Education

[FullAuto]

FullAuto, that's so...fatalistic and depressing

 

Not if you consider the alternatives.

I think school and I just got off to a bad start and it got worse from there. I understand the necessity of it, and God knows I couldn't teach. Quite frankly, if I bumped into the little sod I was aged eight or so, I'd throttle him. Me. Y'know.

Some of the jobs I've had make me wonder if slavery really has been outlawed, so however hard the road is to making my creative impulse pay for itself, it'll be worth it.

[Ivory]

zeno, no problems i knew youd come back in the end

i agree, teachers shoudlnt make pupils do tests if they arent willing to do them!

 

ok...something that arose today:

 

wot do you do with the disruptive kid in the class??

[Accounting Troll]

FullAuto: Did you by any chance see a recent TV series called The Worst Jobs in History? If you think you have a worse job than the person appointed by Henry VIII as Groom of the Royal Stool, a nitpicker, a tanner or a Victorian chimney sweep, it is definatly time to start updating your CV.

 

Most jobs are pretty boring, so if school can help you to learn to cope with that, it is performing a valuble service. I find it helps if I make a point of saving a little bit from each paypacket and putting it towards something special such as a holiday.

[Ivory]

accounting troll id give it up...he dont appear to be listening.

 

did education teach you nothing else fullauto?

[Accounting Troll]

ok...something that arose today:

 

wot do you do with the disruptive kid in the class??

If you mean a kid who is regularly disruptive, I would try to find out WHY the kid is disruptive. Is the kid on some kind of medication? Does he have some kind of previously undiagnosed medical condition? Has he got a massive problem at home (eg his parents are in the middle of a divorce)?

 

The teacher will not be able to find a solution to the problem of a persistently disruptive pupil unless the teacher first finds out what the problem is, probably with the help of a child psychologist. Expelling a disruptive pupil is not a satisfactory solution as it causes increasingly anti-social behaviour in the pupil, a problem that is shunted off to someone else.

[Ivory]

ok.

 

all the way through this people have stated that the problem is with the instituation NOT with the child. Now the tables have turned?? why?

[Accounting Troll]

In this case we have one or two regularly disruptive children out of a class of maybe thirty.

 

It could be that a failure of the institution is to blame for the child's behaviour. I have heard of cases of illiterate people trying very hard to become the centre of attention in a social group to compensate for what they perceive as their failing. However, the teacher should at least consider the possibility that the pupil has some outside baggage that is affecting his/her performance and behaviour.

[Ivory]

agreed...so does that place the focus on the child or the teacher in your oppinion?

 

i feel it is the teacher who shoudl gain the focus, as it you have said it should be them who considers what is effecting the child.

 

what about parents involvement? shouldparents be involved in their childs schooling?

[FullAuto]

accounting troll id give it up...he dont appear to be listening.

 

did education teach you nothing else fullauto?

 

Like what? How to be a responsible member of society? I take the point that there are/have been some terrible jobs, and no matter how low you go, there is always another rung even lower, but let's face it, how many people actually get paid what their time is worth? Education tries to knock off all the rough edges and prepare you for a job, so you can be a productive member of society. People think I'm stupid for not getting my head down in a rubbish job, working long hours for short pay, but if I can do something I love instead of pissing my time away in a slaughterhouse or working for BT, then I will.

If you're doing what you love, then fair enough, license to steal and all that. More power to you.

School taught me very important lessons about society.

[Ivory]

ok

 

social instituions or education instituation?

[Zeno]

I can't say much on the disruptive child problem. I teach university "children". So disruptive students are latecomers, talkers, or mobile phone answerers. All of which are easily handled by public humiliation...

 

...okay, not really. But a simple statement in class often solves the problem. If not, a strong conversation in private with the student always solves the problem.

 

Disruptive students on the "violent" end are, potentially, a much greater problem. I've been fortunate, and haven't had to confront anything significant. If the problem *is* significant, it becomes assault, and therefore becomes a legal problem rather than something to solve through disciplinary action.

 

How to prevent a child from disruptive behavior...that's tricky. Every child reacts to punitive measures differently, so there isn't really a good "standard solution" for every circumstance.

 

For a very general answer, I support the idea of letting the punishment fit the crime (for children at least), and being as creative as possible in implementing punishment. Also in general, I support the idea of identifying the cause and addressing it early. Finally, if one solution fails twice (or maybe a few times more), it's time to find a new solution.

 

I think Europaean and American cultures have become overly reliant on "psychology" to solve child-raising issues. Too many parents I know are feeding their children ritallin or other drugs on a regular basis. Young children, 4 to 8 years old. Simply because the child is disruptive, and the drug makes them...not disruptive. Pills may be a good answer in extreme cases--I won't dispute science. But I do believe they are prescribed too often, before more sane solutions are tried (like...discipline).

