|
I can't decide if the teachers here are getting trolled or if this thread highlights everything that's wrong with education in this country. Or both. I don't know which idea is more laughable - that the average teacher only works 40 hours a week, or the thought that fresh graduates from elite colleges are going to run experienced teachers into the ground with their "intensity," especially when thrown into high poverty schools the likes of which they have probably never even contemplated. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 10, 2017 |
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
shovelbum posted:I would like to say that the idea of the average job being watching cat pictures in your cube and talking about Game of Thrones around the water cooler is true for only the most useless of office jobs again. Which we are all well aware of, thank you. You have spectacularly misunderstood the point. The fact that you can go to the water cooler or take a moment to look at cat pictures or strike up a conversation about Game of Thrones, though - that's the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
on the left posted:Failing schools being heavily staffed by teachers in the top 10% of the talent distribution seems both mathematically impossible and improbable in the sense of "why wouldn't a great teacher prefer to work in a nice school?" Man, I don't even know where to begin with this. I'm an English teacher, so I suppose we'll start with connotation. How do you define a "failing school," my friend? What's a "nice school"? How do you measure and determine who's a "great teacher"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Now, hang on, people. Obviously his claim is a non-sequitur. It was clearly a ridiculous statement, completely unsupported by evidence other than his own questionable application of supposed mathematics and probability. It plainly didn't make any sense to observers. However, even the truly insane have their own internal logic. The goal here is analysis - understanding the highly personal and bizarre thought process of this specimen's brain. How was this absurd statement birthed? What was the conception? What does it really mean? What can we learn from it? We must draw this out through questioning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
I suspect our object of study has no answers to any questions. Maybe we should proceed with the analysis anyway. I used the term "high poverty" school in regards to TFA. TFA, as I am sure that most of us are well aware, require you to work in specific classifications of schools in order to gain the tuition forgiveness benefits that are so essential to these contracts. Our specimen translated this to "failing" schools. How do we interpret this adjustment of the language? What are the implications of attempting to replace “high poverty” with “failing”? What does that tell us? Further, in our case study, we see the claim that "great teachers" would instead prefer to work in "nice" schools. The implication here is that the "nice" schools are the opposite of the "failing" schools. What does the term "nice" really mean in the context of this claim, based on our understanding of what the claimant judges as a "failing" school? I think we must pin down the meaning of these terms before we can proceed into a discussion of what makes a “great teacher” and what sort of school this kind of teacher would prefer to work in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:on the left is just throwing trolls at the thread to see what sticks Look at what is happening to this thread. Low-end trolls that can't even respond to the slightest bit of questioning are derailing it from any potentially productive discussion. I like to think of trolls as educational tools. We have a weak one here, who can't even follow up their own arguments on the most superficial level. Sadly, that limits what we can learn from them. Still, it is admittedly rare to have a good troll. It's a skill and art that few can master. This one is clearly a factory defect or somehow deficient. Point being, though - telling someone making these sorts of arguments that they aren't making sense or mocking their obvious lack of intellect is non productive. Question them and draw out the racism or anti-intellectualism or propaganda that fuels their arguments, then pick apart the source by pointing out what it truly represents. The goal isn't to convert their thinking, but rather to better understand the kind of person that thinks in these ways. Or, in some cases, to appeal to a broader audience that is observing the exchange. Even the limp-dick trolls infesting this thread can be used as practice, if they aren't so pathetic that they retreat entirely. The crop I'm seeing here is particularly pathetic, however, so I wouldn't put it beyond them to tuck their limpness between their legs and vanish.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
