Leave a comment

Comments 7

fionavere April 30 2010, 01:22:48 UTC
Don't forget history!

Reply

mprice April 30 2010, 01:34:18 UTC
What do you think the students will be reading? ;-P

I always found history to be incredibly boring. It needs to be taught as a living thing, not just names, dates, and places. My sister is an amateur historian. When she talks about history, the people come alive. I learned more about WWII from her than I ever did in school.

I also think teachers should encourage students to write about what they love rather than the specific dictates. I learned more about the Cold War researching a story I wrote than I did when I was actually living through it.

Reply

fionavere April 30 2010, 02:51:39 UTC
I always found history to be incredibly boring. It needs to be taught as a living thing, not just names, dates, and places. My sister is an amateur historian. When she talks about history, the people come alive. I learned more about WWII from her than I ever did in school.

I was just talking about this today. I just finished reading Killer Angels by Michael Shaara (about the battle of Gettysburg) and the "characters" totally come to life in that book. So much so that I'm pumped about going to Gettysburg this summer. I've been several times before; but since having read that book now I have a new perspective and a renewed interest in it. Even though my children are pretty young (5 & 7) I intend to bring them along to Gettysburg and give them an age appropriate history lesson. I fully intend to be in charge of teaching them this subject as I know schools have no intention of doing so. As far as keeping them interested I think it's all in how it's presented. But I agree, textbooks just don't paint the picture.

Reply


miss_makiba April 30 2010, 02:42:05 UTC
If the students are failing, it's usually pretty okay to blame the students, actually. That being said, if you relate a teacher's salary to their students' performances, I seriously doubt the students will learn much. Why bother? The teacher will give them a good grade just to keep their salary up. To prevent this, there would have to be administrators hired just to monitor the teachers or, assuming the teachers are honest, they'll probably be fired for not performing adequately.

I completely agree with your first statement, but the salary adjustment just seems like an all-around bad idea to me.

Reply

mprice April 30 2010, 03:40:03 UTC
if you relate a teacher's salary to their students' performances, I seriously doubt the students will learn much.
Works here in Texas. The better the students perform, the better the teacher pay. And the students' performance is based on standardized tests, so the idea of teachers fudging the numbers doesn't wash.

I went through the New York State education system, as did my son. I've had to put up with sub-par teachers who taught just enough to get by, bullied students, and played the victim when called out by a parent. For a vast majority of them, so long as they have tenure, they don't really care. Thankfully, my school system wasn't quite as broken as the one in New York City, where it is nearly impossible to fire teachers.

Reply

miss_makiba April 30 2010, 21:19:44 UTC
I went through school in the West, and my mother was a teacher there for over fifteen years where she watched most of her colleagues get fired ("let go") for their students not performing up to standards. I suppose it's a different experience in different parts of the country, but this seems to be the case in Georgia and Michigan, too (I asked around.)

I've never gone to school in Texas, but like with many other things, Texas seems to be a special case. Then again, I have my own opinions about how valid standardized tests are in the first place.

Reply


1100words May 5 2010, 06:19:36 UTC
I like the idea of competition-if parents can shop around and send the kids to any school they choose, underperforming schools will have to shape up or loose their student body and the funds that come with them.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up