So I was talking with an acquaintance who happens to be a teacher...

[Pamela H in Texas]

Stephanie,

 

That is weird. In the classrooms I've been in, though the students do a lot of whole language activities, they most certainly do phonics. Additionally, testing starts in Kindy (unless kiddo goes to preK then it starts then). However, it doesn't test all the way up to the child's upper limit. Different places do differently, but one school district only checked up to the end of grade level. So if a 2nd grader starts school at a 3rd+ level, then their initial eval will say 2.9 and so will their final. I let the teacher who told me know that that is why my daughter didn't go to school. She deserved an education also. ALL students should be able to progress during the year BECAUSE of classroom instruction.

 

I've been reading Teaching as Leadership and one part goes over big goals. There *are* teachers who are saying that EVERY student in their classroom will gain two full years of ability. That allows those behind to gain 2 years. Those who are average gain 2 years. Those who are ahead gain 2 years! Not every year are they 100% successful with that big goal but it remains the big goal because it gives kids a REAL chance (and the chances students will make only a year or less gain is next to nil!). When TEACHERS take responsibility, and they get students, family and communities to buy in, learning happens.

 

This is the kind of teacher I want to be. I want to contribute, as heftily as possible, to all students. And having a student at each end of the spectrum helps me see it from both ends, I think.

 

Good teachers will FIND a way to put in what they think is important. The one district I was in was team oriented. Every 3rd grade classroom did exactly the same work every single day. If one class was doing X, so was class B and C and D. I really worried how I could do MY part rather than just be a programmed robot. But as I watched, I could see which teachers went through the motions and which found a way to make it her own. Additionally, the chosen work doesn't take up the entire class period. If you absolutely HAD to, you could easily add MORE. And on top of that, many of the things I want to do are highly efficient in that they can help with big gains in skills and concepts in a small amount of time. Regardless, I *am* going to teach those kids, even if it is despite the limitations in the classroom. There *are* teachers doing it. I have no doubt it takes determination not to fall into "oh the curriculum limits me so...." (and all the other limitations also) but at least I'm going in with my eyes wide open. I know there will be additional bumps in the road I'm not yet aware of. I don't have rose colored glasses on. But since we know it is possible...

Edited October 21, 2010 by 2J5M9K

[Pamela H in Texas]

some people can teach and some can't. It's the fact that no one wants to acknowledge. No amount of mentoring or coaching can make someone great if they just don't have it. They can become passable with a lot of effort

 

Thankfully, this is just not true. Some people have natural ability, obviously. And some don't. However, the skills, tools, attitudes, etc that it takes could be learned well by anyone who chose to learn them and apply them. The thing is that the system, I believe, makes it where most of that learning and application is done on an individual basis. The teacher is fighting the atmosphere, attitude, spirit of the institution which just doesn't have "it" anymore. All the limitations makes it difficult. And many people are just lazy. Add things like their own lives (family, health, stress, etc). It takes DETERMINATION to attain good skills and attitudes. And then you have to sift through all the information available to find it.

 

If we say, "you are born a gifted teacher or you're not" we take the responsibility off teachers. Science shows that a teacher can become a gifted teacher. There are key attitudes, skills, tools, beliefs, etc of gifted teachers and though I may not be able to change my natural inclinations (which I hope are pretty decent), I most certainly can master these key things to be a GREAT teacher, not mediocre or even good.

 

A recent article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-makes-a-great-teacher/7841/

 

Additionally: Teaching as Leadership and Teach Like a Champion

 

And I know some people will write me off as an overenthusiastic education student. That is fine. But this really stems from my honest belief in people taking responsibility for what they do (or don't). I can find all sorts of whiny teachers who go through the motions but bemoan all the limitations and where the kids come from and the families and and and....fact is, another teacher, with those same limitations, kids, and families would make a difference. I have a choice going in which teacher I'm going to be. I take responsibility.