on the left posted:For some objective measures of school quality, good schools have high graduation rates, high median SAT scores, and failing schools have high dropout rates, many students not performing at grade level, and lots of crime. Who is this "we" you speak of? What factors do you think influence graduation and dropout rates? What sort of test is the SAT and why do you think this is a relevant measure of the success of a school? What is the solution to a large number of students at a school not performing at grade level? Do you think police presence and enforcement is the same at all schools? Do you think criminal activity is reported and enforced the same at all types of schools, or does it perhaps mirror broader social issues like selective enforcement in the war on drugs? Do you think a child at a "nice" school is less likely to be bullied than a child at a "failing" school?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:I think you misunderstand me, I was phone posting and probably unclear - there are plenty of jobs where you are required to spend school-day lengths of time with minimal breaks focusing on a high stakes task. A lot of these are skilled blue-collar jobs and the rhetoric of "hardest job on earth, can't even watch YouTube!" doesn't necessarily ring as true to the offshore crane operator as it does to the cube jockey. This is a fair point. The take-away from this point though, is that perhaps the skilled blue-collar worker (often union) and the teacher aren't at all in opposition. These are hard jobs that deserve compensation, but they're both under the same attacks from the same groups. So why engage in a dick-waving contest about who has it worse off? Unite against the systemic issues attempting to destroy the credibility and compensation of both groups. on the left posted:*FARTTTTTTTT* See, this is the end goal of questioning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Yeah exactly this, unfortunately the non-union trades swing pretty hard right, and there are a lot of Trump voters even in the trade unions. I think that when a leftist movement has become so isolated to the white-collar classes that it loses even the support of unionized workers, there is a lot of trouble afoot! I think the schools have done a lot to alienate the trades, too. Schools used to serve as a pipeline to the trades. Shop class, automotive class, carpentry class, even electronics class. Where did they go and why? The schools used to work hand-in-hand with the trades. At some point, this alliance fell apart. 14 years ago, the high school I work at had an automotive class and a shop class. Today they teach customer service classes. What happened?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:budget cuts and more emphasis on testing, probably Hah, because printing is a real career path, right? What does that even mean - journalism, publishing books? Does it even matter? Why do you think that happened? Edit: It can't be budget cuts. The customer service classes have tons of computers and software, more funding than even core classes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Part of it is simple budgetary reasons- shop classes require specialized equipment and teachers. They're not very popular, because parents, even union parents, don't necessarily want their kids working as auto mechanics, so parents don't usually speak up to defend them. Here in Michigan, ISDs (between municipalities and counties) and RESAs (counties) handle shop classes, and their strategy has been to consolidate all classes across a set of districts or a county into a single school to save on expenses for facilities, meaning kids have to be bused around the county to attend more than basic vocational classes. Which eats up the time available for those classes. My own experiences... As a student, my trades teachers were basically disrespected by administration. Treated as inferiors, but some of the most influential classes I ever took. As a teacher, I see that my school has abolished these classes to promote "college readiness." The very largest schools in the district still have trade classes, but these are few and far between, and the schools that still maintain them are among the largest schools in the country. Which doesn't at all dispute what you say. Collegiate academies are the model in Dallas, but these academy models offer 2-year degrees in things like criminal justice. Very specific and somewhat questionable focal points for study.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
on the left posted:Trump was better at seizing opportunity and gauging the nation than an army of high-priced Democratic consultants, he has a much better predictive model and is more rational than the mainline Dem party and people like you who are doubling down on things that cause you to lose. What are you even doing, you clown? The conversation isn't about your nonsense, weak trolling. Go elsewhere. Trump's predictive model predicted his loss, which happened but for a technicality. Doubling down is a buzzword owned by KFC, I hope you are paying royalties. It's a sandwich made of chickens, you moron. The adults are talking. Go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:imo we just need to pump money into community colleges and use them as low intensity trade schools as well as a gap bridger for kids who are too broke or unmotivated to go to a four year school There are a tremendous number of kids who think that college is inaccessible to them because of money. Talking to them about Pell Grants and the affordability of community colleges is truly one of the most rewarding things I do as a high school teacher. You talk about the teachable moment or you think about those rare times when a student lights up and really gets it - telling someone that they can go to college and study whatever they want and they genuinely won't have to pay a cent for it? I have seen so many students literally light up at the idea of being able to afford college. They don't know, though. They don't know that it is possible and even easy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
