That's an admirable mindset to have, but functionally, are the two approaches in quotes any different? That is, doesn't it just come down to "teaching the material in an interesting, educated, passionate" manner? Regardless of who you're targeting?
Try all you want for as long as you want. You still won't. As a teacher (I'm sure you are) you have this idealistic idea about touching and helping every student. This idea is too naive and unrealistic. You will probably help a lot in your life, but not the ones were discussing.
And it's those very idealistic ideas that make a solid teacher what he is. Call it naive, unrealistic, call it complete fucking lunacy, it doesn't change the fact that teachers without this mindset aren't nearly as effective in getting kids to grasp the material given to them. Riggins is right. You don't give up on kids. You keep trying, and if those problem kids don't respond you keep trying until they graduate, or drop out, or whatever, and if you failed you call it a wash. You can't win them all, but keep in mind that 100% of the shots you don't take don't go in. If, as a teacher, you feel that giving up is the right course of action, then throw in the towel and choose another line of work.
Teaching isn't an easy profession; it's not for everyone. You can call it idealistic, you can call it whatever you want, but true educators don't care. They refuse to "give up" or "forget about" a student, ANY student, regardless of whether or not they've given up on themselves. There is no such thing as a lost cause. Some where, some way, those students lost interest in learning. A good teacher will do whatever it takes, try anything, in order to change that mindset and reach that student. It's not about memorizing facts, or being able to recall bits of information; education should be about wanting to LEARN. A good teacher will find a way -- or do everything in their damn ability to try and do so. Success can be measured in many different variables. There should be no such thing as failure. Is that naive and idealistic? Fuck yes. But if I thought otherwise, I would be doing every one of my students a disservice. EDIT: didn't see Volo's excellent post. If a teacher isn't willing to do anything -- thus taking the mindset that it's ok to "forget about" a student -- then they are most certaintly in the wrong profession and need to get the fuck out.
There's definitely a huge difference in the way I teach my regular classes and my advanced/elective classes. For most subjects in high school, I was the exact same way. If it was a class I was forced to take, I did the bare minimum and tried to pass. In my regular class, I know that about half the students are doing the reading. I try to teach material in a way that they can at least pass the test, but still rewards the students that put in the effort and do the work. Some of those kids are smart but have such severe attention or reading disorders that I pretty much have to hold the hand of each student while we go through the material. I don't mind it, because either they need it or part of me can relate to the fact that they're just looking to get by with the minimum. Yesterday interim grades came out, and only two of those students were failing. That's only because they sleep through class and don't even earn the easy participation grades I give them. The problem I have is students in the advanced classes who don't read and complain about the workload. In those classes I have a half dozen students that are currently failing. If they don't do the reading, I have have no sympathy. And for the most part, their parents feel the same. But that letter above is the second parent I've had tell me that they don't want their students reading the book. Neither students was reading the material anyway, and decided the book wasn't "anti-war" but "pro-horse sex" in order to get out of reading it. It's a shame that some parents have an external locus of control that extends beyond their own offspring. Most parents want their student to do well. The problem is that some parents blame their kid for not doing well, which is the correct response. Others blame me, which is arguable (especially since I already have a suspiciously top-heavy range of grades). Bottom line is that regardless of whose fault it is, if you blame your student for their grades, they'll work harder. If you blame the teacher, the kid still fails. And when that kid grows up and gets a job, it will be the exact same way. You can blame your employer for treating you unfairly and expecting too much of you, but if you don't do what's required you'll be jobless regardless of whose fault it is.
I consider this line of thought to be more coddling. Where I grew up, you either learned or you didn't. It wasn't the teacher's job to try and get you to learn, it was his job to teach. You don't want to learn? Go clean gutters for the rest of your life. This whole "it's my job to reach these kids" shit is just feeding the egotism of self-centered high school students. It's not the teacher's job to raise a respectful, intellectually curious person, that's the parent's job. There's too many kids out there who actually WANT to learn for teachers to waste time on those who don't. Simple as that. Look at it this way: if you continuously focus your attention on some dumbass kid who constantly acts out in class and/or doesn't pay attention, all you're doing is giving him the idea that if he acts like a douche and doesn't work for anything people will pay more attention to him and try to help him. Life does not work that way.