 

I mentioned this to my OB, (oh no wait, I haven't seen her yet, I get to see the PA ), and she said "Well, your blood work all came back fine." So, I left there feeling very discouraged

 

Quiver's mistaken post actually makes a good point. Doctors are generally gifted learners. They generally could be (or could have been) anything they wanted. They CHOSE a medical profession. They can choose to care about the people in their care or they can blow people's concerns off. I've had so many doctors and you can really tell the difference. Doctors CHOOSE how educated, friendly, helpful, and caring to be. In the end, they determine how well their patients will do. Teaching is the exact same thing. Teachers can choose how they are and in the end determine how well their students will do :)

Edited October 21, 2010 by 2J5M9K

[Mama Geek]

I haven't read through the whole post yet but my dh and I have discussed this and it is one issue that we disagree on...not the part of teaching phonics, but the part about spelling being important. (No I am not husband bashing.)

 

He is dyslexic and really got beat up in ps over spelling and it affected grades in classes like science and math. This is the same person that I spent more than a week going through his engineering masters thesis correcting spelling and formatting so that it could be published. I am not sure when he figured out that was his problem. He is also awful at memorizing things. Often times he can't remember his phone number or zip code that he has had for years. The one thing that has helped him greatly has been the automatic spell check on MS word, where it tells him immediately when he misspells something.

 

Spelling has always come fairly easy to me. I doubt spelling lessons will involve spelling drills. I will teach phonics and he is open to me teaching entomology. I also hope to teach all the rules related to spelling which I don't think he has a problem with.

 

He is someone that does think math facts are important. He can easily tell you the speed of light, how many feet in a mile, etc.

[Catherine]

I agree, thanks for saying this. Why the need to insult and degrade? There are shades of gray people!!

[angela in ohio]

If we say, "you are born a gifted teacher or you're not" we take the responsibility off teachers.

 

No, it doesn't take the responsibility off of the teacher, but it calls for changes in the way they are recruited. Ideally, everyone teaching would be someone who had a passion for it, rather than also including those who didn't see any other options.

 

I'm also an education major, but that's not where my experience comes from here (my experience as an education major scares me for the future of the US, btw.) It comes from my dh, who is getting ready to graduate with his second grad degree in how to administrate teachers, and all the years we have been in his schools.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. I see teaching as an art, and like any art, you can become okay at it with enough work, but I think our schools and our children deserve the gifted teachers. We won't get most of them, though, because they will choose better options. My dh certainly thinks twice about why he chose this field every once in a while. :001_huh:

[TXMomof4]

While there may be bad teachers (and I have no doubt there are) the problem of phonics vs. whole language, spelling creatively vs. spelling correctly, etc. aren't really decisions the teachers make. If you take the very best teacher you've ever known and give her a curriculum that is barely adequate, they will probably not do as well teaching it.

 

Someone said earlier, and I agree, the teachers aren't necessarily the problem. Look up a little higher - the administration, the school board, the unions, etc. and see who is pushing whole language. Are the textbooks chosen by the educators who use them or a board with a political agenda? What perks, price reductions, etc. are offered by the curriculum companies? How many times has the school system changed from a curriculum that was working to something else, just because? How many kids are in the classroom? While I am fully capable of teaching my 4 kids - even at one time, if you stuck me in a room with 30 2nd graders, I would fail. There is no way to adequately meet the needs of all of those children.

 

There are lots of teachers in my family - my mom, mil, sil, bil, and on and on. They are great teachers. I love when they work with my kids because they not only love my kids, they love teaching. However, they all recognize the flaws in the system that can't be overcome by a single teacher. They do the best they can within a broken system and get blamed when they can't meet the needs of every student.

[ReidFamily]

 

 

This is the very reason that we took our children out of school. Not the spelling but the attitude to learning. The headmaster of the school, who was also the teacher of one of my kids told us ( even wrote it in the school newsletter to parents) that in today's age, knowledge isn't important at all, that all student's need to know is how to access knowledge on the computer.

 

 

This is such a scary attitude to hold. I agree it is important for Children to learn how to find information but it isn't the answer. Someone who can not think and rationalize without technology is not educated, they are indoctrinated.

