Students of toay
Roy Schryver
and then give a test. Teachers need to be more interactive with
students. Do more hands on projects and less book work. You will get a
better response out of your students. they will come to class wanting to
learn. The one teaher I remember from when I was a kid did hands on all
the time The entire class had fun while learning, yes fun! I have modled
my teaching carear after his methods of teaching. It is the most
effective way and you also learn about our students more.
Joni J Rathbun
On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Tarkaan wrote:
> Lecture is also an extremely effective way of delivering a large amount
> of information in a short amount of time. Please, anyone know some
> hands-on projects that would give students a primer on MLA style in 55
> minutes?
No, but the MLA lecture will go in one ear and out the other unless
you follow-up with an opportunity for the students to put the information
you have given them into practice. In this case, the follow-up research
paper you assign serves a similar purpose to "hands on."
Magi D. Shepley
a person standing in front of you (lecture). It is DOING the activity.
Magi
Tarkaan wrote:
> Teaching MLA style without some sort of application would be pointless,
> but what sort of hands-on project would you suggest for a research
> paper? You go to the library, you look up your material, you read it,
> and you process an essay on it. Not much point to hands-on stuff there,
> when you're teaching college-bound students in their 11th year.
>
> -- Jack Tarkaan Kalamazoo, Michigan
> -- http://www.bigfoot.com/~tarkaan mailto:tar...@bigfoot.com
> -- NO UNSOLICITED E-MAIL AT THIS ADDRESS - Respect privacy - NO SPAM!!!!
Magi D. Shepley
Magi
Tarkaan wrote:
> Magi D. Shepley wrote:
> >
> > What you described *is* a hands-on experience, Jack. Its not taking notes from
> > a person standing in front of you (lecture). It is DOING the activity.
>
> Literally, yes, but I don't think that's the way the original poster
> intended it. Reading books and processing information onto paper seemed
> to be what the original poster was against.
Unknown
teacher of college bound high school students. Elementary students
operate on a more concrete level, so hands on works better for them.
You can lecture all day telling them the earth, moon, planets etc are
round, but if they don't have a clear concept of what round means,
they'll still picture a flat circle. Hands learning on gives meaning
to concepts and the type of of hands on learning varies with age.
You might be surprised by how interested some students become if you
give them alternative ways to learn the material and it helps relieve
boredom at any level.
Tarkaan <tar...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>Teaching MLA style without some sort of application would be pointless,
>but what sort of hands-on project would you suggest for a research
>paper?
I think that any teacher here could give you some pointers on that.
What's the current topic/subject they are researching? Are we talking
history, business, science.... what? Their research can be creative,
hands on and even lucrative.
Nike was the result of a Stanford student, Phil Knight's, paper &
$500. Federal Express was the brainchild of another college student,
Frederick W. Smith, who wrote a paper on the "hub and spoke" system of
distribution and was told by his professor that it wouldn't work...
but he did it anyway.
>You go to the library, you look up your material, you read it,
>and you process an essay on it.
Don't you find a research paper filled only with words totally boring?
How do you stay awake grading them? Don't you want charts & graphs,
pictures or sketches, something/anything to liven them up? If you
don't, then you aren't preparing your students for today's business
world. They will not be able to sell products, services or ideas
without using some type of visual aide - from graphs to 3D models. If
they don't have an interesting presentation, they will put their
audience to sleep and lose out to someone with a snappier delivery.
Even historians and scientists add 2 or 3 dimensional visuals to their
papers & presentations to illustrate key points ensure understanding.
>Not much point to hands-on stuff there,
>when you're teaching college-bound students in their 11th year.
It doesn't matter how well researched your students papers are, if
they are boring - all you are doing is perpetuating mediocrity by
creating drones & clones. We need to encourage our students to be
leaders who are capable of thinking "out of the box". By using an
instructional model that encourages creative problem solving, you will
not only create an environment where learning is its own motivator,
your students will have a lifelong passion for understanding & solving
problems and taking the next step in their thinking & plan for action.
Creative problem solving is something that American business looks for
in potential employees today.
You haven't presented any evidence that tells me a straight lecture
style works. I can tell you that any professor who tries that with me
isn't going to have it easy because I'll constantly ask questions and
force a two way interaction. I will not just sit there and be talked
AT. If all you are doing is giving me the information that is
contained in the "reading", just shut-up and let me read it.
