where did all the old teachers go?

[sbw]

recently, I've conducted an informal poll amongst adults (age 40-60). apparently, we didn't used to have young teachers in the government schools (at least not very many). now, there's lots of them--I know at least 5 such people who teach or have taught in high school.

I'm curious as to whether my impression is accurate, and if so then what factors--financial, political, etc.--have resulted in the change, and whether or not this contributes to the ongoing failure of the school system.

also, a related tangent: I'm expecting a larger scandal than the one generated by that hottie deb lefave when a young male teacher (she was 25) gets caught with a 14-year-old student of either gender.

Scott

[dunee]

Why would there be probs with younger teachers? They'll be able to teach longer than someone who started at 40, no? Many older teachers started young too, so what we are seeing is the aging of the teacher population and subsequent turnover. Also, demand was less in past decades; with rising population and retiring teachers there's even more open spots for new hires.

Sure the new ones might be younger and less experienced, but I don't think most of the problems that could arise with that demographic change would be related to being a greenhorn in teaching- if they become/are bad teachers, well, take a look at who taught them... seen that way, then yes, the cycle perpetuates.

[earwax]

I don't know that your impression is accurate. I'm 48 and looking back, I had a lot of young teachers... as in under 30.

They did seem old at the time.

[outcast]

Teacher turn over rates are high b/c most teachers who enter the field are idealistic and only last about 3 years according to educational research. Older teachers in states such as Texas have recently been forced to retire in order to get the same retirement deal they signed up with 10-20 years prior. I don't know about other states. Teachers often leave the field because teaching is such hard work and it encompasses more than just 40 hours a week. The pay is often perceived (in public school) as being too little and not proportionate to the work that is required to do the job well.

Not to sound braggadocious, but to state my credentials in this area, I have a Masters degree in education and am currently working on a Ph D in education as well, so this is an area of expertise for me. There is a definite problem with the American education system. While it is normal to have some turnover in this field as in others, it is noted that teacher turn over in the US is high compared to other countries. I believe that this is due in part to the perception of teachers in America. Teaching is not viewed as an important field here anymore by parents or the general populace. Cliches such as "those who cannot do, teach" are a reflection of our nation's attitude.

I have had many different types of jobs and teaching is by far the hardest I have ever had. It is a job that requires a great deal of intrinsic motivation and it is easy to get discouraged as a teacher in America. I think that there are many political, social and financial issues that cause this and that it is a degenerative issue that will not be easily solved.

[ApeTheDog]

Younger teachers don't get the same respect older ones do. They can also be tricked, whereas an old rat will have seen every single trick in the book and can halt all plans before they even began to ripe.

As for where they all went - I don't know. Probably to the beach, which is where I would be if I was retired.

[outcast]

Younger teachers don't get the same respect older ones do. They can also be tricked, whereas an old rat will have seen every single trick in the book and can halt all plans before they even began to ripe.

As for where they all went - I don't know. Probably to the beach, which is where I would be if I was retired.


Amen, and amen. It does take a few years to lose the stupidity that comes with being a new teacher. And on any given day of the school year, I will always prefer the beach to where I am in the classroom. :banana:

[dunee]

Younger teachers don't get the same respect older ones do. They can also be tricked, whereas an old rat will have seen every single trick in the book and can halt all plans before they even began to ripe.

ah, you're right. Several years ago, my mom tried teaching art to see if that was a good career change. She's not young, but she'd never taught before. After a year she quit. Part of the problem might have been that she started in a high school. Those places are especially brutal for new teachers...

[outcast]

ah, you're right. Several years ago, my mom tried teaching art to see if that was a good career change. She's not young, but she'd never taught before. After a year she quit. Part of the problem might have been that she started in a high school. Those places are especially brutal for new teachers...


So true. I started out teaching 4th grade and didn't progress to secondary insanity until I had been a teacher for 4 years or so. Now though, I really love teaching high schoolers and wouldn't go back to elementary for anything. I do watch with disguised amusement each year when a new high school teacher comes in and they are a first year teacher. Only the tough ones return. At the same time I get openly amused when I have a new high school student who thinks I am as stupid as a first year teacher. Sometimes they don't return either. ;)

[Nemesis]

Where did all the old teachers go?
6 feet under.

[outcast]

6 feet under.

:lol:

[Kai]

Amen, and amen. It does take a few years to lose the stupidity that comes with being a new teacher. And on any given day of the school year, I will always prefer the beach to where I am in the classroom. :banana:

Is that a happy banana? :cry:

You're a teacher? Why couldn't I have gotten you in high school? :banghead:

What subject?

