question about hillary

[Xavier_Onassis]

Perhaps the idealists can teach at the D school and let the pragmatists teach the other 35 kids in a class who want to learn.


Since when did the one or two in a class who have behavior problems take precedence over those who want to learn?
=========================================================================================
I hardly think that idealists are any more likely than pragmatists to want to teach disruptive students.
No one wants to teach a kid that refuses to pay attention and tries to distract the rest of the class.

What is needed is a teacher (idealist, pragmatist, vegetarian, whatever) that knows how to make this particular kid want to learn.

There are probably some kids of the extreme autistic sort that can't be taught much of anything at all. I suspect that they are in the minority, a very small minority.

Teaching geniuses (Harvard, MIT, CalTech, Berkeley) is easy. They want to learn and many will be ahead of most their teachers in research and general knowledge in the fields that interest them.

The hard jobs are teaching the non-geniuses and the students who have no intellectual curiosity at all, and they are in the millions.

The professors with the easy jobs get the big bucks. The rest of us have harder jobs, but we are paid perhaps one-fifth the salary.




\

[BT]

The purpose of the d school is to focus on those students with behavior problems and not a warehouse for special needs students that may have medical conditions that complicate the matter.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The purpose of the d school is to focus on those students with behavior problems and not a warehouse for special needs students that may have medical conditions that complicate the matter.
===================================================================
So you are saying that austitic students need to be separated from students who are goof-offs or nascent psychopaths?

I don't think this is as simple as it sounds.

[kimba1]

they key word is focus
this maybe done at the beginning but in 5 years little by little it`ll turn into a building to dump kids in.
the focus to actually educate will fade abit.
only the parents of these kids will complain and since thier poor it`ll not have the same impact as a homeowner.

[The_Professor]

Possibly because a troublesome student is nothing at all like a "cancerous tumor."

Why not? Are they not a tax on teachers time? Do they not distract from the mission? Do they not eat up valuable resources disproportionate to their numbers?

It's funny. We don't think twice about removing drunk drivers from the highway. And when we do so, we don't care what kind of childhood they had. We remove them from the highway because they are a danger to others.

I suggest that those who interfere with the primary goal of schools which is to educate our children, are  a danger too society, just as much as a drunk driver is to those on the highway.

Drunk drivers are removed for being an immediate danger to the safety of others. Not for "interfering with the primary goal" of other drivers or the transportation system of a government. Once again the parallel you are illustrating is not even close to identical.

Children are people, human beings, not statistical units of production measured against resources to rate effectiveness of output and production. You're starting to sound like the Nationalist Government of South Africa.

However, I am not sure I like the idea od a parent of a "B" student having to put up with the teacher not having enough time to devote to my child to assist thme to perhaps be an "A studnet becuause that teacher is spending so much of his/her time with the behavior child. If I were hte parent of that behavir child, then I mightl ike it. But, I am not sure the other parents appreciate it.

Cynthia, be honest, how much more could get done, ACADEMICALLY, during a school year if teacher didn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with discipline issues from a subset of the class?

[_JS]

However, I am not sure I like the idea od a parent of a "B" student having to put up with the teacher not having enough time to devote to my child to assist thme to perhaps be an "A studnet becuause that teacher is spending so much of his/her time with the behavior child. If I were hte parent of that behavir child, then I mightl ike it. But, I am not sure the other parents appreciate it.

Cynthia, be honest, how much more could get done, ACADEMICALLY, during a school year if teacher didn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with discipline issues from a subset of the class?

The better question to ask initially is: do teachers spend an inordinate amount of time with one or two troublemaking students? My son attends public schools and I have not heard of this particular problem. Many of my good friends at church are parents as well and I hear few such indications. In fact, I know one mother who homeschools her child and it has nothing to do with the "sinister evils" of public education, but that her daughter is dyslexic and the public schools (the same one my son attends in fact) has not done a good job working with her dyslexia.

I realize that public education varies widely by region, but this simply has not been a problem that I've heard much about in my neck of the woods.

[BT]

The better question to ask initially is: do teachers spend an inordinate amount of time with one or two troublemaking students?

If disruptive students is not a valid issue, then what is the problem with raising the achievement levels of students in a given class.

What are the obstacles towards achieving this goal.

[_JS]

I think you'll find the answer, as with many answers in sociology is - it depends. It depends on many factors.

Raising achievement standards with school children isn't the same as increasing the output at a widget factory.

Plus, children today are learning more at a younger age than we did in school. I've learned that from the homework my son does. There are obvious imperfections in public schooling, but it is a higher level of learning that what we had, I'm willing to bet.

[BT]

I don't think we are talking about production quantities.

We are talking about quality control.

I don't see why that would be a problem.

Are you saying certain segments of society are incapable of applying themselves?

[_JS]

I don't recall saying that, no.

What I am saying is that just like adults, there are a wide variety of factors that affect a life of a student.