If you want the material read before class, make sure it is processed
by asking a simple one or two sentence question that requires
interaction with the text. Then make that question one of the topics
of your class discussion that day. You'll be able to deliver your
"insights" when students ask pertinent questions.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
P. Tierney
sf wrote:
>
> You might be surprised by how interested some students become if you
> give them alternative ways to learn the material and it helps relieve
> boredom at any level.
And this concept, of course, isn't exclusive for elementary kids.
It works for high school students too.
P. Tierney
vieuxbouc
Tarkaan wrote:
> Lecture is also an extremely effective way of delivering a large amount
> of information in a short amount of time. Please, anyone know some
> hands-on projects that would give students a primer on MLA style in 55
> minutes?
Brian, I CAN'T believe you wrote that! After the problems you were
having with your classes in the beginning of student teaching and all the
suggestions all of us wrote to you to vary the lessons and create things for
the students (and the teacher) to do to better their behavior and
understanding??
Contrary to what all the right-wing fools write here, our job is a heck
of a lot more that *delivering information* or getting them to pass a
multiple choice test. We have an awesome resoponsibility and lecture is
just one small part of that job.
Marty
****************************************
Marty Weiss mart...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~martweiss
http://home.earthlink.net/~devweiss
"My father taught me many things....Keep your friends
close, but your enemies closer."
Michael Corleone
*****************************************
P. Tierney
Tarkaan wrote:
> vieuxbouc wrote:
> >
> > Tarkaan wrote:
> >
> > > Lecture is also an extremely effective way of delivering a large amount
> > > of information in a short amount of time. Please, anyone know some
> > > hands-on projects that would give students a primer on MLA style in 55
> > > minutes?
> >
> > Brian, I CAN'T believe you wrote that! After the problems you were
> > having with your classes in the beginning of student teaching and all the
> > suggestions all of us wrote to you to vary the lessons and create things for
> > the students (and the teacher) to do to better their behavior and
> > understanding??
>
> Well yeah, and they were helpful, but when the MLA research paper
> project came about, it was still pretty much black and white. Most of
> them did really well, and I was going to just say "there's the book, go
> for it" but I wasn't about to leave them hanging without some kind of
> instruction. Lecture seemed the best choice.
Nothing against your lectures, and anything else that you pull
out of your orafices, but for me as a student, a lecture would be a
fine overview, but a well-explained book or handout would be
much better. I've always wondered why my teachers told me
things, or had me notetake, when the information was right in
front of me, clear and concise.
Now, maybe you didn't have any good MLA references
available to the students. But since different documents require
different ways to reference, it would be nice. Students don't
need to be tossed a reference guide and be allowed to sink
or swim, but an intro to that guide, and activity/work that allowed
them to use it, is the direction that I would go in.
I won't go on and on, as everything that you did to prepare
the students has not likely been stated. Were it only lecture,
then I don't see how everyone caught it all, but it likely wasn't.
OTOH, no one is stating that there shouldn't be any. Many
or all classes have a lecture component, but whether that one
hour class has five or fifty-five minutes of lecture is when
the practice is called into question.
P. Tierney
Seveigny53
> Many
>or all classes have a lecture component, but whether that one
>hour class has five or fifty-five minutes of lecture is when
>the practice is called into question.
>
Once a week, I look into my mirror and say:
"I'm a history teacher. I lecture, and thats okay"
I lecture a lot less now than I did when I started out. I never (well almost
never) lecture for more than 30 minutes. While I lecture, I write notes on the
board (or the overhead), ask and answer questions. When my students write
essays or reports, they have models of previous papers--A through C work and
sometimes a F paper. Rubrics and instructional handouts are mandatory. I
always make extra copies since they "lose" them.
Cate
P. Tierney
I had to correct the subject line. It was getting on my nerves. ;-)
Seveigny53 wrote:
Oh, that's all good. I tried to be very clear that lecturing is
fine and necessary. But I understand that some might look into
the mirror these days and say that. I don't go on for more than
15 minutes, if that. OTOH, I know of some fine teachers in
my building who use it as a large component of their
classroom.
Most, like you, incorporate lots of questioning and discussion
into their lectures. That's quite different from one who lectures
for 30 minutes and does all of the talking 28-30 of those minutes,
with token, low-level questions here and there. Those two things
should be distinguised, I suppose.
Teachers need to play to their strengths, I think. If one can
use it effectively, then super. Many start heavily, as you did, and
then find that it's more effectively in digestible portions. It's our
job to figure out the rations for each class -- the appropriate ration
for each mode of communication.