-Kai

[outcast]

Is that a happy banana? :cry:

You're a teacher? Why couldn't I have gotten you in high school? :banghead:

What subject?

-Kai

I teach math and history. And yes, I am just as much fun in the classroom as I am on here.

PS: I forgot that you were allergic to the dancing banana :( Sorry my dear.

[Kai]

I teach math and history. And yes, I am just as much fun in the classroom as I am on here.

PS: I forgot that you were allergic to the dancing banana :( Sorry my dear.

I like your new avatar. Now, *there* is a sexy plotter.

No doubt. You do sound like a lot of fun.

Nah, I'm not allergic to the happy banana. I rather like it. I'm still waiting for Snowflake's to start working.

-Kai

[outcast]

I like your new avatar. Now, *there* is a sexy plotter.

No doubt. You do sound like a lot of fun.

Nah, I'm not allergic to the happy banana. I rather like it. I'm still waiting for Snowflake's to start working.

-Kai

Why thank you very much. I like marcia clarke and she is another one I have been told that I look like. I don't think I am as pretty as she, but I see similarities in the eyes and lips.

My kids say I am fun. I tell them it is due to the chemical imbalance that comes from teaching. Seriously though, I love it alot b/c it is fulfilling most of the time.

I wish snowflake's banana would work too. Now that sounded a little risque didn't it? :D

[Kai]

Why thank you very much. I like marcia clarke and she is another one I have been told that I look like. I don't think I am as pretty as she, but I see similarities in the eyes and lips.

Not as pretty? :mad:

Read
My
Avatar


I tell them it is due to the chemical imbalance that comes from teaching.

It's not fun without a little imbalance in the mix.


Seriously though, I love it alot b/c it is fulfilling most of the time.

Could that be part of the reason that most teachers don't last? They don't find it fulfilling? If so, I wonder what could be done about that, besides the obvious pay raise.


I wish snowflake's banana would work too. Now that sounded a little risque didn't it? :D

That's part of the FUN. :devil:

-Kai

[outcast]

Not as pretty? :mad:

Read
My
Avatar
-Kai

:blush: Sorry. Guess that was just the remnant of my former low self esteem talking. How's this: I'm just as pretty as she is if not prettier!



It's not fun without a little imbalance in the mix.
-Kai

Absolutely. The imbalance is what keeps me delusional for most of my day ;)



Could that be part of the reason that most teachers don't last? They don't find it fulfilling? If so, I wonder what could be done about that, besides the obvious pay raise.

-Kai

I think so. I always tell new teachers not to bother with the job if it is just a job to them. You have to want to impact lives. Otherwise you will only last a little while. As for how to remedy that, that is often the subject of educational research in most teacher ed programs. It seems we haven't found a viable solution yet, but I think that is b/c there is more than one reason it is not fulfilling to people. It's hard to isolate that many variables. The pay really isn't that bad compared to what I've made teaching in private school, but I do think it could be a little more.



That's part of the FUN. :devil:

-Kai

Indeed it is my dear, indeed it is :thumbup:

[Ferrus]

I have had many different types of jobs and teaching is by far the hardest I have ever had. It is a job that requires a great deal of intrinsic motivation and it is easy to get discouraged as a teacher in America. I think that there are many political, social and financial issues that cause this and that it is a degenerative issue that will not be easily solved.
There is a similar issue here in the UK, although it very much depends on the type of school you teach at. At a public (private) school it isn't so bad, as the kids are generally fairly pacific, given their parents have paid large sums of money to send them there. However at an inner city comprehensive it can from all accounts be hell: verbal abuse, chair throwing/breaking up fights, impossibility of teaching a class that just want to leave school and get on the dole. It has generally been noted that respect of authority has made the lives of public officials like the police, politicians and civil servants harder, but they go into their job expecting flak, teachers don't because of their idealism. Many I believe are NTs, INTPs, INTJs and even ENTP/Js general fail miserably unless they learn quickly, children do not tolerate eccentricity. You need nerves of steel to do that, plus they have enormous paper work loads (that the government has progressively increased over the last 30 years), government inspections and pay that is pretty dismal. It's almost impossible to get science/maths teachers because they have so many better options in well funded, easier and in many cases more rewarding research jobs, or lecturing at universities.

