How hard is teaching.

fair enough!!

 

Of course not, but the more training you have the better shot you have at succeeding in a classroom.

 

Sorry but I don't agree. I'm into eight decades on this Earth and I can still read/write cursive. Obviously that department of education head thought it was important. Should we abandon multiplication table memorization because most of us today can use a calculator? Do you think a person with excellent penmanship qualities will think/approach things differently? If we don't need cursive then why do we need any classroom study that people are not going to use? So much today and in the past, including critical documents and research, etc. is based in cursive writing...if we can't read cursive won't this create a void in the future?

 

None of this is about the teachers...it's about how incapable we are in clearly and concisely defining the goals and mission of a public education system. We is you and me and all others in the US. I think there are two reasons why we refuse to do this; First, we're too stupid and self-serving, and second, we won't like the outcome...

 

You know what? I'm not from NC, so can't properly address your concern. Ask someone else.

 

As Mike Tyson once said, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". For a raw teacher recruit, that punch in the mouth happens about five minutes into their fastidiously designed lesson plan, and by the time the bell rings, they will feel like they've just gone a round with iron Mike.

As a teacher's aide, you didn't have to establish a pecking order with you at the top, nor did you have to watch that lesson plan fly out the window, but the clock on the wall is telling you that you've got at least 30 minutes to burn.

Everybody goes into the job with visions of being the next Mr. Keating having the students rip out pages in their textbooks while standing on their desks, but the truth is that he was a horrible teacher. If you can do half as good as Mr. Hand when Jeff Spicoli wanders into your classroom five minutes late, you'll do just fine.

[video=youtube;bMtdrKIdDgE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMtdrKIdDgE[/video]

 

The conversation has NOTHING to do with NC?? I could have said CA...it makes no difference!

 

You know what? I'm sick and tired of trying to defend my profession to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with too much time on their hands! I thought we were having a nice conversation, but now I'm getting the sense that you were just waiting for an opportunity to pigeonhole me into saying something unprofessional. North Carolina! Christ! Why should I have to answer for some BS in NC, or California, or anywhere except MY OWN CLASS!? I told you my story, and now you want me to answer for every other story "you heard" about from some school in West Bumble(*)(*)(*)(*)!?

 

What would the outcome be?

 

The fundamental mistake here is to want to match the public school performance to the private school performance because private schools are also a failure when it comes to proficiency.

To best exemplify this is Trump's pick to head the federal Department of Education, Betsy DeVos. DeVos is a right-wing multi-millionaire "do-gooder" without any education background that's been meddling in Michigan's K-12 education systems as an advocate for private "for-profit" charter schools as an alternative to public schools. In Detroit 44% of the students attend charter schools and arguably they're doing better than the public schools but how well are they doing really?

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-education-secretary-public-schools-3eb20d886c49#.s5cueg2nu

The question is obvious. Is the 17 percent proficiency rating in math and a forty-three percent proficiency rating in reading achieved in the charter schools acceptable?

The key to this issue is something that Betsy DeVos knew absolutely nothing about during the Senate confirmation hearings. When asked she didn't know the difference between "growth" and "proficiency" in education.

Our education systems have traditionally been based upon the "Growth" model that is is primarily a measure of school performance (i.e. how is this school doing at moving students forward at or above an appropriate rate each year?).

Replacing the traditional "Growth" model is the "Proficiency" model that is primarily a measure of student performance (i.e., how well are students performing at meeting appropriate performance targets?).

The Detroit public and private charter schools are both meeting the metrics of "growth" that's been the traditional model for education but both are failing when it comes to the "proficiency" model that ensures that the students are actually learning what they need to learn.

An example of the difference can be shown when we address the grading systems where traditionally grading of A, B, C, D, and F or the 4.0 to 0.0 grading established by "grading on the curve" reflects "growth" measurement of the school and not the "proficiency" of the of the student. Passing a class with a "D" and moving on to the next class does not indicate the student is proficient in the subject and even a "B" when grading on the curve doesn't indicate the student is proficient in the subject.