P. Tierney
Craig Sondergaard
Research papers in "hard science journals" are rarely without two or
three dimensional visuals. In the biology papers I read, the graphs are
usually two or three dimensional. Photos and line drawings are
physically two dimensional but perceptually three dimensional (our brain
compensates). Nearly every primary literature scource I read contains
graphics. If you look, you'll see they are not overly simplified
"props" to help the non-expert or ignorant reader.
I might add, that in addition to biology, I read geology, psychology,
anthropology, and chemistry journals. Pure text is definately the
exception, not the rule!
Craig
Crazy on a ship of fools
Dave Bonar
> Nothing against your lectures, and anything else that you pull
> out of your orafices, but for me as a student, a lecture would be a
> fine overview, but a well-explained book or handout would be
> much better. I've always wondered why my teachers told me
> things, or had me notetake, when the information was right in
> front of me, clear and concise.
Of course that assumes a student who is willing and able to get the
information from the book. Even with Jack's college bound 11th graders
this isn't a given.
Dave
P. Tierney
Dave Bonar wrote:
True. Nor it is a given that anyone is listening to a lecture.
In each case, the responsibility is on them once assessment comes
around.
P. Tierney
vieuxbouc
P. Tierney wrote:
> I had to correct the subject line. It was getting on my nerves. ;-)
>
> (Thank you!)
>
> >
> > > Many
> > >or all classes have a lecture component, but whether that one
> > >hour class has five or fifty-five minutes of lecture is when
> > >the practice is called into question.
> > >
> > Once a week, I look into my mirror and say:
> > "I'm a history teacher. I lecture, and thats okay"
> > I lecture a lot less now than I did when I started out. I never (well almost
> > never) lecture for more than 30 minutes. While I lecture, I write notes on the
> > board (or the overhead), ask and answer questions.
> Oh, that's all good. I tried to be very clear that lecturing is
> fine and necessary. But I understand that some might look into
> the mirror these days and say that. I don't go on for more than
> 15 minutes, if that. OTOH, I know of some fine teachers in
> my building who use it as a large component of their
> classroom.
>
> Most, like you, incorporate lots of questioning and discussion
> into their lectures. That's quite different from one who lectures
> for 30 minutes and does all of the talking 28-30 of those minutes,
> with token, low-level questions here and there. Those two things
> should be distinguised, I suppose.
>
>
no argument, just wondering *out loud*
You know, those of us who learned the *art* many years ago had supervisors who
followed the same steps of teaching as we did in the beginning: lecture with q/a
sessions using visual aids (especially in science), some handouts, and worksheets.
Classes were 40 or 45 min. long and this worked well if the teacher was interesting,
asked provocative questions, and kept the *flow* going smoothly.
But it seems things have changed so gradually that one has to really think back
to figure out when the lecture, q/a method came into disfavor.
Consider the terminology: the word *rubric* wasn't in my vocabulary in the 60's or
70's (maybe even into the 80's??) We gave a quiz or a test. Now it's
*assessment*. Hands-on science came into play with the *alphabet soup* science
curricula of the 70's, but now it's portfolio and project assessments. Lab was
lab. Now those labs are called *cook-book*. and are more open-ended with fewer
*pat* answers. Science curriculum was said to be a mile wide and an inch deep.
Now, it consists of fewer topics done in a deeper way. (I'm sure there are many
newer ideas I left out.)
We *say* these new methods have made education better and caused students to
*think* more and reflect more on the subject. Have they really? Was the old way
so bad that it should be abandoned? Has modern education led to better learning?
Mind you- I'm not arguing one way of the other. Just starting a dialogue
here. Let's hear from some younger teachers who learned the art in the new ways,
as well as middle age teachers who have had to change their styles as the *rules of
engagement* have changed.
Marty
--
Seveigny53
>Classes were 40 or 45 min. long and this worked well if the teacher was
>interesting,
>asked provocative questions, and kept the *flow* going smoothly.
My classes are 90 minutes long. I see my students five days a week.
>We gave a quiz or a test. Now it's
>*assessment*. Hands on science came >into play with the *alphabet soup*
>science curricula of the 70's, but now it's
>portfolio and project assessements.
I give quizzes and tests. They are one form of assessment. I assign "economic
current events" where students read articles in the newspapers and apply
concepts learned in class. I assign worksheets to provide guided practice. My
students create a "stock protfolio" which they track, analyze and graph. I
have a small business project, which requires them to start (on paper) their
own small business. All of these are forms of assessment.