I teach statistics and research design to undergraduates in exchange for tuition remission. I wouldn't claim that my talent lies in my knowledge of statistics, or even math. It doesn't. I'm above average in statistics and mathematics and I have a few peers who clearly are more knowledgeable then myself (such as my friend who teaches Statistics II to the undergraduates). I make simple errors. Sometimes I transpose numbers, sometimes my calculations are slightly off, sometimes I'm simply wrong. It's rare, but it happens. My strength as a teacher comes from my clinical skills as a therapist. I have been gifted with the ability to make a connection and relate with a vast majority of people. Most people can, but a lot of people simply don't care to. Teaching is about establishing a connection with the students and making the material palatable and being able to communicate information and knowledge in a way in which the students can relate to. If I can find a way to relate to the student, typically, I can teach them anything. That being said, I teach college students and my teaching style is probably dramatically different from a high school teacher. I typically address my students as Sir or Ma'am until I can remember their names. I tell them up front that attendance is mandatory, but they are adults and they are quite capable of making their own decisions and accepting the consequences for those decisions. I don't teach to the test, I teach to cultivate knowledge and understanding. I've told them that grades are pointless, and I'd much rather have them be able to leave my class with at least a rudimentary understanding of the statistics that are spewed at them on a near daily basis. If they leave my class with an "A" then that's a bonus. This particular semester, I've only had one student turn out to be an insufferable prick. He's constantly fishing and trying to get me to teach to the test/quizzes, rather then the theoretical concepts. I refuse to. I can respect that he only wants to get a grade, that's his decision. I don't condone it, so I don't encourage him by entertaining his conversation. I would be set for life if I could figure out how to teach cognitive flexibility. How to apply the abstract knowledge the students pick up in a variety of different situations. Cognitive Flexibility and Logic are two areas students tend to really struggle in, and I'm not quite sure how to improve those areas.
I agree with your line of thinking more, but ultimately, all these conversations about "reaching kids" as opposed to "teaching those that want to" are purely theoretical. Practically, what is the difference? I think a teacher should just give good lectures, answer student questions, and make him or herself available for a certain period of time after class/school. That's about it; I don't know what else they can reasonably be expected to do. Interesting. I have worked as a TA, and if I did that, I would either get massive complaints to the regular professor, or have my students request to change sections. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them, either; I have always considered recitation to be about solving specific problems (and almost all of my TAs treated it this way), as opposed to the general concepts, which are taken care of by the textbook or professor's lectures.
Folks that are in my section just for a simple grade are in the wrong section. Transfer to a different day or a different section, if that's the case. I've been told by several students that they transferred into my section (Friday mornings at 8AM, no less) because of the way I relate the material to them. I taught the same way last semester and received 3 compliments from tenured/tenure track professors and numerous compliments from the students themselves. I'm hoping this is remembered in April when I have to go through the reapplication process. I would love to teach Abnormal Psychology, but I realize there aren't many people who can do a passable job of teaching statistics well. Teaching statistics is my main bread and butter at this point. That's not to say we don't cover the practical approach of solving problems, but I also try to show them a variety of ways to solve problems.
I'm not saying your approach is necessarily wrong; just not what most people expect out of recitation sections (like that "insufferable prick"), which usually is going over problem sets, and specific types of problems covered on future exams. Normally, the professor's lecture itself is about covering the more theoretical concepts. If it's working out for you, then great.
I was about to write the same thing, if I showed up to a recitation and they weren't helping with specific problems, I'd be pissed.
To be honest, I would never show up for Dyson's rec session at all. I would simply notice that it's at 8 am, and immediately request to have it changed.
Exept the teachers typically see the students more throughout the day and week than the parents do. Teaching isn't a 9-5 job where you clock in, clock out. You can't simply show up, give your lecture and say, "well, you either learn this information or you don't" -- well, you can, but you'll be a shitty teacher. I understand you may be view teaching in the way you do, and could say, "ahh fuck it, you don't wanna learn, go clean gutters." In that case, I pray you're not a teacher. What's the old African proverb -- "it takes a village to raise a child" -- in my view, teachers are an integral part of that village.