What we've found is a high resistance to the "proficiency" model by non-educators that have objected to federal initiatives such as "No Child Left Behind" and "Common Core" testing for proficiency and underlying this, in my opinion, are two factors. First is that the non-educator doesn't understand the difference between "growth" and "proficiency" and they believe the "grade" reflects "proficiency" when it really reflects
growth" because it's a measurement of advancement and not knowledge. Next is the costs of education based upon the "proficiency" model because they tend to be higher because more knowledge must be transferred to the student for them to be proficient (i.e. it's less expensive to present knowledge than it is to transfer knowledge).

This takes me back to "class size" because the larger the class the greater the variation in the "starting proficiency" of the members of a group and the less able the teacher is in being able to address that difference in the "starting proficiency" when the class begins. As the class progresses it's also much more difficult for the teacher to increase the proficiency uniformly across the larger group so greater diversification occurs by the end of the instruction as opposed to a more uniform advancement in proficiency by all members of the group in a smaller class. The large class size is amplifying the problem at every advancement of the students because the next teacher starts with an even greater "starting proficiency" that increases by the end of the class as opposed to being pulled together that can occur with the much smaller class size.

We need a complete overhaul of our education systems to replace the traditional "growth" model with the "proficiency" model because education, regardless of whether it's public or private, based upon the traditional "growth" model is failing. Private schools won't typically make this change because their advantage for "conservatives" like Betsy DeVos that doesn't understand the difference between "growth" and "proficiency" is in "cost" that they would lose by spending more money to educate the children. It costs the government less money to provide poor education through private schools so Republicans support that approach.

As long as the debate is based upon the cost of poor education then the Republicans win the debate. When it comes to quality education then the government is going to have to step up and pay for it through the public school systems. The teachers are qualified and that's not the issue. It's a management issue related to changing the criteria for the delivery and advancement of the students based upon "proficiency" that measures the knowledge of the student as opposed to grading systems that measure the advancement of the student ("growth") in the school.

 

Mostly correct because we can define the goals that are "proficiency" because that's where we're obviously failing. We're also too stupid and self-serving which means we won't make the necessary changes required because of the associated costs so we'll spend money to achieve the goals so we won't like the outcome.

To make the change the "costs" must be initially ignored (an impossibility for Republican thinking) with the focus instead being the changes necessary for the results. Only when the results are achieved can the costs be reduced.

 

Your diatribe and inability to have a reasonable conversation without feeling personally attacked or attacking others is not very teacher-like...

- - - Updated - - -

You cannot know the outcome until you can clearly and concisely define the mission and goals of public education...

 

I knew this was all just a trick of yours. As if I'm at work right now.

You know... I tried--nicely--to end the conversation, but you flipped out! You just had to have an answer, so fine:

Cursive . In twenty years, when pens are obsolete, and no offense but... you're dead, everybody will be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing, "Why did you stupid teachers waste two decades teaching kids to write in cursive!?"

Get a life, and quit trolling me.

 

The (*)(*)(*)(*)-holes are the obvious problem but the fact is that overall our schools are failing and much of this can be related to changes in society that the educational institutions have not adapted to over time.

If we set a goal and don't change what we're doing to achieve the goal then we fail to meet the goal (i.e. more kids will fail).
When establishing a goal there must be a systematic plan on how to achieve the goal. It's obvious that what we're doing isn't working and it won't meet that goal. It's not that those that study educational methodology don't know how to change what we're doing because they teach it in college. It's call competency based learning where 100% of the students achieve competency.

As you mentioned I was in manufacturing and for several years was an instructor teaching highly technical subjects. We couldn't allow failure and 100% of the people had to be competent in their job performance and we achieved that by using competency based course and class development and instructional delivery. It is based upon "proficiency" as opposed to "growth" and it probably costs more but it works.

If you fell in the 30th to 60th percentile group you're probably correct because the instruction was focused on this group. I actually believe you're smarter than that and probably fell in the 60th and above percentile group which means you would have learned more if the instruction was focused on that group. Anyone in the below 30th percentile was just blown past and they never had any real chance to advance because the teaching was always at least one step past where they were at. Remember that this is about accumulation of knowledge by the students.

Imagine this. A series of classes covering the development and evolution of rock and roll during the 20th Century with each class covering a decade and lasts 10 weeks.