on the left posted:lol I guess I can't compete with the professional accomplishments or intellectual horsepower of a high-school english teacher Are you a native speaker, you wretch? We use punctuation to note the end of sentences, and we capitalize the beginning of our sentences. Did you forget this or did you never learn it? You obviously haven't mastered the more complex elements of the language, what happened to your understanding of the basics? Perhaps a fault in your IQ? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:While trade programs would be highly useful for lots of students who aren't college minded, there is a stigma in the US about these programs in much of the country because it isn't tech/medicine/research.... If we are being pragmatic the things every school should offer are: I love you for making this thread. I love you for making this post. I truly believe that you are one of the best posters on SA. No poo poo. I'm glad you ventured from Science, Academics, and Languages to D&D. I genuinely enjoy reading what you have to say. on the left posted:If it's a nontruthful bias, surely my strategy of keeping my children out of dangerous schools will backfire spectacularly and result in self-pwn. Finally, you see the truth. Can you tell us the moment you realize you were repeatedly "self-pwn"ing, you racist and ignorant half-troll?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
That is such a crazy idea, though! The trades are one of the few job categories insulated from globalization. There isn't any loving Chinese electrician coming to fix the hosed up wiring in your light switch. There's no Indian plumber fixing your lovely clogged toilet. Nobody in another country is fixing your busted rear end car. Some of my most successful students have been kids that went into trades.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:There's "cooking schools" like Le Cole or Courdon Bleu, but then there are the culinary programs of accredited colleges and universities. It's something you have to explain to people before they understand how rigorous it is. I mean seriously, go take a professional cooking 1 class, the most basic class in a program and tell me you aren't exhausted after every class. I mean, this is off topic, but it's not a horribly bigoted derail like most of the thread so whatever. I just get really pissed when people think I go jackass around in a kitchen all day and that "American Regional Cuisine," a 400 level class, is somehow easy or something they could do. Anyone that knows what it actually entails respects the program. Why do you think a class like this gets dismissed by the ignorant? What are they really saying? This isn't at all off-topic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:There are all kinds of super specialized technician jobs that are decidedly blue collar and don't require a degree, but it's hard to say that any one of them is worth teaching in high school nationally - community colleges seem really well adapted to working to meet the needs of local employers for this kind of stuff but I guess not everywhere has an oilfield or aircraft factory or steel mill or whatever that needs armies of specialty welders and instrumentation guys. Should local high schools cater to local needs? Is there a problem with a local high school teaching welding if there's a demand for the skill locally? Why would it need to be nationally mandated?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Isn't it more of a political thing? I mean, the parts of the country that do abstinence-only education and stifle sex ed tend to be the conservative, heavily religious areas. With our public schools ultimately being run by elected officials, can you truly argue that the public doesn't want these religious beliefs reflected in the school system?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Anyone seeing politics directly having an impact on their students? Thursday's Day Without Immigrants actually had a fairly significant impact on DISD attendance rates, and there were walkouts followed by anti-Trump protests today in a bunch of Dallas-area high schools. These are schools with majority Hispanic populations. There's a lot of anger and fear that I'm seeing, although it ultimately is tempered with uncertainty. The students don't know what to do with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/02/17/kids-walk-immigration-dallas-isd-trustee-wants-remind-schools-safe-places
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:When you post stuff like this, you are undermining a lot of the rest of what you post in this thread. America spends more money on education per student than almost all first world countries, but isn't doing that well in a lot of the education metrics. Does this mean that increasing education funding will not actually noticeably improve student outcomes? Should the US be spending more money on expanding other parts of its welfare state instead of spending more money on teachers and schools? Throwing more money at the welfare state, historically, hasn't done much to improve student outcomes or combat poverty in the poorest parts of the country. Look at the results of many of the Great Society programs. The problems faced by our urban and rural underclasses today go far beyond the schools, but we tend to focus in on the schools as the solution to all of these problems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It has to be both things at once. A great school isn't going to help if a student is living in poverty, under constant stress, and hungry all the time, and there can be no path away from welfare reliance without good educational institutions. Just looking at welfare and school funding as a panacea for poverty is fundamentally flawed. We've tried throwing money at both ends