I myself went to a grammar school - most parts of the country scrapped selective education in the 70's but Kent was highly conservative - and there seemed a divide with the teachers. There were those who "had it", instant respect from the students and were able to pull of lessons with great panache, and the students would speak of them in glowing terms. Many of them were highly eccentric individuals, immensely intelligent and just engaging in the right way. Then there were those (many of whom ended up having nervous brakdowns) who simply couldn't control a class or gain the respect of the students, and they were crucified - no amount of teaching courses could save them.

Yet, despite these problems, one has to eventually ask whether despite these very extreme difficulties within the teaching profession, are they worth tolerating in order to avoid rotting in a cubicle for the rest of your life.

[outcast]

There is a similar issue here in the UK, although it very much depends on the type of school you teach at. At a public (private) school it isn't so bad, as the kids are generally fairly pacific, given their parents have paid large sums of money to send them there. However at an inner city comprehensive it can from all accounts be hell: verbal abuse, chair throwing/breaking up fights, impossibility of teaching a class that just want to leave school and get on the dole. It has generally been noted that respect of authority has made the lives of public officials like the police, politicians and civil servants harder, but they go into their job expecting flak, teachers don't because of their idealism. Many I believe are NTs, INTPs, INTJs and even ENTP/Js general fail miserably unless they learn quickly, children do not tolerate eccentricity. You need nerves of steel to do that, plus they have enormous paper work loads (that the government has progressively increased over the last 30 years), government inspections and pay that is pretty dismal. It's almost impossible to get science/maths teachers because they have so many better options in well funded, easier and in many cases more rewarding research jobs, or lecturing at universities.

I myself went to a grammar school - most parts of the country scrapped selective education in the 70's but Kent was highly conservative - and there seemed a divide with the teachers. There were those who "had it", instant respect from the students and were able to pull of lessons with great panache, and the students would speak of them in glowing terms. Many of them were highly eccentric individuals, immensely intelligent and just engaging in the right way. Then there were those (many of whom ended up having nervous brakdowns) who simply couldn't control a class or gain the respect of the students, and they were crucified - no amount of teaching courses could save them.

Yet, despite these problems, one has to eventually ask whether despite these very extreme difficulties within the teaching profession, are they worth tolerating in order to avoid rotting in a cubicle for the rest of your life.


I agree with you that some teachers have it and some don't. I fit the profile of the former teacher type you described and while I am well liked by my students, I can also motivate them to work very hard to make something of their lives. It took time to build this type of relationship with them though. One of the most important things I was told as a first year teacher was to treat my kids with respect. I did and it worked. If teachers are willing to remember that students are people who deserve respect and take the time to inquire about them as people, they get good results. That is the common thread in all the movies and stories about good teachers. To me that is the difference between someone who is gifted to teach and someone who isn't. And as you said, that cannot be learned in a teacher ed program anywhere. As to whether or not it is worth the misery is up to the individual. To me it is worth it and when it gets to the point where it isn't anymore, I will change professions.

[Ferrus]

I can also motivate them to work very hard to make something of their lives.
I think though one of the problems at present is that people take education for granted as it is a free resource and public funding of education is unchallenged, in other words I think people take education for granted. I should imagine teaching in a school in Africa where ancedent to it's construction there was no public education would be a wonderful expeirence for teachers.

[outcast]

I think though one of the problems at present is that people take education for granted as it is a free resource and public funding of education is unchallenged, in other words I think people take education for granted. I should imagine teaching in a school in Africa where ancedent to it's construction there was no public education would be a wonderful expeirence for teachers.


I agree with you there. I have often wondered if one of the things the US did wrong was to offer "free" education. I do see many cases with my students where education is scoffed at b/c it is free to them. One of my research interests is comparative education. In particular I would like to know more about student and teacher perceptions in countries where education is not given away compared to perceptions here in the US.

[Snowflake]

Are you serious?

Free education is quite necessary. The problem is, people are forced into it, whether they want it or not.

But without free education, where would this country be today? Part of economic growth is education. This country would not be as developed as it is today without the education system it has. I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch, but it's better than having to pay for education.

Besides that, if education is not free, someone has to pay. And in the case of university and college education in america, you either pay, or get a scholarship. Why should those who can't afford upper level education get a free ride, whereas everyone else has to pay?

I look at countries like the UK and Germany and I just know they have better educations systems, even from the few experiences I have had from people who live in these countries and have experienced them firsthand.