[ReidFamily]

I agree with Daisy. If a school receives federal funds, I'm pretty sure they're REQUIRED to test even in K due to some of the provisions of NCLB.

 

Not to mention that most of the schools use Accelerated Reader, which, while it's not a great reading test, still would point out that a child was well above 1st grade level reading.[/QUOTE]

 

Just wanted to say that I volunteered almost daily when dds were in ps - during K and 2nd grade. Both classes had specific volunteers come in to help students do the AR tests if they needed it so some don't even have to read the questions. They were also encouraged to take tests based on read a louds that either the teacher or volunteers would read. So, they could go the whole year and not ever have to do any reading on their own.

 

I also had to ask my dds K teacher to do a reading assesment because no one seemed to believe me when I told them she needed to be allowed to read more challenging books. Her teacher quickly apologized when dd tested as an end of year third grader (for their school). I think it just greatly varies on the school district.

 

I would agree. The tests that are used to evaluate K and 1st graders here in Washington are done verbally and require no reading. They are also multiple choice.

[ReidFamily]

Here's the info:

 

I'm pregnant with #9. (don't know if that is relevant)

Lately, for the past few months I am A LOT more tired than normal and have hardly any energy past 1:00pm. I get frequent headaches, seem to have a constant but very slight nasal drip, and have reoccurring bouts of muscle/body aches. I'll have days (usually at least once a week) where my body aches and I feel completely run down (i.e. no energy, motivation etc.) kind of like I'm coming down with the flu. Only I don't get the flu. I have to go to bed very early because I feel so tired and weak. I mentioned this to my OB, (oh no wait, I haven't seen her yet, I get to see the PA :thumbdown:), and she said "Well, your blood work all came back fine." So, I left there feeling very discouraged and like I must be crazy and this is all in my head. I'm so frustrated b/c I really don't think it is normal to have such a low energy level. I know I have a lot of kids etc. but still.....I should not feel this worn out at 39. My children help a lot, so I am getting help from them with daily chores etc. Has anyone else felt like this? What did you do to help yourself? I'm feeling like I won't get any help from the Dr. so I'm trying to research and get some answers on my own.

 

Thanks for listening.......

 

When we rely on diagnostic equipment to tell us whether there is a health problem or not we are acting just as ignorantly as relying on a spell checker or a calculator to do basic spelling or math problems.

 

It's not normal or okay. It may be common but just because something is common does not make it okay. It means your body is deficient in basic vitamins and minerals and your body is just worn down. I would highly recommend seeing a well qualified naturopathic doctor or midwife that specialized in a strong knowledge base of herbal medicine, etc.

 

My first pregnancy I took prenatal vitamins and went to a regular OB and that was it. It was an awful labor, I was tired and run down during the pregnancy, I didn't sleep well, I was diagnosed with an irritable cervix, etc, etc.

 

Second time around I used a very experienced midwife with a masters in herbal medicine and one who had delivered over a thousand babies with a 1% hospital transfer rate. She had me taking a lot of supplements and vitamins and red raspberry leaf tea. Needless to say, I had an easy pregnancy, no more pre-term contractions, and a faster easier labor. Plus, my son was 11 lbs 3 oz and his labor was easier than my daughters (8 lb 11 oz) and I didn't even tear. It was a wonderful experience.

 

I really, really, really dislike the modern medicine mentality that our country has evolved into. I don't dislike modern medicine. I dislike how it is used. That is another rant.

[justamouse]

stupid and ridiculous. And lazy.:glare: Did I mention stupid and ridiculous?

[Tidbits of Learning]

So what should take the place of spelling in the PS curriculum, computer skills? For early elementary students? :001_huh:

 

You will laugh, but it is already. When ds7 was in ps-K 2 years ago, he had to sign in every morning by typing his name into the computer. He had to type a sentence into the computer in reading resource every week. His writing was abysmal and his spelling was awful, but his pretty printed computer sentence looked great.

When I registered him for ps-K mid-year I was warned that I needed to make sure he could type his name or he would be counted absent and that I worked with him on how to open a word processor and type a sentence on the computer.