We're somewhere in that series and we have a group of 100 students with varying degrees of accumulated knowledge broken down by year. 10% know music evolution and development through 1960 with Elvis, the Big Bopper, and Richie Valens and some have the knowledge all the way up to 1969 and emergence of Led Zeppelin that evolved from the earlier Yardbirds. The teacher is going to "teach to the median" that would start with 1965 that could include the founding of the Jefferson Airplane (that didn't achieve success until about 1967).

The top 10% of the class is spinning it's wheels because it already knows all of this. The class, based upon the median, would teach 1965 to 1974 but these students should have been to 1979 by the end of ten weeks. They lost out on half of what they could have learned and have less knowledge than they should have at the end of the class.

The bottom 10% doesn't even know about the Beatles and would never learn about the Beatles and would have missed surf music all together. They wouldn't have a clue about the founding of the Yardbirds that evolved into Led Zeppelin in 1969. There's no way they could ever understand the evolution of Rock and Roll because the time period between 1961 and 1965 was critical to that understanding.

Instead let's break the class up into 10 different groups of just 10 students and teach one year at a time and the class duration will be just one week. With the small class size and everyone starting at the same place it's easy to move through one year in a week and everyone will move forward together.

That's basically what "competency based learning" is about. Moving a small group forward together in a methodical step-by-step process.

BTW this also makes a "political" statement. Above describes a "progressive" approach to education but we're stuck with a "conservative" approach where people are unwilling to change so that progress can be made in our K-12 education and that's why our schools are failing our children. Being "progressive" results in progress while being "conservative" does not.

It's like Einstein said, "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

People tend to be conservative fearing change and that prevents progress. Sometimes we need to get out of our comfort zone and make the changes necessary. Establish the goal and then don't be afraid to make the changes necessary to achieve the goal. One problem we have is that there are politicians that "won't spend the necessary money" but remember I came from manufacturing and spending the money necessary to achieve the goal was mandatory. If it costs twice as much to have properly educate children then you spend twice as much money. You don't try to cut the costs by 10% just to "cut taxes and be re-elected" because the result is a 100% failure to reach the goal. The goal has to take priority.

Actually they do.

The problem is that education is controlled by the state and local government and the federal government has very little authority to change the local schools. It doesn't help with the head of the Department has no knowledge of education other than being a meddling "do-gooder" conservative millionaire that's more interested in political party agenda than in actually improving our public schools.

 

We live in the information age when new ideas and technology change on a daily basis. We have to prioritize. We need to prepare students for the future--one where, like it or not, handwriting and penmanship will be a quirky, yet obsolete, curiosity, and we're supposed to listen to these aged baby-boomers whine about teaching cursive! Ain't nobody got time for that! We go to be practical! We need to streamline the curriculum, not focus on obsolete methods of communication.

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you people do at home? Do you not do anything with your kids? Parents want to dump everything on teachers! Christ... you want your kid to know how to write in cursive? Well, teach the kid yourself how to write in cursive! You're the ones droning on and on about how easy it is.

But noooooo... parents don't want to spend time doing that. They'd rather just binge watch Lost on Hulu .

 

This is all alarming! Because it seems that what ever will be done to make things better won't come from the school system. So maybe...just maybe we need to think...I said think...about other ways to make things happen. And maybe once we do that it can be found that school can be implemented better. But it shouldn't be the goal. The goal is to get our kids what they really need so they can positively integrate into adulthood.

 

While using the entire quotation the key to your statement is in the first two sentences.

"We live in the information age when new ideas and technology change on a daily basis. We have to prioritize."

Focusing on this, and not the fact that we're teaching things that are fundamentally obsolete, there are some important considerations.

Every teacher and instructor I've know has repeated these same words because they're absolutely true. Not only do we need to prioritize but we also have to employ those new ideas and technology and we know how to do that as well. It isn't the teachers, or the teachers unions, or even the board of education that's really the hang-up. It's the politicians with the purse-strings that isn't open to spending the money necessary to employ the new ideas and technology necessary.

As I've mentioned while I was in industry providing instruction for people from basic shop knowledge to highly technical engineering and computer applications at Boeing and a zero failure rate was required. Everyone had to learn what was being presented for them to learn. We required 100% competency at the end of the course. That is not an impossible standard of proficiency but it isn't achieved by accident and requires exceptional course development as well as course delivery.