I think the difference between an education system that requires you to pay and one that doesn't is that the students who have to pay are more motivated, because the cost is usually high, and as a result, they have a lot of pressure to perform. Private universities also tend to be better funded, and can also afford more creative methods of teaching. Hence, you'll probably see that in non-free education systems, the students have a better experience and a higher opinion.

[outcast]

Are you serious?

Free education is quite necessary. The problem is, people are forced into it, whether they want it or not.



You are right there. We combine the notion of free (tax funded) education with compulsory schooling b/c the schools cannot get money for students who are not bodily there. The two notions in this country are inseparable and will be until a new system is formulated. Really the idea of a free education here is a misnomer. It is free in the sense that it is a collective effort on behalf of all adult tax paying Americans rather than being funded by the student or his/her parents.




But without free education, where would this country be today? Part of economic growth is education. This country would not be as developed as it is today without the education system it has. I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch, but it's better than having to pay for education.



Unfortunately, this country doesn't have a lot to brag about in this area. I would posit that this country would not be as developed as it is today w/o the education system that it had. Not only is the US education system considered not perfect, but in most cases we are barely literate when compared to other world powers. There is strong evidence that shows we will continue to decline by comparison. We have a strong higher ed program, yes but our primary and secondary programs really stink by comparison. Sadly, we do not know whether or not this is due to our funding system or not, but that is a real consideration in educational research. It is also a hot topic b/c it seems to touch all that is sacred about being in America.



I look at countries like the UK and Germany and I just know they have better educations systems, even from the few experiences I have had from people who live in these countries and have experienced them firsthand.

I think the difference between an education system that requires you to pay and one that doesn't is that the students who have to pay are more motivated, because the cost is usually high, and as a result, they have a lot of pressure to perform. Private universities also tend to be better funded, and can also afford more creative methods of teaching. Hence, you'll probably see that in non-free education systems, the students have a better experience and a higher opinion.


Yes, the UK and Germany do have better primary and secondary systems compared to ours. But I believe in UK, students have to pass a test to get to go to what is the equivalent of high school here in the US. Concerning private schooling here in America that is a tricky subject as well. Private universities are often funded by their religious supporting body. Private schools like the one I teach at have only the supporting church and tuition to fund them. I make about 1/2 what a public school teacher makes b/c the money doesn't really stretch that far and the students are not always more motivated to learn there. Which is why I will be teaching in public school next year.

[Ferrus]

Yes, the UK and Germany do have better primary and secondary systems compared to ours. But I believe in UK, students have to pass a test to get to go to what is the equivalent of high school here in the US.
No, education is compulsory untill 16 and fully state funded for all. Some counties use a "11 plus", in which those who pass go to a Grammar school, those who fail go to a "Secondary Modern". Most places have simply replaced this system with comprehensives.

And whilst the good schools in the UK are probably better than US schools, many of the comprehensives, particulary in the big cities are incredibly dire. Teachers pay packages have though in recent years, in must be said, improved considerably. ?20K for a graduate is not bad, and that is not forgetting the "golden handshakes" that are offered too (often in the form of annulling University debt) especially in subjects that find it hard to attract teachers.

Another good side of the teaching profession that is sometimes stated is that at the better schools you are likely to find interesting and intellectual colleagues in a way you often don't elsewhere. Also at the best schools there is a "spirit" to the place and the social make up that can make them pleasant places to work.

Of course trying to get a post at a good school is hard, and usually is done through contacts more often than not gained during your years at elite schools and universities.

[outcast]

No, education is compulsory untill 16 and fully state funded for all. Some counties use a "11 plus", in which those who pass go to a Grammar school, those who fail go to a "Secondary Modern". Most places have simply replaced this system with comprehensives.


Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't like to be a fount of misinformation.



And whilst the good schools in the UK are probably better than US schools, many of the comprehensives, particulary in the big cities are incredibly dire. Teachers pay packages have though in recent years, in must be said, improved considerably. ?20K for a graduate is not bad, and that is not forgetting the "golden handshakes" that are offered too (often in the form of annulling University debt) especially in subjects that find it hard to attract teachers.


In the US pay varies by the state you live in to account for cost of living. Each state sets a minimum standard that a school district has to pay teachers per their education and experience. In Texas, school districts are not allowed to pay less than $24,000 for a new teacher w/no experience and just a bachelor's degree. If you have a master's degree the pay goes up 2-3 thousand and a similar scale applies to those with terminal degrees. Considering that this is not much more than what people are paid to work in a local factory, that is where the gripe comes from. But educational funding is a complex problem here in the states. Some districts will forgive student loans incurred for teaching certification and education, but those are usually the inner-city districts or rural districts and it only applies to disciplines that are short on teachers.

