And computers are ways to achieve the above. I learned much more about critical thinking when learning how to program than I did in most classes.
Probably true. I never got into programming; I did take computer science classes in HS. Best class I ever took though was consumer business math.
I have significant experience here, having been/being married to educators, at the primary, secondary and post-secondary level. Most teachers do what they do because they love what they do. Most teachers also belong to a union and have developed the mentality that goes along with same - if you want us to do (x) you have to pay us. Teacher's unions also have a unique position in they can, to some degree, force their employer - the local school board - to heed their demands, as school board members are elected officials.
Agree. Always better to have good discussion than sling mud, although, sometimes unavoidable when some here are just here to sling mud. Looking forward to reading more of your posts, even if we "lean" in different directions.
Its easy to learn to use a computer. A computer is just a means of accessing information, its a tool. It does not take much effort to learn to use MS Office, surf the internet, email, etc. If you want to learn a programming language, then you must have some type of computer. But a computer is not required to learn mathematics, physics, chemistry, English, reading, grammar, history. A computer provides additional approaches, but it is not necessary. The huge majority of people don't need actual computer skills, most people use the computer for email and word processing and surfing the internet.
Very true. Or even younger teachers with college debt still living at home with their parents and working to save money, etc. Many reasons and I have seen a good number of them.
I think we need to be more clear about administrators. Which level are we talking about? District Superintendents do make much more than teachers ($200,000 to $600,000). Principals don't make that much, but usually make close to twice the average salary of the teachers. That's generalized because the pay can vary considerably from place to place. Long ago, the standard for becoming a principal was largely based on being the best teacher in the building. Today, it's usually based on having (or working towards) a doctoral. Classroom experience is not always a requirement. When I interviewed for my first teaching job, there were two people in the district office, the superintendent and a secretary. The asst. super was out and the guy in charge of maintenance was help his crew fix a problem. Sometime later, I went to work in a city school, and the office was a four-story labyrinth. The sheer number of people working in that building was staggering. But I do agree that the bureaucracy and politics of today is way too often just wasteful and unproductive data gathering.
Not really. Most teachers work above and beyond because it's what the job requires, not what they are getting paid for. My wife just spent the second Sunday afternoon in a row getting ready for the next week. She went to a school dance (optional) Friday night. She will go to a basketball game tonight (again, optional) tonight. In about two weeks she's going to take up money at a basketball game, again, no extra money for it.
My point is that most of the above school level bureaucracy is not contributing to educational achievement, but probably hinders it.
Not sure how those optional things play into it, if they are optional...? Yes, teachers often bring work home, extending their work day past the hours school is in session - like most people in a professional position, 45-50 hours/week isn't unusual. Also, teachers usually have 9 month contracts whereas administrators have 12 month contracts.
Unfortunately, results speak for themselves. Teachers should be graded and paid based on results. Also, we should do away with grade K thru 12. Clumping students together as if all of them take a year to progress to the next level, doesn't make sense. Using technology, we should be able to allow students to learn at their own pace. I put 2 of my kids in a charter school and both graduated early.
Based on student achievement, take the highest performing teachers and turn their methods into online-type courses so that more students have access. Lower performing teachers will have access as well, allowing them to learn from the best.
Results only speak for themselves when the results are relevant and valid. I'm assuming that you're assuming that testing is a valid indicator of teaching and learning. I said before that it's not. The criteria for judging success is questionable and unreliable. The broad acceptance of such criteria has much to do with corporatized education, which builds its business model around multiple choice testing. Remember that Einstein was considered an idiot in school and later struggled to learn the math he needed to prove his theories. Intelligence is not a singularity. Uniformity is not learning. We first need to specifically define what the purpose of education is, and what students need to learn. And again, we tend to think of those in terms of broad generalizations, if at all. I would argue for at least one semester of critical thinking skills such as analytical and logical thinking, but I would be in a minority. Most assume we don't need to learn that. You deserve to be proud of your children's performance. Charter schools can be a good thing, especially if they are not tethered to federal and state curricular policies. Such policies were originally intended as minimum standards, but schools today struggle to meet the minimum. Rather than stepping back and asking what we're doing wrong, we simply throw out more crap and blame, blame, blame. It's kind of like a doctor prescribing herbs and vitamins for a patient with cancer. Rather than facing up to the fact that such a treatment doesn't work, the doctor blames the pill makers and prescribes more pills.
Sounds great. In fact, many schools are using online classes like that. The big problem is that such courses tend to be unchallenging, and impersonal. You might as well hand kids a book and tell them to read it and follow the instructions. It gets boring quickly. In fact, they're often used as a last resort for students who can't or won't perform in a regular classroom setting. Students have to be highly motivated to stay with them. Unfortunately, many wait until the due dates to get started, and then Google answers.
Currently, they are forced to spend a certain amount of time in class. Motivation is a huge factor and my son knew that when he completed his daily assignments, he could go to the skate park.
I suggest recreational drug use to ease the stress but hey, who in the hell don't have it from working?
I helped the teachers out by sending them pre-taught kids. I taught them what they needed to know before they ever got in class..The eldest is 34 his teachers didn't seem to appreciate them knowing what they were teaching, the youngest is 16 and his teachers enjoy the fact that he teaches them..
And you have refused to answer the question again. It's obvious why you are doing so. Why should people waste time on posters who refuse to engage in reasonable debate?