[Storm Bay]

At least 12 years ago, one of the dad's in my daughter's public school had the exact same conversation with a teacher - only it was about MATH. "It doesn't matter if they get the right answer . . . ":ohmy:

 

 

The dad's response put an end to that nonsense - "I'm an engineer, if the math is wrong, the plane with crash." (NASA knows all about that.)

 

 

These younger teachers only know what the prof's have taught them - which isn't much. (and critical thinking is not on the list of subjects covered.)

 

 

In Vancouver, BC there is a bridge known as the second narrows bridge. At one point during its construction part of it collapsed due to a mathematical error on the part of an engineer, and there were casualties. They fixed it & it's been in use for a long time, but that's the same thing. Math is not only about the process. I still think the process is very important, and am all for conceptual math, but only if you're working to get the right answer and if you hit on the right approach for the dc learning.

[Impish]

I believe that there are 'born teachers', just as there are 'born musicians', writers, etc.

 

Not all of them are in the classroom. I also believe there are 'gifted' teachers just as there are gifted anything else.

 

But here's the thing: One does not need to be 'born' or 'gifted' to do their job well. And being 'born' or 'gifted' in something doesn't mean that they'll work to cultivate their gifts either. I'm sure there are gifted musicians working a boring day job...tonnes of them.

 

What it takes to do a job, not just well, but spectacularly is the desire to, coupled with putting in the blood, sweat and tears to make it happen. You could be an incredibly gifted scientist, but in a classroom, the kids hate you, the parents think you're an idiot.

 

Being better than 'good', but great at anything means work. Lots of it.

 

I sincerely doubt Yo Yo Ma got top billing by never practicing and trusting that his innate talent would carry the day.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Impish

[Mama Geek]

I believe that there are 'born teachers', just as there are 'born musicians', writers, etc.

 

Not all of them are in the classroom. I also believe there are 'gifted' teachers just as there are gifted anything else.

 

But here's the thing: One does not need to be 'born' or 'gifted' to do their job well. And being 'born' or 'gifted' in something doesn't mean that they'll work to cultivate their gifts either. I'm sure there are gifted musicians working a boring day job...tonnes of them.

 

What it takes to do a job, not just well, but spectacularly is the desire to, coupled with putting in the blood, sweat and tears to make it happen. You could be an incredibly gifted scientist, but in a classroom, the kids hate you, the parents think you're an idiot.

 

Being better than 'good', but great at anything means work. Lots of it.

 

I sincerely doubt Yo Yo Ma got top billing by never practicing and trusting that his innate talent would carry the day.

 

The book called the Outliers suggested that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something.

[Storm Bay]

I sincerely doubt Yo Yo Ma got top billing by never practicing and trusting that his innate talent would carry the day.

 

 

 

Correct--you cannot play that kind of music without practising--there is so much involved. But not all people need to practise the same number of hours to achieve the same results, which is why musicians of his stature don't all practise the same number of hours per day. I spoke with someone recently who did not understand that prodigies have to practise, too. They were quoting a child prodigy (on the piano) who claimed to not be a prodigy because they practised 5 hours a day--that's what prodigies do, at least in music, especially very technical, complex music such as classical music. But there are concert pianists who practise significantly more than that (they're not going to school) and also university music majors. OTOH, a vocalist shouldn't practise more than 3 hours per day, according to one expert vocalist (brilliant voice, great teacher) I used to know. This is why I did not pursue becoming a concert pianist--there is no way I'm going to spend all those hours at the piano every day. That said, you don't need that many hours to learn to teach piano because you don't have to learn so many pieces. (end of tangent)

 

I think that what is correct is that anyone can strive to do their job as well as they can, but not every teacher who works hard is going to reach every child or to teach what I'd call well, but none of them has to teach poorly.

[Impish]

I think that what is correct is that anyone can strive to do their job as well as they can, but not every teacher who works hard is going to reach every child or to teach what I'd call well, but none of them has to teach poorly.

I'd say that NO teacher, alone in the classroom, can effectively reach all students when classroom sizes are typically 30+. One person is just not enough.