[Eileen]

Free education is quite necessary. The problem is, people are forced into it, whether they want it or not.


Well... Let me begin by saying that I am supportive of the concept of public schooling, though I think it's a horrible failure in the US. But public school is most definitely NOT FREE. It's supported by taxes.

The problem, in my opinion (and this echoes someone else's statement earlier), is that students and parents aren't as conscious that they are paying for what they're getting in public schools. Until this year, I was really opposed to the idea of voucher systems (because they often take money from already poor schools), but I am starting to believe that giving students and parents choice in schools is a good thing for a number of reasons. One, competition does increase the quality of a product (like school), and two, it makes the consumers (parents and students) feel more invested in education.

Forcing people to go to school is also a problem, in my opinion, though I don't know what the solution for that is, exactly. Perhaps lowering the drop-out age (edited), or giving really good alternatives to traditional schooling, like apprenticeships or something... I do think that giving students choice of where they attend school will make a difference in whether they want to be there, though.



Private universities also tend to be better funded, and can also afford more creative methods of teaching. Hence, you'll probably see that in non-free education systems, the students have a better experience and a higher opinion.

Heh. I think I know what you're saying, but the way you phrase it is strange. Creative methods of teaching do not, in and of themselves, cost much more than non-creative methods of teaching. However, having things like laptops for every child and such certainly does cost money.

[Ferrus]

Creative methods of teaching do not, in and of themselves, cost much more than non-creative methods of teaching.
Maybe I am in the minority here, being an INTP et al., but such a phrase makes my blood boil. "Creative teaching"? Why should education be "fun"? In the end its aim should be to install erudite individuals with strong work ethics. It should be hard work, challenging so that it is rewarding and develops you into a better person. Lessons that tried to be "fun" merely made me listless due to their utter pointlessness. You can get far more out of the good traditional method of teaching, the lecture, especially when it is accompanied by interjections that show the students are being draw into the intense nature of the study.

Is this impossible, you ask? No, I think most are capable of doing this, even if they do struggle. The issue at stake is that parents do not instill the value of education (especially those who are at the low end of the socio-economic scale) so they resist all efforts to edify them. Rather than use facile "new educational techniques" I feel what would be far more effective would be a delibrate attempt to change the cultural attitudes of failing students, through methods that may by some be deemed harsh and prehaps even cruel.

[Snowflake]

But public school is most definitely NOT FREE. It's supported by taxes.Yes, education has a cost, of course. But it is free in the sense that you don't pay for it like you pay for groceries at the grocery store.
Forcing people to go to school is also a problem, in my opinion, though I don't know what the solution for that is,In my experience, the way they attempt to do this is to motivate the students to work. Show the students what they'll be doing, and what they can do. The problem is that this causes a false picture of what the world is really like. At my school, they have two introduction to engineering courses which are designed to give the students an understanding about engineering, and to motivate them for the possibilities that lie ahead. But Engineering is NOT an easy field that just anyone can jump into and be successful at.

I think people need to be self motivated to do the work. Life is whatever you make of it, and education is merely one part of it.

I know there are certainly a lot of people who go with the flow, because it's what society seems to want them to do. But I also know a lot of people who wouldn't if the pressure to perform wasn't put on them. It may not be ideal, and I don't have much respect for suck ups, but it seems to work to a point.

I think what needs to be done is the reliance on education needs to be dropped, and alternatives need to be made available that the average family will respect. College is one path. Other paths like the military are another, and certainly completely viable alternatives. But making these non-college based paths viable means they need to be respected and comprised of jobs that earn more than minimum wage.

[Snowflake]

In the end its aim should be to install erudite individuals with strong work ethics. It should be hard work, challenging so that it is rewarding and develops you into a better person.The point of education is not to work, the point of education is to learn. If you want to instil work ethics into people, then make them do an internship and send them to job training.
Lessons that tried to be "fun" merely made me listless due to their utter pointlessness.You've never had a good teacher then, who knew how to teach and be fun at the same time, because fun != boring.