Some have learning disabilities, some have mental health problems, some have issues at home, some grow up priveleged, while others grow up in dire poverty, some deal with bigotry, while others never understand what that is (or are the ones who dish it out). There are a myriad of factors that go far beyond simply applying oneself or not.

[BT]

So setting standards is folly?

We should educate to the lowest common denominator and call it a day?

That is not what i wanted for my son, and it certainly is not what i want for my grandson.

[_JS]

So setting standards is folly?

We should educate to the lowest common denominator and call it a day?

That is not what i wanted for my son, and it certainly is not what i want for my grandson.

Setting standards depends upon the standards. As someone who has worked in performance budgeting I can certainly say without hesitation that it can very easily be a double-edged sword. In education, I think there are basic standards to be met, but by design those would not be the goals I (nor you) would be content with for your children or grandchildren. Basic standards are what they are. I don't think flooding schools with standardized tests accomplishes anything.

I think education needs to be specialized and we need to do a better job of it. But, looking at it from a perspective of a private business is a poor route to take.

[BT]

Who says anything about setting education to business standards.

Why are shouldn't basic standards be raised? What makes you think your child can handle the challenge and other peoples children can't?  Why not raise the bar?

[kimba1]

actually the bar used to be higher
kids can handle it but parents(not liberals) will complain and will knock it down.
schools never made these decisions to dumb down

[Cynthia]

I think it's better to try to help kids and families, before punishing them by sending them to D- or Juvi schools.
That was my point. I don't think that we as a society care to try that venue as often as PUT THEM AWAY.....where they will stay and learn a lesson. not necessarily, BT

Perhaps that is the problem. Schools are not designed to be social services agencies. They are designed to educate the citizens of the future.

I am not saying you shouldn't take a personal interest in a troubled student. Good on you if you do. What i am saying is when their behavior affects the other students in a class and takes away from their learning opportunities, then something else needs to be done.

We don't think twice about removing cancerous tumors from a body so that the disease doesn't spread.

Why should troublesome students be any different?

Setup a branch office of child services at D school, if need be.

Well, BT, it's like asking a doctor to heal only those who have the most potential for healing and thus life....a long life....as opposed to caring for a person longterm, let's say....or healing someone who ends up only taxing the Dr.'s time, and possible reputation.

We care about individuals in this world....albeit not a perfect one, and we must attempt to reach every mind--not just the mind that has an exemplary ability to listen, learn, and focus.

I'll admit, my job would be a hell of a lot easier if I could only teach those kids who want* to learn, those who have little, few or no social behavioral problems, but that's in a Walgreen's world...

By the by.....I want to say that I was a bit put off by your statement last night, and believe that I over reacted. You weren't insulting teachers. That's not your style. Having strong opinions is your style and I had forgotten that. I welcome the chance to debate, discuss argue with you, and I guess the old Cynthia from years ago came out...out of a ting of anxt.

Anyway....I think that the institutions set out to "help" those troubled children are a dime a dozen and if it becomes that easy to get a kid into one....we would be referring kids right and left if they pee on a wall, or slam their fists into another's face. (happened in my class last year)

I have taught children of parents who are full blown gang member, but to see the potential in those chidren's faces, and their hearts  each time they walk into the classroom....it would break your own heart, BT if we did what you recommend here. 

It is difficult to teach a child from such brokeness but if we had more funding for that sort of class within the system, for example....A dedicated BD teacher with an assistant in a class of 5-8 Behavior Disorder kids, has potential for something...and something is better than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 If done right, I believe the child has more opportunities in the PS system than in the D home etc.....

Each day for a BD type kid is just that DAY TO DAY.  IF a problemed child has 4 pretty good days out of 7 because the teacher has put a system in place to enhance learning...that's  a win!
If the student started out with 0 good days and by trimester's end reached 4/7 consistently good, solid capable self motivating days, there's something to be said for that.

The other students in a classroom who are "normal" socially, aren't as negatively affected as we might think, in the long run.
Most children actually learn from watching an adult set up boundaries, circumstances for learning, show a sense of caring even though no one else would.....a socialization isn't alway about "getting along"...IT's witnessing life in its reality.
Those  "difficult ones' provide negative models, but who's to say that the rest of the kids don't gain something from that experience. Children are resilient little buggers....and they learn in spite of many of us, sometimes, too.
YOu can't say that school is only about academia. Children are social beings, with tears, fears, joys and runny noses....all of them. 

 Teachers, citizens, you, me, we all should take care to look out for, nurture, support, care for a weaker person in need.....children or the homeless, or the elderly or the sick  etc......but we don't.

 Most people don't care. Let the gov. take care of that problem.

Depending on the severity of the social problems is also part of this problem and the equation doesn't add up to one size fits all.....so to blanketly say that we should send those kids to another place and space in time where they should sit and rethink their bad deeds....is a crock.

It's a tough job to educate. It's a tougher job to do nothing at all for others, imo.