tutor for a handful of the top math students. The rest of us, though, would've been better off with someone else. I in particular was in a bad situation because I had jumped up from the "advanced" track to the "honors" track and I wasn't really that good. So while my more mathematically inclined friends struggled but learned, I struggled, didn't learn, but got a decent grade due to a massive curve... and promptly dropped back down.

-Arrian

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Kidicious


while I agree that it should be the teachers job to make the lessons as interesting as possible, I don't think that that makes most students learn more, at least not from my experience. I worked my ass off to make my lessons as stimulating as possible, and the students had a lot of fun, but I don't think they learned more. It might have made a difference on their behavior a bit, however they didn't do homework still and didn't study for tests. Worse, they seems to pay less attention when the lesson wasn't as fun.

edit: Oh and I'll argue that there is never a waste of time in the classroom as long as the teacher is doing his/her job. Students have a right to be there that's the way we have it set up. We also choose that they can sit there and waste time not learning. So if we get what we wanted I don't think it's a waste of time.

You say most of the students didn´t learn more.
But didn´t you reach at least 2-3 Students per class, which were stimulated by this kind of lessons?

My experiences with school are only as a pupil, but I can say that in most of the years in biology I was rather mediocre.
But when we got a good Biology teacher during the last years at school (who didn´t even teaching, but did experiments and research @home himself) I was the best in class and I assume also the marks of the other pupils were better with this teacher than with other teachers who did their teaching 08/15 style.

Of course there were still pupils who weren´t interested in the lessons even with this teacher, I assume even the most interesting teacher won´t be able to reach all students. (so yes I agree that there are Students who are lost to the best teachings because of their own lacking interest and/or because their parents taught them the wrong values)
But isn´t reaching just 2-3 Students more with your lessons worth the effort?

After all one of them might become the next Albert Einstein or the next Christiaan Barnard because his interest has been awakened by your lessons, whereas with 08/15 teachings his interest would have remained asleep and he would have ended as one of the million office workers around.

And 2-3 students per class which are influenced by good teachrs are still 10 % of all students (at least if you have class sizes of 20-30 pupils like schools in germany have) so the impact might be greater than one might assume.

(even though you despite the efforts and the importance of the work probably will never receive a word of thanks)

[aneeshm]

It is only now, after reading about the negatives of the systems elsewhere, that I'm learning to fully appreciate what a great thing a competitive school system is (where you have the public school system, and the competing private school system).

I myself studied in a private school, which is normal for most middle-class people in India in towns and cities where they offer the best education. The teachers were good, the school was supportive, and I have fond memories of the time I spent there.

It was like a little protective cocoon thrown around the children who attended that place - only those bits of the real world were allowed in which were deemed good for us, in the early years. This was possible only because they had very strict selection criterion, and made sure that the family of the child who was admitted was "sound", by their standards, and of course, the child had to be equally sound and studious. That meant that we never had to deal with disruptive idiots, or if they did, it was all settled amicably.

The teachers were better paid than in government schools, so they were better. Many teachers were so committed to the school that when another school offered them a higher salary, they refused to go. The patriarch of the place was a totally cool guy. He was the founder, and he was the one who built the place up from the ground. Principals came and went, but he was/is the one constant there. He walks around the school for hours every day, just to see that everything goes smoothly. He really loves the place. It is thanks to people like him that it was such a great place. The level of dedication in the little core of teachers that were there with the school since the beginning is something to behold.

And this is not an isolated example. You will find places like this scattered all over every town. There are many others in Indore itself. Each school has its own unique culture, its own way of doing things, its own traditions, everything. It's an experience. I don't think this sense of belonging and dedication is there in the public schools.

[Jon Miller]

As I said from my experience those who are bright are if anything held back by teachers. They don't need inspired really, they need not to have their time wasted doing repetive tasks while the teacher tries to force those who are not as bright or don't care to learn.

The Albert Einsteins that are lost are more likely lost by lack of resources, or being too bored in class to do anything. Not because of lack of inspiration.

JM