[Eileen]

Maybe I am in the minority here, being an INTP et al., but such a phrase makes my blood boil. "Creative teaching"? Why should education be "fun"? In the end its aim should be to install erudite individuals with strong work ethics. It should be hard work, challenging so that it is rewarding and develops you into a better person. Lessons that tried to be "fun" merely made me listless due to their utter pointlessness. You can get far more out of the good traditional method of teaching, the lecture, especially when it is accompanied by interjections that show the students are being draw into the intense nature of the study.

Is this impossible, you ask? No, I think most are capable of doing this, even if they do struggle. The issue at stake is that parents do not instill the value of education (especially those who are at the low end of the socio-economic scale) so they resist all efforts to edify them. Rather than use facile "new educational techniques" I feel what would be far more effective would be a delibrate attempt to change the cultural attitudes of failing students, through methods that may by some be deemed harsh and prehaps even cruel.


Well, I share your opinion that education should not have to be fun. I often tell my students that it's not my job to entertain them, that I attended a teacher academy, not a clown academy. However, I do think there's something to be said for getting students actively engaged in the process of education. Perhaps this is just indoctrination, but I do really believe that students are less likely to learn without active engagement--an opportunity to discuss, manipulate, practice, create, etc. The traditional method of teaching--particularly the lecture--does not help students climb Bloom's taxonomy to reach higher thinking levels; they're more likely to stay at the bottom, with knowledge and comprehension and MAYBE application (but doubtful). Students have to be taught to apply, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and part of that learning requires practice. Lecture doesn't give students that practice--it generally only gives information.

So, while I too roll my eyes at "creative teaching" because it conjures up visions of pointless bookmark-making projects that do nothing to advance thinking skills, I do think that creative teaching (in the sense of risk-taking, inventive, innovative attempts to advance students' thinking skills) is very, very necessary.

[Ferrus]

The point of education is not to work, the point of education is to learn. If you want to instil work ethics into people, then make them do an internship and send them to job training.
True to an extent. However the school still can engender a work ethic in other ways outside the learning, in a way they no longer do. Even simple things like being harder on late homework etc. help forge people into being more productive.

[Eileen]

True to an extent. However the school still can engender a work ethic in other ways outside the learning, in a way they no longer do. Even simple things like being harder on late homework etc. help forge people into being more productive.

I agree that school should have a goal of instilling work ethic, though it shouldn't be the primary goal.

As a teacher, I find this particular aspect frustrating because I am not supported in efforts to do so, because my school system says that I HAVE TO accept late work (work that just wasn't turned in on time, not work that students missed due to absence), and moreover, I cannot penalize them such that they would make lower than a 70 on said late work (70 is one point above failing). I think that's a whole lot of bullshit.

[Snowflake]

True to an extent. However the school still can engender a work ethic in other ways outside the learning, in a way they no longer do. Even simple things like being harder on late homework etc. help forge people into being more productive.In my experience, deadlines aren't there to make students more productive, they are there because the teacher/professor wants the work from the students at a set time.

In every class I've ever had, deadline wasn't used. It was always a due date. The homework is "due on" February 17. Most due dates are deadlines by virtue of the class policy the teacher sets.

Deadlines don't make a student more productive, they merely set a point at which the work is no longer accepted by the teacher, or accepted without penalty. What makes a student productive is their motivation to learn but more importantly do to the work that comes with learning.

Though I agree that most people can't learn without practice, and practice requires work. But the amount of work necessary to learn is usually as minimal as the student needs. For example, in all of my classes at university this semester, the homework assignments were usually never more than 10 problems per week. Very minimal. They are there to help you understand the material, not to make you more productive. If you need more practice to understand the material, you always have the option of doing extra work on your own.

[Ferrus]

So, while I too roll my eyes at "creative teaching" because it conjures up visions of pointless bookmark-making projects that do nothing to advance thinking skills, I do think that creative teaching (in the sense of risk-taking, inventive, innovative attempts to advance students' thinking skills) is very, very necessary.
I suppose you are right. I just find many of these "modern educational techniques" laughable. If interaction means the development of the students mind and crtical reasoning, yes I accept that.

Prehaps I am biased here because of my way of thinking, I have never needed to be told how to analyse and sythesis information, I do it naturally, therefore to me the teacher was there primarily as the exponent of knowledge, I didn't really need the rest.

[cafe]

It's unrealistic for most teachers not to try to make a class fun in some sense for their students.

The penalties that were once in place for students when they misbehaved or simply did not complete work, etc are no longer in place. Parents are not as strict as they once were generally speaking. Also, even the poor children have some form of electronic entertainment device at home that they spend hours each day using.