 

I'm getting off-topic. Teachers are responsible for effective classroom management. Parents are responsible for effective parenting. Students are responsible for effective learning from parents, teachers, and other sources. When one fails, everyone suffers.

 

If I *were* a teacher of young children, the first time a parent came to me and blamed *me* for their child's disruptive behavior...well, it would be my last day at the job, anyway.

 

--Zeno

[Ivory]

so youll never make a teacher then zeno! lol

 

so we have established 'patiebts' as a quality (i know thts spelt wrong)

[FullAuto]

Er, do you mean 'patience'?

When I was wee, I remember a clip round the ear usually got anyone's attention.

[Ivory]

yep i did ta full auto! my spelling awful...

 

do you think its important that a teacher can spell well???

[FullAuto]

Er, yes. Well, if not perfectly. Though I had a dyslexic geography teacher. He was also a drunk.

[Ivory]

i cant spell very well, as you may have noticed. however, in a class of 5-6 year olds it doesnt seem to matter.i can spell most of the words they need

it seems that you need to be more...caring, warm and friendly. these things seem to get a better response than being 'clever'

 

nethoughts?

[FullAuto]

I seriously doubt you need much in the way of IQ to teach that age, and as for spelling....look, even if you get somthing wrong and they copy, their parents will be expecting spelling mistakes at that age!

Being a decent human being and caring is always more important than being a smartarse, in my book.

[Ivory]

why do you think decent human beings, who want to teach dont then?

[FullAuto]

Don't what? Teach?

I don't know. Ask one. Their reasons are their own.

[Ivory]

it just seems to me that all the "problmes" had in school seemto come back to the teachers, and attitudes. . . so why cant we seem to get the "right" teachers into the jobs?

[FullAuto]

I wouldn't say it's the teachers that are the problem, they're just the most obvious thing to pick on.

I think that people have finally discovered (shock, horror) that a child's educational needs are just as unique as their emotional needs. Each child is an individual and needs educating as one. You can't just chuck 30 of them in a class with a teacher and be confident they'll all turn out ok, but that's what we're doing because:

 

A) Institutions are slow to change.

B) Few are willing to pay more taxes to improve the educational system. People love the NHS and the dole, they love free education and a good police force but when it comes to actually paying for it they moan. I mean, who likes taxes?

 

Teachers do a difficult job, no question. There are lots of good teachers who can't teach effectively because of circumstances. Even a mediocre teacher can do a decent job, presented with a small enough class who are willing to work.

[Zeno]

FullAuto, you're exactly right. Society hates spending money, and the teaching profession is very old and quite slow to change. You're right--we can't take students, "chuck 30 of them in a class with a teacher and be confident they'll all turn out ok".

 

Unfortunately, your answer leads to an obvious and wrong conclusion. Why don't we simply test the aptitude of students psychologically, emotionally, socially, and academically, and match them with a specific teacher who will meet their needs? No extra money for teachers, students can learn easier, teachers can teach easier...

 

(I know you didn't suggest this; I'm drawing conclusions based on your post).

 

Besides being logistically difficult and financially expensive, not to mention a draconian mechanism of social control, it isn't quite so simple.

 

------

 

There's a variety of issues with teaching, and why people become teachers. In my experience, there are 3 frequent responses to the question, "why are you a teacher".

 

Most teachers say it is because they love to teach whatever age group they are teaching. Most also say it is because they love to study whatever subject they are teaching. And in addition, most say it is because they love the work schedule.

 

I've never met a teacher who became a teacher for the money. I've never met one who hated their students. I have met some who hated half the courses they taught, because they were forced to teach additional subjects. I've also met teachers who are legitimately afraid of certain students who seemed...a little too ready with violent approaches to problem-solving.

 

Overall, I meet a lot more "decent people" who are teachers than in some other professions. Keep in mind my experience is limited to only a few professions.

 

There are several problems with the teaching profession, though. First, it attracts some people for the teaching schedule. Unfortunately, this is a "greedy" reason to become a teacher. As with most professional jobs, there are selfish reasons to teach--and that always attracts people of "questionable quality".

 

Another problem is that the schedule is the *only* selfish reason to teach. Most people work because they need money to survive. You need a Master's degree or PhD to teach in most countries. Yet the average teaching salary is less than half the average salary of other professions with higher degrees. Would you rather work 20 years in some business, or 40 years as a teacher? You might love teaching, but is it worth working an extra 20 years of your life for it? If money is the primary motivation behind most people's choice of work, then most people--regardless of qualifications--will not choose teaching. This leads to a shortage of teachers. And a shortage leads to lowering qualifications, and hiring every qualified applicant. There is no "select the best candidate" choice when it comes to hiring new teachers. And, to my knowledge, that's global. Only private institutions and wealthy schools get such luxury.