> We *say* these new methods have made education better and caused students
>to
>*think* more and reflect more on the subject. Have they really? Was the
>old way
>so bad that it should be abandoned? Has modern education led to better
>learning?
I was educated in a "classical system". I went to an all girl Catholic high
school. I did very well in that environment, earned good grades, got a high
score on the SAT and went on to do well in college. So, obviously, the "old
way" worked really well for me. It didn't work very well for some of my
classmates.
When I went back to school to get my credential in 1993, I was suspicious of
what I was taught. As I started teaching, I relied on what I "knew" as a
student--it worked for me and I was comfortable with it. However, as I began
to teach, I found that what worked for me, didn't work for some of my students.
I did not abandon the old ways--I didn't throw the "baby out with the bath
water" but I modified my style and my means of assessment. At first, it was a
"test". I tried something different to see if it worked. It did.
So now, I use a variety of methods. Some of my kids hate lecture, some of
them hate reading, some of them hate simulations, some of them hate quizzes,
some of them hate projects---but I have more success now than I did three years
ago.
Is it perfect? No. Are there kids who still don't perform? Yes. Do I
understand why? No. Are some of them lazy? Maybe. Are some of the
unmotivated? Probably. Do some of them find high school a huge waste of their
time? Undoubtedly. Will I ever find the perfect solution? No. Will I keep
experimenting, hoping to find a means of turning my students on to the wonders
of knowledge. I hope so.
Cate
J. Z. A.-H.
wrote:
>
> We *say* these new methods have made education better and caused students to
>*think* more and reflect more on the subject. Have they really? Was the old way
>so bad that it should be abandoned? Has modern education led to better learning?
> Mind you- I'm not arguing one way of the other. Just starting a dialogue
>here. Let's hear from some younger teachers who learned the art in the new ways,
>as well as middle age teachers who have had to change their styles as the *rules of
>engagement* have changed.
First, be happy if you are among the last to have gotten a real
education, at least in the traditional sense.
I think the change in methods used is not as significant as
non-teachers believe. The students, however, are very different.
That is why I get so frustrated when people talk about bringing back
old methods, the "basics" and so on. They misunderstand the scale of
the problem, because the nostalgia for a non-existent golden age
blinds them to reality. They don't realize that many students
probably wouldn't respond to those old methods the way previous
generations did.
When I decided to become a teacher, I resolved to approach it with an
open mind. I was told that the teacher prep courses were crap, and I
would hate them, and get nothing useful from them. Overall, that did
not prove to be the case. I honestly don't understand why so many
people, teachers included, criticize, even resent the new methods.
They should be more concerned about how students have changed.
First, I believe students, and probably the culture as a whole, have a
different idea of what education is for, or should be for, than
previous generations had. We share a strongly pro-academic cultural
context in which people learn things because there are things to be
learned. Academic success and great respect for literacy, learning
and educated people were a given in my home, and among those we
socialized with. We never chopped knowledge up into pieces and
declared this or that portion unimportant or "unnecessary", but the
American culture does this. Its priorities are quite different, and
that does affect education profoundly.
Second, I have wondered why students who are bright and possess at
least average study skills still struggle with the most important
tasks-- spelling, math operations, writing, etc. I grew up around
people who spoke English as a second language, and have tutored and
proofread for both native and non-native speakers of all ages many
times over the years. When I read what my students write, it reminds
me of immigrant's English. Even the bright ones often show so little
fluency in their writing that if I were given their papers and told it
was the work of ESL students, I would believe it. These students are
taught correct English in school, and probably with similar methods
used for previous generations, yet they don't know the standard form
of their own language. That is not a "methods" or "standards" problem
at all, and it's about time people realize this.
And they are not thinkers. They don't work in abstract terms, or get
unfamiliar concepts. For example, one of the hardest things to
explain to my FL students-- even the smartest ones-- is the concept of
exchange rate. You can explain to them that one dollar is worth five
francs, or two German marks, but they can't multiply decimals and tell
you how many francs $10.50 will buy. If they get a result like 0.786
on a conversion, they will tell you that is "786" of something. Even
those who can do the math and understand place value don't understand
at an abstract level that if $10 equals 50 francs, an item that costs
50 francs does not cost more than an item that costs $10. Throw in
the fact that exchange rates, average salaries, and costs of living
vary throughout the world, that a currency can get "stronger" or
"weaker" or even be "devalued"... and you lose them completely. These
students aren't "stupid" or "lazy" by any means, but they do struggle
with rule systems and abstractions, even simple ones.
