A teacher needs to teach outside of the subject material

I don't know what he was going for nor do I over much care. What he is handing out is really bad and dangerous advice. This isn't 1950 anymore or even the late seventies when I taught. Some kids come to skill half nuts and lacking even the mist basic skills in human mutual coexistence and they come that way because and or dad, if not both, not unexpectedly, are even more anti social than the kid.

 

Because it's an impossible ask, serves no purpose, and will compromise the breadth and quality of what HAS to be taught.

Kids need to learn the basics, and they need to learn them in a formulaic way. Education quality was eroded when we started making allowances for every little idiosyncracy and whim. Teachers don't need to 'relate' to the children under their auspices. They need to know how to be good authority figures.

 

And that part of the equation therefore doesn't need spelling out. Nor do 99.9% of people immediately think of that when they see people have kids. Weirdos and creeps might, but they're not who we should be modelling anything on.

 

Bingo.

 

Graduation mark is the only measure of intelligence when it comes to academics. If you're a 'creative genius' but finish high school with a score of 60%, it doesn't say much for your problem solving skills.

 

Oh we had literature, but it wasn't discussed for it's art. And yes, writing was 50% of the equation. We were constantly given writing assignments (and grammar tests). We never once sat around discussing the 'deeper meaning' of some work. We were translating, not philosophising. It's one thing to say "the author used those particular terms to invoke a sense of forboding", and quite another to say "what is the author trying to tell us about the state of mankind, in creating such a negative context?". The first is literacy, the second is sociology. Sociology does not belong in literacy classes.

Memorisation is incredibly important. We're not supercomputers .. we can't 'build' quick answers out of disparate collected knowledge which may or may not cover all the components necessary.

Agree that the English tests today are merely interpretive. Absolutely useless, in many ways. Any testing should be much more technical.

 

That's very much a subjective experience. Others would say not knowing math is very limiting, and that literature isn't particularly useful.

No one needs to know what John Steinbeck thought about, but we all need to know how to balance a budget.

Also, I would go so far as to suggest that those who think they've gained insight into the human condition via 'the arts', are very often the least likely to have figured it out.

 

As a math professor, that isn't teaching outside the subject. Teaching the applications of mathematics IS teaching mathematics.

This is not what is meant when people complain about teachers teaching about things outside what they're supposed to be teaching.

 

No they don't, they need to learn them in the best way for them.

 

Two of mine were adopted by me, I find it puzzling, to use a polite term, that when seeing a picture of a family you think about the sex that created the children and how much the parents enjoyed it and actually believe young children would think the same thing.

 

Not to mention a whole lot of other skills you need to function in the real world.

 

I'm thinking the above post must be taking projection to its terrifying limit because that is just not happening and never has with the kids in my classes. They see the pics and tell me what a cute family I have and that's it.

You MUST be miscommunicating what you mean because this can't be real.

 

What planet do you live on, fella? There are almost 9 billion of us on this one. Every little allowance you make to fete some kids' parent-enabled idiosyncracy, is time lost from their academics. You rob that child, AND the other kids who now have to make do with less academics overall.

It's our job as parents to ensure our kids are resilient enough to learn things the 'old fashioned' way. All that takes is focus and self-discipline .. something First World kids are increasingly lacking. Hence the attrocious academic outcomes in America.

 

This is the kind of thing that backs up the accusations.

From a purely clinical point of view .. to even engage privately in thoughts about childrens 'appreciation' of sex, is hugely problematic. Part of healthy adulting is to have autonomic 'teflon coating' when it comes to kids and anything relating to sex. If we didn't have this hard-wiring, mammals like us would have died out before we created the first tribes.

 

A vocal minority are afraid you're exposing their children to new thinking on social issues.

They know all about how to teach school.

 

I taught American history. Students learned graphing and some algebra to help them with economics. They learned to research using computers, including spreadsheets and word processors.

 

The main body of her OP is meandering at best. The last paragraph says ... for all intents and purposes ... only teachers need answer. Heck she herself is not a credentialed teacher so she sorta wrote herself out of replying to her own OP. Looking at it another way my wife knows what a lesson plan is and she's never been a teacher.

Saw your response after this one and to an extent its aways been done. Art uses a great deal of math at times. There's a lot of linkage between math and science. All that means is that she's stating the obvious when it comes to teaching.

And then there's her ideas on family pictures which is highly problematic to say the least.

 

Depends on the social issue doesn't it can you focus in a little more, which social issues?

They know all about how to raise their children.

 

If depends upon what you teach. My computer programming courses didn't deal with gender, sexual orientation, etc. although my history courses did.

Homosexuality is as accepted as heterosexuality. There's nothing to push.

You should read the law so you know what's in it.

http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22

 

We have more than a few folks around here who don't grasp the obvious.

 

So, you don't like literature courses. The curriculum is set by the state or school district.

 

NEW thinking? How is Progressivism new? It's the same old schtick which has been rehashed since the late 1960's, and is now Establishment.

NEW would be introducing ideas which are an alternative to the Establishment stuff.

 

Those two sentences don't appear to have anything in common.

 

Why? What difference does it make? Little kids could care less.

 

Do you want good teachers or not? Telling how to do their job is a bit presumptuous.

Dicking them around based on lies is something you can do, but a lot of the good ones quit. Your kids are the ones who suffer. Rich people aren't angry and taking it out on teachers.