A teacher that makes no effort to make time in his or her classroom of some interest or fun in some way is creating a very difficult situation for themselves. I'm not saying it should be this way, it simply is.

[Ferrus]

The penalties that were once in place for students when they misbehaved or simply did not complete work
Maybe this is the issue then. Corporeal punishment has been something of a taboo subject for the last 20-30 years, yet in my opinion it can have a salutory effect when it comes to discipline and character building.

[Eileen]

It's unrealistic for most teachers not to try to make a class fun in some sense for their students.


I agree (for the reasons you mentioned). I am not the most fun teacher (I'm not super energetic, and I am unwilling to spend very much time in my class playing games or doing anything that could be construed as frivolous), but I know from experience that I enjoy my job more when I make a strong effort to get the students engaged and active in the education process.

Another thing: Harry Wong (yeah, that's his name), a very popular and acclaimed educator/education guru says that the best teachers are the ones who aren't exhausted when they go home because they're not the ones doing the most work in the classroom--the students are. I tend to agree. My students seem to learn the most when I set them to do some kind of inquisitive, active task that I can monitor, as opposed to when I give notes on the overhead or lecture for any amount of time.

[Snowflake]

My students seem to learn the most when I set them to do some kind of inquisitive, active task that I can monitor, as opposed to when I give notes on the overhead or lecture for any amount of time.I always equated this method of teaching to laziness on the part of the teacher. In fact, I wouldn't call that teaching at all. More like babysitting.

[Ferrus]

I always equated this method of teaching to laziness on the part of the teacher. In fact, I wouldn't call that teaching at all. More like babysitting.
Yes same, I remember an indolent teacher who would prehaps occasionally teach a few things but would half the time keep the class occupied with board games and "computer lessons", that is a set of multiple choice questions online. Needless to say I don't think she went home to exhausted.

[Eileen]

I always equated this method of teaching to laziness on the part of the teacher. In fact, I wouldn't call that teaching at all. More like babysitting.


Well, these methods are well-grounded in research and my students learn best when I give these kinds of assignments.

Quite frankly, those assignments take a whole lot more planning work on my part than giving notes (because I create models and spend time figuring out how to show the students how to do the assignments, instead of just creating outlines for notes, which takes very little time, comparitively), but they cut down on my classroom management headaches because (ideally, anyway) every student is involved in a task that is educational and interesting. Students should be the ones doing most of the work in any classroom. I have a degree in English. I've already done the work; it's the students' turns. Otherwise, we're back to the passive learning problem. Active engagement yields better learning.

I doubt that students will learn the information they learn in those sorts of activities on their own, unless they are inquisitive people who take initiative to research independently, so if the assignment I give them helps them acquire information (along with the skills they're practicing), then I do believe it's teaching, not baby sitting.

[Eileen]

Yes same, I remember an indolent teacher who would prehaps occasionally teach a few things but would half the time keep the class occupied with board games and "computer lessons", that is a set of multiple choice questions online. Needless to say I don't think she went home to exhausted.

Okay, well, there are definitely lazy teachers who don't go home exhausted (one particular teacher at my workplace comes to mind--she gives one worksheet for students to do every day. Ridiculous!) and those assignments are bad assignments. However, giving students engaging, active tasks that are designed to advance thinking skills and content knowledge, where the STUDENT is the center of the activity rather than the teacher (as opposed to lecture) is not lazy teaching, and an added bonus for me is that it's also not draining.

[outcast]

I always equated this method of teaching to laziness on the part of the teacher. In fact, I wouldn't call that teaching at all. More like babysitting.


Actually, in teacher ed and in real life, for this method to effectively teach something, it takes a lot of preparation that has to be done off the clock. When I do an learning activity or a cooperative learning project, I have to think of all the ways students will try to be lazy and work around it. This is a difficult challenge. Also, a good teacher will constantly monitor the activity and groups in order to answer questions and make sure no one is sloughing off. Yes, teachers can use this to be lazy, but in education programs we are taught that is not the intent.

[Eileen]

Actually, in teacher ed and in real life, for this method to effectively teach something, it takes a lot of preparation that has to be done off the clock. When I do an learning activity or a cooperative learning project, I have to think of all the ways students will try to be lazy and work around it. This is a difficult challenge. Also, a good teacher will constantly monitor the activity and groups in order to answer questions and make sure no one is sloughing off. Yes, teachers can use this to be lazy, but in education programs we are taught that is not the intent.

hear, hear!