 

And I do believe that the person who cares, who tries, who works their butts off will teach better than the 'born' teacher who puts nothing in, and coasts off their innate ability. The ability to teach a large group well is something learned, acquired through experience, imo.

 

I have no problem teaching my kids. Is it because I'm a 'born' teacher? Good grief, NO. I can grasp material super fast, but presenting it in such a way that others can? Explaining where I made the leap from a-g so that they can follow that leap too? Not so much.

 

I had to teach a cc class I was taking about the heart circulation, names. (our prof was a total dipstick). She spent all am on it, and even I, who'd taken 2 other cc bio classes was starting to get confused. She stormed out in a huff, mumbling about idiots.

 

I offered to try and show the people beside me who asked. That spread, and the entire class ended up staying. Ack! But by the time it was over, everyone got it, because I first had them understand that its a simple cycle. Never changes.

 

Was I a born teacher? Not. I hit on the one thing that she'd expected people who'd never been exposed to human bio before to just 'know'.

 

I can teach Diva in gr 7. Tazzie in k/1. Princess in pk. But put me in a classroom of ANY of those grades, and I'd run crying by 10 am. Esp the younger crowd. The older group I might make it til noon. Maybe. With a possibility of my anxiety medication.

[angela in ohio]

And I do believe that the person who cares, who tries, who works their butts off will teach better than the 'born' teacher who puts nothing in, and coasts off their innate ability. The ability to teach a large group well is something learned, acquired through experience, imo

 

Why are we comparing talented teachers who don't do anything to non-talented teachers who work their butts off? That seems like an extreme comparison. Are there no teachers who are talented AND work hard? (There are.) That would be the best for our children.

[angela in ohio]

Look up a little higher - the administration, the school board, the unions, etc. and see who is pushing whole language. Are the textbooks chosen by the educators who use them or a board with a political agenda? What perks, price reductions, etc. are offered by the curriculum companies? How many times has the school system changed from a curriculum that was working to something else, just because?

 

Curriculum is usually picked out by those who used to be teachers and are now curriculum consultants or in other positions to choose the curriculum (Director of Instruction, etc.) They are chosen in consultation with the teachers who will use them. They either choose several teachers to be a panel, or they survey all of the teachers in that area. They are given samples of different choices that meet standards, and they evaluate them all. That is considered in conjunction with cost, of course, just like we choose curriculum for our homeschool. School boards approve them soemtimes, but they don't really pick them. They have other concerns.

 

Many school systems change curriculum on a schedule, so they are implementing a new area each year (or every few years) on a rotating basis.

[mommaduck]

This person is wrong. Spelling is important. Incorrect spelling, grammar and punctuation reflects poorly on the person or business using it.

 

But it does seem that many people have bought into the weak opinion that spelling is not important because people can use spell checkers. I have heard that from the same people who state that memorizing math facts is not necessary any longer because people can use calculators or Excel spreadsheets.

 

What they are ignoring is that spell check only checks spelling, not context. Spell check won't always be accurate. A student still needs to be able to spell.

See this gets me also. I've caught errors that were made while using a calculator or computer by being able to go over number and calculation in my head (I could go grocery shopping, keep track in my head, and be pennies off of the total, usually due to tax). Computers and calculators only do what you tell it to. When you make a mistake, you have to be able to recognise it.

[Rosie_0801]

Good teachers will FIND a way to put in what they think is important.

 

That's not always true either. Even teachers who want to be good teachers want to keep their jobs so as to keep paying their rent. One needs a certain amount of security before they can rock the boat. You don't tell your boss you are NOT going to do things his way unless you are quite sure your boss can't fire you for it. You don't sneak behind your boss's back either, unless you are sure you won't get caught. In a school, it's pretty hard to make sure you don't get caught.

 

Rosie

[Impish]

Why are we comparing talented teachers who don't do anything to non-talented teachers who work their butts off? That seems like an extreme comparison. Are there no teachers who are talented AND work hard? (There are.) That would be the best for our children.