Boeing sent me to college to learn course development using integrated on-line computer learning and instructor delivered course material. This is a highly specialized field all on it's own because the materials must match different learning styles and be presented in such a manner that every student will acquire the necessary knowledge. There are some people very good at course development and they should be dedicated to this. They can be judged based upon the results because the course is delivered as developed so the student either all learn the material or they don't and even one failure is unacceptable when 100% proficiency is the requirement. The metrics for course development are a minimum of 40-hours of development for every hour of instruction but in developing actual courses I've found that 80-hours is more reasonable for me (perhaps I was just slow). In any case it take a lot of time to actually plan a class effectively where it will achieve 100% proficiency. We had the technology to use and that's the really wonderful part about a commitment to a 100% proficiency.

I was also trained in course delivery. Once again this is highly specialized because the teacher/instructor needs to deliver the course material as designed while also being highly aware of the course material is being assimilated by every individual student. You can literally see it in their eyes but you have to be looking to see it. Large classes prevent this direct interaction because the teacher/instructor can only track a limited number of people. Studies have shown that less than eight students isn't cost effective and more than 12 student results in a breakdown of the instructor/teacher-student interaction required for 100% proficiency. Our typical average of about 22 students in public schools is pure stupidity if we seek proficiency.

Each job, course development and course delivery, is unique and specialized and they job roles need to be separated for both to be fulfilled optimally.

We need to fund the necessary hours for both online learning and delivered instructional material. We can't "cut costs" just to save money because we will fail if we do.

We need to slash classroom size for the delivered portion but we can use the online computer learning systems to reduce the time each student is in the classroom with a teacher.

These are fundamental changes that require "budget" to accomplish. Top educators all recommend this change in our schools if proficiency is the goal but the up front costs can be daunting to a politician and taxpayers, skeptical of change that believe it's just "throwing more money at the problem without improving results like in the past, have to be sold on the costs.

An interesting anecdotal story from my mother's use. In the late 1920's she was attending a one-room country school with 21 students in all grades. Seems overwhelming based upon the total number of students but the teacher didn't teach all of them at once. He would take three or so of the same approximate age and teach to them while the other students were reading or doing other things. Some older students helped the younger students re-enforcing their own learning by having to share it with the younger student. In spite of the large overall class size this was highly effective and very limited teacher-student learning experience and the children learned more with just a couple hours a day with the teacher than they would have learned as a group of 21 with the same teacher trying to teach all of them everything they needed to know.

It's the close personal highly intensive learning experience with extremely well developed class materials that competency based learning is built upon to ensure 100% proficiency. So how do teacher and educators that know the technology and the secret to success convince the taxpayers and politicians to adopt (and pay for) what has proven to work by numerous studies and practical experiences?

 

What should our children be expected to have learned/been taught after they have completed 12 years of schooling?

 

Yes...it is humanly possible to define goals, however, the American people and their government 'refuse' to define goals. Why...because we're too stupid and self-serving and we won't like the outcome. As a society today, and government, and it seems the same on every complex issue, we're simply not equipped to fine tune these critical programs. A big part of the problem is the idiocy of politics, the forcing of religious ideals, and hence not being able to find consensus to seek improvement. I don't personally see politics and religion removing themselves from education so basically we're screwed!

 

If you are representative of teachers today no wonder we're having problems.

I read every post and respond to those which I am interested...therefore it cannot be 'trolling'.

I don't have any tricks...I just write my comments.

I have a wonderful life!

 

If you haven't been there pointless in discussing

 

The world has ancient writings, for example those who are religious have their bible, and these artifacts and documents help network together the old and the new...and we're talking 100's and 1000's of years. Once you have all information in the ether, and BTW data which cannot be accessed with newer technology, critical information about the human race ceases to exist...there will be no record!

It's an arrogant assumption to believe that all humans have access to the same modern technology. Since they do not once you stop the written word, you immediately isolate these people.

Once again, your diatribe above, emotional and biased diatribe, is not comensurate with a teacher? It's hard to imagine how your school kids are treated if and when they digress some and ask you for some dialogue? Swearing? Stereotyping parents watching Lost?

 

He's right about cursive though. It's an obsolete skill, like a slide rule. Not to say it doesn't work, but it's just not necessary anymore. Besides my signature, I haven't written in cursive in years. It's just not needed.