[cafe]

I think it depends on what you see as the role of the teacher. Do they impart knowledge or do they teach students how to learn? I think there is a place for both. Primarily, though, I think "teaching a man to fish" is the better way. Getting the student engaged and actively involved is a good way to do this.

I can see it seeming very pointless to an INTP, though, and Don shared that sentiment when that kind of method was employed in his uni classes. Most people are not the natural info sponges that INTPs are, unfortunately. Most people do not love learning for learning's sake, so effort must be made to motivate them to learn.

[outcast]

I think it depends on what you see as the role of the teacher. Do they impart knowledge or do they teach students how to learn? I think there is a place for both. Primarily, though, I think "teaching a man to fish" is the better way. Getting the student engaged and actively involved is a good way to do this.




I agree that a good teacher does both. A great deal of research shows that students retain information for much longer periods of time when they are actively engaged. A good classroom has to have a careful balance of what American educators call progressive methods as well as essentialist methods. If you go to the extreme on either end, the students gain nothing from the experience. Also, if the methods are poorly used, students will not learn. Teaching is about equipping students to handle life. This requires both discipline and fun to be integrated into the learning properly.

[Zephyrus055]

Why are children generally so unmotivated to learn, you ask? I don't think the answer lies inside the education system as much as it does in the prevailing American culture, which revolves around material consumption and unrestrained sensual pleasure. I find it hard to understand how someone who has adopted this kind of culture would find intellectual pursuits immediately useful for meeting the standards of such a culture. And to add to the problem, the spoiling of parents to their children only reinforces their hedonistic behavior. Why seek enlightenment when you are meeting cultural standards at the present moment?

Although, granted, I too meet our hedonistic standards, but in an odd way. While I find physical pleasures comparatively boring to mental ones, I do nothing but indulge myself in books, forums and computer games. Hmm... that might be why I am not doing well in school. Wow! Writing this post caused me to examine my life, and I think I will begin changing it now.

[Snowflake]

Learning isn't about changing who you are, sorry. It is about learning. Once more, we seem to miss the point?

[Ferrus]

Learning isn't about changing who you are, sorry. It is about learning. Once more, we seem to miss the point?
To be fair, you should learn more than information in school.

[zhang_bob]

Once more, we seem to miss the point?I thought it was about meeting women.

[outcast]

I thought it was about meeting women.

Funny, some of my students think that too. ;0

[Justin05]

If only the classroom was set up in a circular fashion. It would be engaging. The teacher wouldn't have distance and the students would not be able to goof off or lose interest. Circles are the answer or squares or rectangles. But make sure they aren't boxing anyone out cuz then it's just as bad. Oh well, i guess looking at the back of ppl's heads for another 2 semesters isn't so bad.

[Zephyrus055]

I thought it was about meeting women.
:rofl:
I do that too.

[Snowflake]

To be fair, you should learn more than information in school.Learning about life comes FROM learning this information. Specifically making the point to learn about life just reaks of fish to me. Kind of like an elaborate brainwashing process to get people to think a certain way. To go on a tangent, people shouldn't have to be specifically taught to think. They should learn it on their own. This prevents groupthink, for instance, because without various thinking styles, the end result would always be the same. Similarly, if education is about the mass spreading of "life's values" to the students, there wouldn't be much room for creativity, except among those who dare to question what they learn. And that falls right in line with learning to think. If you can think, you'll do just fine in life, because you'll have the capability of making your OWN decisions, not by doing what someone else tells you to do.

[outcast]

If only the classroom was set up in a circular fashion. It would be engaging. The teacher wouldn't have distance and the students would not be able to goof off or lose interest. Circles are the answer or squares or rectangles. But make sure they aren't boxing anyone out cuz then it's just as bad. Oh well, i guess looking at the back of ppl's heads for another 2 semesters isn't so bad.


Actually, I sometimes do arrange my room in this fashion and it is a good change. The whole row and column thing for classroom arrangement goes back to the Industrial Revolution. Classrooms were set up that way to prepare students to work in factories and mills and such and to promote a conformist attitude.

[zhang_bob]

Circles are the answer or squares or rectangles. But make sure they aren't boxing anyone out cuz then it's just as bad. Oh well, i guess looking at the back of ppl's heads for another 2 semesters isn't so bad.

In physics we had a half Circle with one table in the middle. When the teacher was not looking, everyone used to throw bits of paper into the centre table.