I agree, absolutely. I was arguing against the idea of 'born' or 'gifted' teachers are the only good ones. That those outside of the labels cannot teach well. Not everyone can be innately talented, regardless of their chosen profession...That doesn't mean they cannot be successful.

[mcconnellboys]

My son's gifted ed algebra teacher (Perdue trained in engineering, then changed to teaching) does NOT grade their work. She seems to think it's unnecessary. (So we check it, ourself.....)

[Pamela H in Texas]

Even teachers who want to be good teachers want to keep their jobs so as to keep paying their rent. One needs a certain amount of security before they can rock the boat. You don't tell your boss you are NOT going to do things his way unless you are quite sure your boss can't fire you for it.

 

I wonder how many teachers have been fired for going above and beyond in order to give kids a good education. How many have been fired for drilling multiplication facts in their "free time?" How many have been fired for teaching the list of prepositions during bathroom breaks? How many have been reprimanded for getting their students to pass the test though it meant getting them up 2 1/2 grade levels to do it? I just seriously doubt it is that big of a problem if teachers wanted to and chose to learn how.

 

And if it is such an issue, I guess I won't be a teacher long. The district I'm in as a whole and the schools in my town are all not meeting adequate yearly progress. If they expect me to contribute to that trend, they will most definitely be disappointed.

[Joker]

I wonder how many teachers have been fired for going above and beyond in order to give kids a good education. How many have been fired for drilling multiplication facts in their "free time?" How many have been fired for teaching the list of prepositions during bathroom breaks? How many have been reprimanded for getting their students to pass the test though it meant getting them up 2 1/2 grade levels to do it? I just seriously doubt it is that big of a problem if teachers wanted to and chose to learn how.

 

And if it is such an issue, I guess I won't be a teacher long. The district I'm in as a whole and the schools in my town are all not meeting adequate yearly progress. If they expect me to contribute to that trend, they will most definitely be disappointed.

 

My sis has been a teacher for 13 years and has had other teachers turn her in for not sticking to their program.:confused: She would get written up and get lectured. She only gets along with a very small number of her coworkers because she wants to do things differently (i.e. better for the kids).

[Pamela H in Texas]

FLmom, I do think you have to teach the program given to you and this is even more true at certain times. Back home, I was working in two completely different school districts. The stark differences were amazing. Anyway, at one district, at the elementary level, all the teachers of a grade level did their planning together and every class did the same materials and thing. This was REALLY nice for a substitute because you get two of the other teachers to come in, hand you materials, tell you what's up, etc. I liked that part of it. However, I was really thinking some of those materials were things I wouldn't want to use or to use in the way they were being used. It bugged me that the team made the decision and I would just have to follow it (another good reason to go a little higher up for a grade to teach, imo). However, as I visited these classrooms, I saw that the teachers still VERY much had their own styles. And though they had obviously discussed the work to be done, they all had their own spin on it. Additionally, each classroom had plenty of individuality. One teacher's student's had "learned" about half the multiplication tables, another's had actually learned those, while another class had mastered all the facts. They all used the multiplication sundae but it meant something different in each classroom.

 

In the other school, I would visit neighboring teachers and they'd not be doing anywhere close to the same thing. They wouldn't have a clue what their colleague was doing. Huge difference. BTW, and hugely different results. So then I got to thinking that "doing it alone" may not be all wonderful either!

 

Something even more inbetween would be nice. Of course, I don't know that those in the first district couldn't have opted out of certain things (however, some was programming as 4th grade at Mark Elem had the same spelling, for example, as 4th grade at Check and Grade Elementaries). And I don't know that certain teams at the other district didn't have a more cohesive team. I think a team to bounce things off of would be awesome, but if one is doing a multiplication worksheet for morning work and my students weren't ready for it yet or had passed that level of work already, I'd want to go another direction that day or at least add to it.

 

I can see how colleagues could be a bit concerned if you rock the boat much. If you can do X, then can everyone? And people are scared of change. And they don't want to look bad, especially about something so important. And then there are the dynamics of certain areas. What is done in inner city Houston would be considerably different than what is done in a district where everyone has known everyone else for the past 30+ years (many times longer. I met this old lady who knew a lady from our congregation. They went to school together. Then I found out the lady in my congregation is 85!).