of that equation, and it doesn't work. Automation in particular has led to major structural changes in the economy of the United States. Education can be a path to good employment, but if you're starting with serious disadvantages, competing for good employment can be nearly impossible. Some regions of the country also simply don't have much to offer in the way of decent employment. Beyond that, if the best and brightest of a community do manage to get scholarships and get the necessary higher education to attain good jobs, they typically escape from the high poverty ghetto areas ASAP and don't look back - stripping those communities of positive role models that can stabilize the social structure of an area. Never mind further issues like selective enforcement of the War on Drugs against the most vulnerable communities - taking even more opportunities away from those that already have the least access to them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You don't see the contradiction in arguing that teachers are under-valued, and on that basis should be paid more, and in the same breathe arguing categorically that teachers shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of their students' performance, since how well the students do is largely out of their hands, and they have little effect on students' performance? It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse, but you're having a logical breakdown here. There are enormous and complicated factors that go into student performance. Teacher quality is one of these factors. Good teachers can do a lot for struggling students, but they can't overcome all or even most of the problems introduced by poverty. Obviously, pay can influence the quality of worker that you get - this goes both ways. If you truly want to close achievement gaps and see students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds perform at the same level as more privileged kids, you need to address multiple factors. If you think that cutting teacher pay or cutting education funding is going to help anything, you are obviously mistaken. It is one part of a complex puzzle.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Obviously the wealth of the students' parents and teacher quality both matter. Since you are willing to grant that teacher quality is important, you would agree with me and disagree with Oxphocker that it doesn't make a lot of sense to categorically oppose evaluation of teachers' performance on the basis that teachers' performance has little effect on student outcomes. Again, you are being deliberately obtuse. If you grant that socioeconomic status has a huge impact on student performance, then evaluating teacher performance on the basis of student performance on standardized tests makes little sense. That is, however, the direction that teacher evaluations have been shifting toward. Does this make sense as the main measure of teacher quality to you? The result of tying teacher pay or job security to standardized test performance of the students does not encourage the best teachers to go work in schools that are low performing as a result of socioeconomic factors, but rather to encourage all teachers to look for jobs in areas where socioeconomic factors guarantee that students will be successful on standardized tests.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What if we just brought back the good paying factory jobs and made education a moot point. Not everybody needs to have a college degree. Is knowing about the Battle of Hastings or how to take a derivative really that important for most people? Well, gee, why didn't anybody think of that? Just bring the good jobs that don't require education back! You nailed it, man.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Ok, if now we are saying that students' parents wealth actually is the most important factor in students' educational outcomes, then it doesn't make sense, to me at least, to make the argument that teachers' contributions to students' success is highly under-valued, and we need entice the most brilliant minds into teaching pronto by raising salaries before our children's minds all rot. I really don't see how you can have it both ways. You're continuing to miss the nuance of the situation, almost certainly intentionally. Let's lay out a few basic points. 1. Socioeconomic status is the most important contributing factor when it comes to student success. I don't think anyone anywhere is really disputing this, because there's an incredible weight of evidence supporting the idea. Now, WHY this is the case might be worth discussing, but the fact of it is not. 2. When discussing problems in the education system, we are often discussing issues present primarily in the inner cities and rural areas. For example, the drop out rate nation wide may be 7.4% or whatever, but in an urban district it may be closer to 50%. 3. A major problem in the most troubled regions of the country is how to intervene and close the achievement gap between low socioeconomic students and high socioeconomic students. This burden is often placed on schools and therefore teachers. If this is going to be the accepted method of attempting to resolve the problems presented by poverty when it comes to educational performance, then obviously you truly do need the absolute best teachers to make an impact. Do you follow? 