How hard is teaching.

Some teachers can do it as well. Basically, you lump all teachers together as being failures, which is a falsehood. There are quite a few good teachers out there. The problem is that research has shown that it takes a student to have two years of good teachers to get over one year of a bad teacher.

 

Then homeschool them. It is impossible for a teacher to teach without training their students. If a student doesn't know the classroom procedures and the work habits expected in a classroom, it is impossible to educate them.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I know there is at least one born teacher out there--I'm married to her.

 

Has anybody stopped to think that teachers from the last 25 years have come from the same pool of bad kids, and underachievers? If students are so bad what do we think the recent graduates are? Bad adults with the same mental capital. The cycle just repeats. The blind leading the blind.

 

The Ten States That Pay Teachers The Most (And Why It Doesn’t Matter)

 

Teaching is actually hard, but indoctrinating people to be progressive idiots isn't, thankfully the process isn't permanent, but it is scarring...

 

Not every teacher born to teach is going to teach. Have you ever been in an inner-city school? It's a freaking hell. Who in the right mind would want to teach under those conditions? Well, someone who said, "I'll get my degree in The Family Life of Transsexual Midgets in 17th Century France, and if I can't find a job, then I'll teach."

Just because the State says someone is a teacher after going through four years of college, doesn't make it so.

Why aren't you a doctor or CEO? Because you don't have what it takes.

Each person has innate skills and abilities. Some are inclined toward teaching and others toward plumbing.

 

How does this qualify as a thread?

Is there an opinion in this OP?

Can you create a relevant base for discussion with an unsupported question?

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Ignorant kids from ignorant households do not make it to the teaching profession.

 

A lot on this thread differ from what you think. But that's why we're bringing up the issue. But I doubt that there isn't a correlation.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like they need more training on relationship building.

 

That's the job. Sorry, but school isnt something that kids want to go to. It's something they have to do, just like taking out the garbage is something that people have to do.

It happens.

If you think things are fine, then there ya go. It's working.

 

Good responses lol.

 

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but it sounds like it.

The job is the job. Teachers are given a group of students that need to learn the subject matter, or they flunk out. Teachers have a similar flunking out system when it comes to how many of those students they have managed to teach. It's not 100%, but it's not 0% either.

Listening to teachers blaming parents, the community, miley cyrus, etc. etc. you would think it's 0%, but it's not.

That's something teachers need to understand. They do have a responsibility to their students and a duty to do their job.

 

I was being serious. I think you are correct. They have to do a job.

 

Then we don't need to concentrate on the system. We need to find the ones who can. If this is true.

 

What, are you cray cray? We must spend millions on the least among us at the expense of those who could do brilliant with less.

 

Teaching is not hard. I once saw an 18 year old PVT teach two Captains how to use an AT4. It was a random drill weekend in the guard with tracers, and they O3s had no idea lol

 

I agree completely, but there is no standard set of criteria that can be applied to teacher performance reviews, especially under the current school models.

Equally problematic is that, based on my experience, teaching in a suburban school is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT JOB than teaching in a low performing inner city school.

Generally, the teachers and facilities are all similar. Teacher preparation requirements do not change with the school. Often the low performing schools in a school district are better funded because many of them receive additional funding through Title 1 programs. (Yes, there is a strong correlation between neighborhoods with many people on public assistance, and schools with a majority of students underperform on standardized tests.

Teachers have no control over whether their students were prepared for their course, how wide a range of ability they have in their class, etc. In general, the difference between "high performing schools" and "low performing schools" is student culture and how much they cooperate and participate.

The problem with holding teachers accountable for student results is that the students are 100% in control of the behaviors that determine those results. Low performing schools are usually not low performing because the teachers suck, but rather because too many of the students suck (don't show up, or don't do the work, disrupt class, etc.)

Consider that a teacher can achieve great success (student mastery of the assigned curriculum for that course) with only moderate effort and average skill if all the students in his/her class are cooperative and responsible, have mastered all the prerequisites, and are uniform in ability and level.

By the same token, a teacher can exercise extraordinary skills, ingenuity, and herculean effort, and achieve moderate success with some students, and no apparent success with others if the class has several uncooperative students, no students have not mastered any of the prerequisites, and class abilities and deficiencies cover a very broad range.