Edited October 22, 2010 by 2J5M9K

[Storm Bay]

I'd say that NO teacher, alone in the classroom, can effectively reach all students when classroom sizes are typically 30+. One person is just not enough.

 

And I do believe that the person who cares, who tries, who works their butts off will teach better than the 'born' teacher who puts nothing in, and coasts off their innate ability. The ability to teach a large group well is something learned, acquired through experience, imo.

 

I have no problem teaching my kids. Is it because I'm a 'born' teacher? Good grief, NO. I can grasp material super fast, but presenting it in such a way that others can? Explaining where I made the leap from a-g so that they can follow that leap too? Not so much.

 

I had to teach a cc class I was taking about the heart circulation, names. (our prof was a total dipstick). She spent all am on it, and even I, who'd taken 2 other cc bio classes was starting to get confused. She stormed out in a huff, mumbling about idiots.

 

I offered to try and show the people beside me who asked. That spread, and the entire class ended up staying. Ack! But by the time it was over, everyone got it, because I first had them understand that its a simple cycle. Never changes.

 

Was I a born teacher? Not. I hit on the one thing that she'd expected people who'd never been exposed to human bio before to just 'know'.

 

I can teach Diva in gr 7. Tazzie in k/1. Princess in pk. But put me in a classroom of ANY of those grades, and I'd run crying by 10 am. Esp the younger crowd. The older group I might make it til noon. Maybe. With a possibility of my anxiety medication.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: I like the adage, "attitude determines outcome." Sure, that doesn't mean everyone with the right attitude will climb to the top of their field, but it makes a huge difference in how they do their jobs. With teaching, kids can see this.

 

I am a born teacher, according to what I've been told, but I would also by crying by 10 am if I were teaching in a large classroom of dc. A teacher not only has to be able to teach, s/he has to be able to maintain discipline among other things, and I would absolutely hate the discipline part of it. In addition, I am a far better teacher for having learned things. eg in piano teaching I took many workshops when I was first starting out, I spoke with experienced piano teachers & learned things from them, etc. I've had training in public speaking, in homiletics (I also teach the Bible), etc.

 

In some careers you can learn a lot on the job if you are a natural rather than get a lot of training first. My kid brother decided to become a screen actor at age 24 and he hadn't done anything growing up (he was a jock). He took one screen acting course & started getting parts. However, he has learned a lot on the job, has developed his acting & is now quite successful (for those of you who haven't known me long here, I don't post his name as it's TMI.)

Edited October 22, 2010 by Karin

[Rosie_0801]

I wonder how many teachers have been fired for going above and beyond in order to give kids a good education. How many have been fired for drilling multiplication facts in their "free time?" How many have been fired for teaching the list of prepositions during bathroom breaks? How many have been reprimanded for getting their students to pass the test though it meant getting them up 2 1/2 grade levels to do it? I just seriously doubt it is that big of a problem if teachers wanted to and chose to learn how.

 

My hubby taught high school, year 11 and 12 mostly. I think sneaking stuff in becomes more difficult in the higher grades. There's all those tests to pass, y'know. You MUST give the students a certain amount of in class time to prepare for them even if they choose not to use it. Each of the four major assignments for dh's year 11 and 12 kids took 5 weeks of class time to prepare for and test. Who needs three weeks to prepare for a 5 min oral? But that's the way things had to be done. That didn't leave much time left over for anything else, and kids of that age won't bother with anything they won't be tested on and are savvy enough to ask. They assign all their effort and brain power to the things they will be tested on, and there isn't much energy and brain space left afterwards. Besides, they have lives, you know. Jobs, friends... Perhaps your system is different though.

 

And if it is such an issue, I guess I won't be a teacher long. The district I'm in as a whole and the schools in my town are all not meeting adequate yearly progress. If they expect me to contribute to that trend, they will most definitely be disappointed.

 

I wish you luck.

 

Rosie