This. Have you ever seen an elementary / middle school student who actually WANTED to go to school? People are lazy. Children are no exception. If you give a thousand kids a decision between a hard teacher and a teacher who just reads the newspaper and falls asleep, 999 of them are going to pick the latter. The job of an elementary school teacher is basically to cram that knowledge down their throats whatever way he can. His job is focused around unwilling students. If his kids completely hate him but learn what they have to learn, then he's a success. Otherwise, the kid hits high school and is already screwed. Personally, I think that high school is the cutoff. If you aren't interested in learning at that point, then that's your decision.
It seems like a lot of you seem to think there is a certain way a good teacher does their job, and the fuss is over what that way is. Let's try to keep in mind that people are different. Some kids will flower under some teaching, others under different teaching styles, and some not at all. This, of course, doesn't mean that there aren't bad teachers. Think back to your group of friends in middle school/high school/college. I'd bet that with some overlap, you had different favorite teachers. Some of my favorite teachers were despised by most students while other teachers who were student favorites, I found to be worthless. You get the idea...just something to keep in mind during the discussion.
Something else to keep in mind is that teachers are professionals whose specialty is teaching. Saying that teachers should focus all of their time on the good students while abandoning stragglers to their fate is like saying that a doctor should spend all of his time with healthy people while letting sick people go unattended to. See, if there are kids who want to learn, they can be given references and resources to explore to their heart's content. A bit of initiative and instruction can enable them to learn things far beyond the curriculum, which is great for them. But why should a teacher focus energy on getting certain people ahead while leaving others behind? They have training and university degrees in the subject. The students who are struggling or in need of motivations are the ones who, by definition, demand more of their attention. That's not to say it should be to the detriment of the smart kids, or that there's no space for spending time with high-fliers. But as in any job, if you cherry-pick your projects and workload to make life as easy for you as possible, then you're not doing your job properly. I also have to wonder - since when are unmotivated kids a new phenomenon? I think kids today are on the whole more motivated than they've been in the past. A few decades ago, not finishing high school was a legitimate option for a good chunk of the population, and there were living wages to be had from merely having a high school diploma. High school completion rates are probably as high as they've ever been, as is uptake into colleges. On average, at any rate.
Back in the USSR, that was their reasoning, too. Everyone who wanted to drop out after junior high and didn't want to attend high school (which only went up to 10th grade) was free to do so. That way, the troublemakers wouldn't distract more serious students from actually learning. It worked very well. A much better analogy would be a doctor who wastes his time on patients who refuse to get any treatment, while ignoring the willing patients who want to get better. Anyways, once again, this is a purely theoretical discussion; what practical changes would a teacher that cares about every student over one who supposedly "only" teaches the students who are interested?
The problem is the way that we use education as a qualification for jobs. Back when kids were just as likely to drop out of high school to work on the farm as they were to graduate, high school didn't really mean as much when it came to getting a job or getting promoted. If you were working in a restaurant and demonstrated ability, they made you a manager regardless of how much ability you had. These days, hell no. You could be perfect for the job, and they would tell you "Get your GED." The idea that a test on high school English and math would make you a better restaurant manager is completely laughable, but somehow that piece of paper is magical. I think this is due to the touchy-feely education theorists who believe that Everyone Should Get A Diploma. When that happens, it's a requirement to get a diploma, because the first thing an employer is going to say when you walk in is "You must be a complete mouthbreather not to have one." Nowadays they're doing the same thing for college as well, which is something that greatly disturbs me.
I'd like to see some statistical comparison between % of high school graduates who can't read or comprehend basic math vs say 30 years ago. Graduation rates are higher because there are big time incentives for schools districts to pump out graduates like any other factory. Aside from that, I agree that kids are probably more motivated these days, just not for subjects taught in school. Kids may be less physically active, but I guess it can't hurt that they're far more technologically adept than previous generations. Note though that "more technologically adept" doesn't mean "smarter", but that's an entirely different discussion. A major problem is continuing to perpetuate the myth that a high school/college degree somehow guarantees you a job and, if you simply have a good attendance record, you'll move up in the corporate/government/educational/whatever world like clockwork. Professionals and children (well, the literate ones) alike should all read Seth Godin's Linchpin or a similar book that may restore a little passion into them.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.newsweek.com/2001/04/22/are-we-getting-smarter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.newsweek.com/2001/04/22/are- ... arter.html</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1152321.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninter ... 152321.ece</a> Spoiler Tampa mom makes son wear sign announcing 1.22 GPA 8 hours ago TAMPA, Fla. — A Tampa mother is defending her decision to stick her teenage son on a street corner with a sign that says, among other things, "GPA 1.22 ... honk if I need education." Ronda Holder says she and the boy's father have tried everything to get their 15-year-old to shape up academically. They've offered help, asked to see homework, grounded, lectured him and confiscated his cell phone. James Mond III's indifference at a school meeting last week was the final straw. The next day, Holder made the sign and made her son wear it for nearly four hours. Experts criticized the move as humiliating and ineffective, and someone reported Holder to the Department of Children and Families. Holder insists she's fighting for her child's education. This is definitely one way to try and kick start your child into learning. Wondering if this teacher would approve.
I approve. Make your kid learn however he can. A parent's job is to make his kid succeed. If I had a kid and didn't do everything in my power to make him learn, I would never be able to live with myself if he turned out to be a failure later on in life. If my kid hates my guts but still succeeds, then I have done my job as a parent.
Right fucking on. I'd rather have a parent that did something like this than a parent that just flat out didn't care.
1. Since when does humiliation = child abuse? The kid is 15 and I guarantee has embarrassed its parents publicly on multiple occasions. Some douchenozzle wants to report them to DCF, but would they dare offer to tutor him? Rhetorical, Farley. 2. Without getting too close to the political realm, moral busybodies and the "it takes a village" crowd are a serious fucking problem. When you start to believe it's everyone's responsibility whether our children is learning, in reality no one's responsible.
Sarcasm? The problem with this kid is that clearly his parents never taught him to respect authority when he was very, very young. If I was fifteen and got called into a meeting with my parents (specifically my father) and the school administration, you can bet your ass my response wouldn't be indifference. You can't teach a kid that old to suddenly start caring about authority and showing respect to himself and others. Something went wrong when he was young.
If only there were more educators like this woman. In the video, she has a quote about having to have a staff who "don't know 'no'" ... If that doesn't sum it up, I'm sorry.