Recently I read a book called "Endangered Minds". The author (Jane
Healy) argues that today's children are becoming increasingly
maladapted to school learning-- at a *physiological* level-- as a
result of current cultural practices. She states that increasing
numbers of children arrive in school with highly underdeveloped verbal
skills simply because they watch so much television (where language is
not interactive, non standard, and presented in a visual context),
read very little, if at all, and have little meaningful conversation
with adults.
The author also argues that the same cultural practices are largely
responsible for the exploding number of learning disabled and
attention disordered children. The environment children now grow up
in is increasingly nonverbal, with a stimulation level so high that
children must learn to screen out most stimuli. Attention spans
shrink as television and other media trains young minds to anticipate
constant change. Television apparently relies on that constant
variety to maintain attention at a physiological level.
School curriculums assume children have reached developmental
benchmarks by a certain age, but while previous generations of
children could meet them, more and more of today's children simply
don't, regardless of their background. They struggle with tasks
because their environments did not develop their minds to do what is
expected of them. They also rely on thinking strategies not suited to
the task at hand and become resistant to learning and reading because
it is so frustrating and inefficient. In teaching these children,
teachers rely more and more on lower level tasks and assessments
because the student frustration level is so high and the testing
pressures so intense.
To me, the arguments about methods are moot. The children are not the
same, not at all. Their "disabilities" are, in my opinion, a cultural
creation that needs to be widely understood before it can be
addressed. Also, I insist that the responsibility lies in the home,
with the parents who form (or fail to form) the child's intellect
during the most crucial years. As with any organism, the mind
apparently has developmental "windows" where certain needs must be
met, or there may be lasting intellectual deficiencies.
I believe teachers should stop taking it on the chin for the product
of today's parenting practices, and we should focus less on
controversies about methods. This is like arguing about how to put
out a fire when the house is burning to the ground.
J. Z. Al-Huriyeh
=============================
http://www.pb5th.com/k12
=============================
If a man speaks in the forest,
and there is no woman there to
hear him, is he still wrong?
=============================
vieuxbouc
two which arrived in my server).
I agree with *experimenting* in different methods to see what works
best (or better would be more appropriate- nothing is ever the
*best*.) Maybe that's why I got so frustrated two years ago. We were
told to stick to the written schedule because the students had to be
prepped for the test in March! When I could teach the lessons in more
depth using different approaches sometimes it took longer for *slower*
kids to catch on, so we used study groups and other methods so no one
got left behind if he or she really wanted to learn. Maybe something
took 4 weeks instead of 2. In the end the whole class would be able to
write open ended answers to human genetics problems (in Bio.) or how
Galileo gained the disfavor of the Church and was under house arrest (in
Physics), for example. I knew these things were not directly involved
with crosses (in genetics) or planetary motion (in the case of Galileo)
but the kids seemed to like how things related to the whole picture.
Relating history class to physics took some effort but isn't that what
education was all about- getting kids to think about different subjects
instead of breaking it all down into little segments?
Well, now (at least when I finally retired) it became- if this is
January you should be on electricity. Too bad if you didn't get the
idea of how planets move and how discoveries were made.
JZAH's remarks about the *cultural deficit* were on the money as
well.
The history of ava equipment is a perfect way to show what was
happening with students' preparation and attention span over the years.
We could see this attention deficit coming when filmstrips weren't
enough to keep their interest. You all remember filmstrips, don't you?
...especially the ones with captions someone had to read? Then came
recorded scripts with the f/s which you had to advance when the record
*beeped*. Then we had film-loops (that went out of favor quickly!)
Then came f/s recorded on video tape. (What was the sense of that?)
Then the video-tape experiments. Then videos of scientists explaining
their work. Then video shorts of science projects. Finally, video
movies which had to be edited. When I left, the science dept. still
had only one c.d. video player for 12 teachers, so we had to book that
weeks in advance.
Our school has never reached the internet age! They STILL have no
internet hookups in any but two classrooms and guidance office- those
teachers got grants to wire their room alone and one is the ROTC room
and the Colonel got his from the army! The guidance office didn't
know what to do with the internet except for looking up colleges. And-
they had no e-mail access so students couldn't get in touch with anyone
who wanted to help them at a distance! Very few city students have
computers at home, so tv is still the main arena for entertainment!