This is just coddling the teachers. You're not paid to stand up and lecture, you're paid to teach. If your students want to learn, great, makes your job easier. But if they don't come into the class eager to learn, tough shit, it's your job to get the knowledge into their heads. The fact that Little Johnny's parents give him too much sugar and video games isn't an excuse for failing at your job. Suck it up, you're a grown adult.
It's called teaching, not parenting. Parents are meant to be parents, and teachers are meant to be teachers. If the parent is a good parent, it will show in the student. If he's not, it's not the teacher's obligation to fix the parent's mistakes. And just because you want to focus on educating students who actually want to learn doesn't make you a shitty teacher. What you're calling teaching I call coddling, so I guess we just have different viewpoints. I will tell you this, though. I highly doubt you're going to fix some dumbass kid's entire life outlook by coddling him for 10 hours a week for one year out of his life. And that old African proverb is bullshit. All it takes is one strong, caring parent to raise a child, everyone else should mind their own business and raise their own children. Shit if I had a kid and some teacher tried to do my job I'd tell him to fuck off and stick to the algebra.
Holy fuck. Are people actually arguing that a teacher who cares enough about his students to WANT to try to reach them all is somehow in the wrong? Look, are there some kids who have shitty parents and don't give a flying fuck about school? Of course, the world is full of those kinds of kids and parents. However, if there are actually people out there who think that teachers should give up on those students, I don't know what to tell you, except that giving shit to a good teacher who is working hard to relate to all of his students is incredibly fucking stupid. Yes, it is impossible to reach every one of those students, and to think otherwise is naive, but wouldn't you rather have a teacher who at least TRIED to reach and connect with those students than a teacher who didn't give a shit about them and just let them fail? And what good does it do to just let them fail? They fail out of school or drop out, and then what? They get a shitty job flipping burgers or working at Walmart for the rest of their lives, if they're the good ones. The shitty ones live off the system, or live with their parents, or turn to illegal means to make money (stealing, drugs, etc). Saying that you're 'coddling' these kids and not preparing them for the real world and jobs is stupid. If you don't, as Selective Misogyny put it, 'coddle' them, they may not even get THROUGH high school, let alone get any kind of a decent job later in life. The biggest problem is that a lot of these kids get labeled as being worthless and shitty before their first day of school even begins. Think about it. If you spent five years of school being told that you're lazy and worthless by all of your teachers, why would you even bother trying after that? They know that they're viewed as worthless, and as such, they accept and play into that label. Why is it a bad thing for a teacher to try to teach a kid that they're not worthless? Fuck, if nothing else, at least if a teacher treats them with some respect and treats them like they're not a worthless lazy fuckwit, the kid might behave better in that teacher's class.
No, if your parents suck, you figure out a way not to suck (there's plenty of examples of that). If you instead choose to be a douche and act out in class, then yeah, fuck you. There's only so many students one teacher can pay attention to, and if he's wasting his time with douchey mcdoucherson then he isn't putting in as much effort with the kids who actually want to learn. Someone needs to flip my burgers, too. And maybe after a couple years of flipping burgers douchey will figure out what an idiot he was and get his life back on track as best he can. There's examples of that, too. As for those who end up turning to a life of crime, then those people were fucked up before the teacher got there and they're going to be fucked up after the teacher is gone, and there's nothing the teacher can do in 10 hours a week for one year to change that. There's really no reason to continue on with this debate. It's just different viewpoints, and I can argue mine to death and you could argue yours. Let's just nip it in the bud and have a great long weekend.
Hear that, Timmy? After you're done watching Power Rangers, finish your milk, and then straighten your life out, or it's ditch digging for you, you pre-pubescent douche!
I think people are arguing apples and oranges to a certain degree here. In terms of the slacker, lazy, Daddy's-paying-for-this university student then yes, teachers and TAs shouldn't waste their time trying to reach them. At some point you have to be responsible for yourself and your actions. But to suggest that little seven and eight year old kids shouldn't be 'coddled' by a teacher, particularly if those kids are from a disadvantaged background (low socioeconomic placement, single parents, behaviour disorders, etc.) is ludicrous. There's a difference between children and young adults, and the same arguments don't apply.