4. Job security in teaching actually varies widely depending on the type of district you work in. A school that performs poorly on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, may actually be a very unstable place to work. A school that performs well on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, is going to be a very stable place to work. Do you understand where this is going? Are you shocked by that idea? 5. Typically these systems for performance based on standardized testing are, as Oxphocker has tried to explain and you have struggled mightily to fail to understand, are based on performance versus other schools. These schools may have wildly varying populations. One may be 95% Hispanic with more ESL students than any other school in the country, and it may be judged as failing when compared to the last school with white students and community involvement in a district with incredibly variable populations. Do you understand? 6. Given the choice to work in an unstable urban district where you'll be judged based on ridiculous measures or simply go to work in a stable suburban environment for comparable pay and far less stress, where do the good teachers go? Does this system lead to an improvement in the overall educational outcomes of students in the United States? Do you get it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Germany's manufacturing sector fared far better than ours in a global market. Germany has a fantastic vocational education system, which does not eliminate history or any other core component of the curriculum. These two things are probably related. Shbobdb posted:They also segregate students at grade 4. We should probably start doing the same thing. Please explain how segregating students at an early age into manufacturing training is going to help when our manufacturing output is at a peak and there are fewer jobs than ever in these sectors. Training a bunch of poor kids for non-existent jobs will solve our problems?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:For example, the service sector is huge in America. We could train them for those jobs. We already are. We conceal the fact that we're training the poor for customer service jobs by calling them "business education." Is the service sector the future of America, do you think?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you really believe what Oxphocker is posting, then good teachers aren't really that valuable, and fighting poverty by hiring smarter and more effective teachers to educate poor students is pretty hopeless. The report he/she posted estimated teacher quality to be responsible for 10% of student achievement. You are almost getting it, buddy. You are so close. Good teachers aren't solving the problem of poverty, they're a stopgap measure because our society isn't willing to actually address the problem. If that's going to be the solution, you'd better invest in the best, because that's a tough way to solve that particular problem. quote:I definitely believe you that teaching in an inner city school is not that great of a job, but you are confusing job security with turnover. If it is so hard to find teachers to teach in poor, inner-city schools, why would they be firing them all the time? Your earlier claim about job security for teachers being terrible was just a scare tactic. Teachers have incredible job security. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Improvement Required?" Are you familiar with the thought process behind "fixing" schools that perform poorly on standard testing? This is a rhetorical question, because the answer is obviously "no." quote:Is this how the performance-based compensation for teachers actually works though? I googled a couple of articles on it, and it looks like it is a little more involved than: Bonus = Multiplier x Average Student Test Score. Can you support your claim with some kind of source? You're the one composing this whole idea of "bonuses" out of your own mad brain. You think teachers are getting bonuses? You googled a couple of articles? Are you literally insane?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Google "reconstitution" you clown. If you want an example of teacher compensation based on test scores, look at the Dallas "TEI" system. Do your own research, you ignorant scumbag.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Settle down Beavis. You can't work Google, clown? Case study - Billy Dade Middle School. Here. Since you clearly have nothing to work with and nothing in your brain, I'll give you a starting point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Settle down Beavis. I'll look those things up. But I still think you are exaggerating and are using technicalism to avoid having to support your claims with evidence. Project much, he of little logic and less knowledge?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/education/strong-principals-make-a-difference/article_09697133-49da-55d1-932f-e2110f0ad4a1.html My first year, the school I work for non-renewed 1/3 of the teachers, and I would figure probably another 15-20% transferred or quit. My second year was similar, although I would say there were fewer non-renewals and more transfers/quits. Lots of TFA and emergency certifications that left very quickly. My third year, I took on a doubled class load because there were issues with actually hiring enough teachers. Fourth year I quit, but came back because there were unfilled spots for an entire semester and I didn't like where I had ended up. School had become IR - state monitors regularly observing classrooms. Next year, probably the principal will be gone. Maybe the AP's, too. I hope so, at least. Watching an administrative team purge teachers until a school descends into complete failure was instructive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:So you're not saying that 10 year olds