 

Third, teaching requires a wide variety of skills to become a "good" teacher. Teachers must be good with people--whatever age group they are teaching. Teachers must be responsible and compassionate leaders, able to earn respect. Teachers must be experts in their course area or areas. Teachers must be able to engage their students interest, and thus must have a genuine interest in things the students like. Teachers must be able to relate the subject area to other subjects and other aspects of life, and thus must know a wide variety of fields. Teachers must be expert speakers and communicators, able to engross large audiences of widely varying backgrounds. Teachers must be expert writers, creatively-minded, and gifted illustrators. Teachers must always maintain the highest moral standards and conduct. Teachers must...

 

You get the idea. Society expects "good" teachers to be the embodiment of perfection, or close enough as makes no difference. When we're not (and we never are) then society sees us as bad teachers, and a problem to blame...but never fix.

 

A fourth problem with teaching is the administration. Teaching, like most jobs, requires overtime. But what most people don't realize is just how much overtime it requires. I work 80 to 90 hours per week when I'm teaching. I work every day, including weekends. How many hours do I teach in the classroom? 16 hours per week. Yes, that's it. Just 16 hours of class time. Everyone "sees" my work as a teacher, and they think--you work 16 hours per week? That's awesome! I wish I could do that!

 

But it's *not* 16 hours of work per week. It takes hours to prepare a lecture or lab class, create a homework assignment, *grade* the homework, make quizzes, exams, slides, downloadable lecture notes, etc. Not to mention study the material--you must read the latest developments in your area, and learn new teaching strategies. There's projects to advise, students who need extra help, research to conduct...

 

Administrations, students, and taxpayers like to forget that "extra" work. I've met university lecturers who teach 30 hours per week. 30 hours, just in the classroom. I have no idea how they have time to eat, or sleep, or breathe.

 

Of course, what really happens is that teachers become "burnt out" and stop doing all the extra work. Or, they use their long vacation times to catch up on their work. Either way, you end up with stressed teachers who are unable to adequately do their jobs because the demands are too great. When you add in the increasing number of students and decreasing classroom size...it's insane.

 

Is it the teachers' fault? A lot of people say it is, and that teachers are simply too lazy to do their work, and we're all poor quality nutcases who don't give a damn. Some of us are--like any job, there's crappy people here--but it's certainly not a majority.

 

------

 

Sorry for the tirade. I'll quietly leave my soapbox now...

 

--Zeno

[FullAuto]

I would like to see more testing at the early stages of education (no probing or anything, keep it gentle) but it doesn't seem to make much sense, hardly noticing the little blighters for the first six years, then testing them on everything until their nerves snap.

 

Why don't we simply test the aptitude of students psychologically, emotionally, socially, and academically, and match them with a specific teacher who will meet their needs?

 

I doubt that's workable. Besides, I'd say small classes of mixed ability would be better, rather than stratifying them by who's clever and who's stupid, or whatever characteristic you group them by. I think teachers should be paid more, definitely. The solicitors can fund it with a paycut.

[Zeno]

One thing I forgot to make clear in my last post: my direct teaching experience is limited to a couple years at one university in Thailand. I have friends and one family member who teach in Western schools (North America/Europe) with classes of various age groups, but that still means my "inside" information is word-of-mouth. I try to keep my posts general and global in scope, but it may be skewed despite my efforts.

 

------

 

FullAuto, testing (at any age) is another one of those grey areas. It's also unclear what age is best to start school. Some 3 year olds are mature enough to begin study, while some 8 year olds aren't quite ready yet.

 

However, I do think testing children is wise, and a good thing for parents to consider doing to their children. Why? Because they'll have to face testing for the rest of their life, starting at school and continuing through whatever job they do. Learning to deal with test-stress and learning the rewards and punishments system society places on individuals is a valid, valuable skill.

 

Young children are uniquely qualified to learn certain things which become increasingly difficult as they get older. Languages should be taught very early. Both teamwork and self-reliance can be encouraged. Simple mathematics and logic are intuitively picked up by children, and the cabability for reading is earlier than most people think.

 

------

 

I agree with you about small classes. It really is the way to go. If you have one teacher who truly knows the aptitudes of every student in the class, and can prepare material specifically suited to all of them, it would be ideal.

 

However, if you have a "class" you really do need to group them in some way. If you teach math, for example, you need everyone to be at a similar level. You can't teach integrals and long division in the same class--you'll confuse half the students or bore the other half. (I had a problem like this in my class last semester.)

 

 

--Zeno

[FullAuto]

That's why I believe maths should be optional after primary school.