The "unsuccessful" teacher may have a 9th grade algebra class containing only one student who knows all of her multiplication tables, possibly no students who can apply the 8th grade skills, and only half the class can do the 7th grade work. Some do not even know 5th & 6th grade skills like adding fractions. This teacher has to reteach all the 7th and 8th grade skills, plus the 9th grade skills in order for the students to complete the 9th grade testing objectives.

If this teacher finishes the year with no students able to do 9th grade math, but ALL the students able to do 8th grade math, then this is an EXTRAORDINARY teacher for teaching more than two levels (6th, 7th,, 8th) of math in one year. However this teacher would usually be evaluated as a failing teacher because the 9th grade students did poorly on the 9th grade standardized assessment.

True, there are some teachers who end up not caring, but my experience was that those people leave the profession pretty quickly. It is too hard a job, even if you are trying to do the minimum. Lazy, uncaring, or wimpy people, and people who want an easy job go and find easier jobs. There are too many jobs that pay more than teaching, and almost all of them are easier.

 

Is teaching hard? Yes. Especially children. Is teaching people really enthusiastic about the subject easier? Yes. But most people aren't teaching others who like what they're being taught.

As someone who's married to a former elementary school teacher and who's spent some time with design students and mentored interns, I wouldn't want to do it full time. My wife has mentioned dealing with the parents is often tougher than teaching the kids.

They don't get paid badly but they also don't get paid enough. However teachers aren't created equal. Some are excellent and other suck. My wife's family has a number of teachers in it and it's not something you just go into. It's something you've always wanted to do. Otherwise, you'll just wear out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That sounds really good, until you actually think it through in detail.

Believe it or not, there is a fair amount of study of relationships, and training in relationship building in courses on Classroom Management, Child Development, and Special Education.

Training in relationship building and development is kind of like a degree in Communication. It sounds like it is a real thing, but then you realize that you have to practice it with real people, and all the people are different, not just from the case studies in the training, but also from each other. Much of what qualifies as "training" is useless theory based on tidy oversimplifications and outright fictions.

The upshot of what you learn while teaching is that teachers have to learn how to build a relationship with each kid individually. What helps to build a useful relationship with one kid does not work with other kids. What constitutes an educationally useful relationship varies from kid to kid. Culture makes a difference, as does the home-life of the kid, as does each kid's level of psychosocial development, as does every other thing that makes that kid an individual.

Problematically, the things that vary most are to what degree each student wants to relate to the teacher, and how much each student actively participates in the relationship building process. Relationships are only built by pairs of people; the teacher is not unilaterally in charge of the process. Kids who do not want to relate with their teachers can stymie the process, and there is nothing the teacher can do about it.

Once a teacher finally develops all those relationships (sometimes with more than 200 kids per year) to a degree that can help him or her teach these kids (which culminates sometime between February and April) things can start to get into a groove. A couple months later, the school year ends, and the process starts over.

 

No kidding! Teaching is not for wussies.

The second hardest job I ever had was being an investigator for Child Protective Services, and that came nowhere close to being as hard as teaching .

 

You are confusing showing someone how to do a discrete skill with being a public school teacher. You identified a tiny subtask as if it is the whole job.

 

Sorry, I've been away on an FTX for like a month so my jokes might not land.

 

Sure, teaching can be a vocation.

Even so, not all great teachers were called to be teachers. Talent, like luck, is the residue of hard work.

 

Then there's a major problem that schools need to address. I can assure you that parents have a set of criteria that they apply, and they pay property taxes which pay for the schools. You can't just decide that there's nothing that can be done, and the people who pay your salary have to deal with that reality. They are the ultimate employer, and the employees (teachers, admins, janitors) have to figure out how to provide a real value for the money they are paid, or they are going to be fired.

No doubt. I spent about four months in one of those inner-city schools before my parents pulled me out. To say I was shocked is an understatement. Back in the 70s, and as an elementary student coming from a rural community, I was not prepared to see ten year old kids wearing pimp hats and playing games involving switch blades.

However, that's not an excuse to tell the people paying their salaries that nothing can be done, and nobody to hold responsible.

The rest of your post is much the same. Lots of reasons why teachers can't teach. This is why I'm in favor of school vouchers. If it was me, I'd go around finding out what percentage of the students go on to university. What the average SAT scores are, and the school that does that the best gets my voucher.

Schools that have excuses will die.

 

Skill, yes. The talent I referred to is often found in children. They are born with it capacity, like a great singer.

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-talent-and-skill/