need more free time, but rather that 17 years olds need more education time to accomplish their education goals? I'm legitimately trying to understand your point. If 17 year olds need 55 hours a week of education, but we're only willing to employ teachers for 40 hours a week, I get it, but I can't extract a thesis from your posts. Since when were teachers employed for 40 hours a week? Last I checked I was on a salary, like most of the professional workforce, where you work as much you need to work to accomplish your goals. What about college, for that matter? I had semesters where I had to read upwards of 25-30 books, plus... you know, classtime and assignments. And a loving job. When do you prepare kids for reality? litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 03:22 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:If teachers are willing to work literally as many hours they need to work to accomplish their goals why is there such a thing as unsupervised school work? Why does your handler allow you to post unsupervised?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
sheri posted:I'm on a salary and I rarely, if ever, do work outside my 40 hours a week. litany of gulps posted:Since when were teachers employed for 40 hours a week? Last I checked I was on a salary, like most of the professional workforce, where you work as much you need to work to accomplish your goals. Teachers work approximately 40 hours a week in a building teaching, but the job doesn't end when the school bell rings to dismiss class. That's part of the job. This isn't really news to anyone, anywhere. Maybe you're a programmer and you work your 40, but when the deadline is near, you work as much as you need to work. Maybe you're a manager and someone calls in - it doesn't matter if you've put in your 40, you fill in the gap. Most jobs are like this. Do you recognize this as a basic fact of salaried pay? If so, what is the purpose of your anecdotal claim here?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:In the case of college, I think there's broad agreement that students need more education hours than classroom hours to learn the material, but also we're not willing to employee professors as baby sitters watching 20 year olds reading a book. Preparing kids for reality would involve have a generally fixed work week and paying them for their efforts, so the answer to that appears to be "after their education is done". So you acknowledge the absurdity of having 20 year old students do their independent work during classroom hours, but you question the validity of the idea of having 17 year old students do their independent work outside of classroom hours? You can argue that the guided workload is reduced, but if you are in favor of eliminating independent practice outside of school hours for secondary school, you surely understand that this means that the independent practice must be done during school hours.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I have taught kids from 6 months to 13 year olds. Personally, I think we should be teaching kids to work smarter, not harder. Endless amounts of busy work just causes burnout and bores the rest of the students. I don't mind bringing mini review sheets home of what the class went over that day or week, but extensive review daily seems unnecessary. I would rather move from regular worksheets to individual projects that show the synthesis of material gleaned. The assumption of busywork seems questionable on its face. Maybe they're being assigned reading so that during class time they can actually analyze and discuss. The automatic dismissal of any homework as being invalid I think is faulty. You can't just say that all work outside of class is harmful or excessive. Actual independent practice or study obviously has value, does it not? When misapplied, it can certainly be ineffective. The automatic assumption that it will be and can only be misapplied comes from where?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
sheri posted:My point was my job doesn't require me to put in hours of work at home every night on a regular basis, so your argument of sending kids home with hours of homework every night to prepare them for "jobs and reality" isn't the best argument. What is your job? I'm surrounded by degree'd professionals who put in far more than 40 hours a week every week. I'm surrounded by kids who go to school and work. I'm surrounded by kids whose parents work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. My graduated students - the ones who actually are successful - work constantly and are still always on edge, trying to meet incredible demands. A shocking number of them hit the college level and almost immediately drop out because they are not prepared for the reality of having to work independently and study a LOT outside of class hours. Forgive me for dismissing your vague anecdote, but I suspect your experience may not be the norm.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:Right. The agreement research-wise seems to be that we can be better on homework in general and that young kids below 3rd grade should have 0-20 minutes of homework a night. That's not the same as don't give anyone homework because it's all busywork. Pretty much. I don't think anyone believes that ten year old kids should be doing 3 hours of homework a night. But if you're in the upper classes of high school and you can't handle some homework, what the hell? I mean, at some point you have to prepare for college, which is a tremendous load of independent study.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:57
|
|