I wanted to start a homework central for physics but I ended up chatting
with one student who had internet, so I stopped doing it because the
others complained that this one student had an unfair advantage!!
Advance home preparation by students? Rare, if at all. Most
students think nothing of watching tv until late at night, but just ask
them to watch a science show or something other than some show on UPN or
WB network. "My mom won't let me watch Discovery channel on
satellites, it's on the same time as xxxx" (Give a break!)
Homework? You might as well have asked them to stand outside in
mid-winter with no coats on measuring the snow fall!
Parental involvement? Most of them work two or three jobs. So,
do the students, for that matter! It was nothing to find out that the
father worked as a mechanic for 10 hours in the day, then took the son
with him to the janitorial job from 6 til midnight! If our students
quit their night jobs the whole economic system of the mall would
collapse. Nine out of every ten food court jobs from 5 til closing
belonged to our students. (The tenth job was held by some retired
teacher!!!! ;-)
So, now the question is what will make things change for the
better in the new century? How can you MAKE kids care? How can you
DEMAND parental involvement in their child's education? How can
teachers compete with the UPN and WB networks? Does the stress level
of a good teacher have to be so great that he or she only lasts ten or
fifteen years?
Marty
Seveigny53
> We were
>told to stick to the written schedule because the students had to be
>prepped for the test in March!
Our test (SAT9) cannot be prepped for--realistically. I "measures" knowledge
aquired in previous as well a current classes. We are required to raise our
scores by 5% each year.
>When I could teach the lessons in more
>depth using different approaches sometimes it took longer for *slower*
>kids to catch on, so we used study groups and other methods so no one
>got left behind if he or she really wanted to learn
Thats my problem with the schedule I have. My classes are double blocked,90
minutes a day, five days a week. Supposedly I can cover in a semester what is
generally taught in a year. Guess what--I can, but many of my students cannot.
They need process time which I can't give them. We are due to be reaccredited
next year. I'm going to try to shift my classes to being single blocked. Two
years ago I taught year long World History and US History classes. The kids
did a great deal better.
> Our school has never reached the internet age!
My school is definitely in the Internet age. We have internet hookup in all of
our classrooms, in the library and in the Mac Lab and the PC lab. However,
many of the teachers at my school are technological dinosaurs. They won't even
give it a chance.
> Advance home preparation by students? Rare, if at all.
I hear you. Many of my students fail, or earn D's because the won't do
homework. I'm still working on that.
> If our students
>quit their night jobs the whole economic system of the mall would
>collapse.
The majority of my students work--some for necessities, others for luxuries.
Even those who don't work see homework as a waste of their "valuable" time.
> So, now the question is what will make things change for the
>better in the new century? How can you MAKE kids care? How can you
>DEMAND parental involvement in their child's education? How can
>teachers compete with the UPN and WB networks? Does the stress level
>of a good teacher have to be so great that he or she only lasts ten or
>fifteen years?
>
Don't know the answer to that one. One means I use is to try to provide
connections from the past to the world they live in. Current event assignments
and political cartoons are a useful means to demonstrate the connections.
Parental involvement is difficult. The kids who are successful have involved
parents. They may not attend back to school night, but they talk to their
kids, call when they have questions, and back me up when needed. I don't know
what to do about uninvolved parents. One means is to require contracts. The
schools which use them find them effective--however, most of these schools are
"alternative", the kids are there because they want to be there.
As I have said before, in a previous post, the teachers at my school don't
leave the profession after 15 years. They may go to another school or move to
another field of education but they are still working with kids. Perhaps
teachers need to have a more realistic view of education? Before I was
accepted to the credential program at SFSU I spent 30 hours observing
classrooms. The upped the requirement to 50 hours about two years ago.
Cate
vieuxbouc
Seveigny53 wrote:
> Thats my problem with the schedule I have. My classes are double blocked,90
> minutes a day, five days a week. Supposedly I can cover in a semester what is
> generally taught in a year. Guess what--I can, but many of my students cannot.
> They need process time which I can't give them. We are due to be reaccredited
> next year. I'm going to try to shift my classes to being single blocked. Two
> years ago I taught year long World History and US History classes. The kids
> did a great deal better.
Sounds like presently you are on A/B block scheduling. How can you get some
classes on full year and some on A/B?
Our school was on full year alternate day block. For science it was great.
I could do labs and projects w/o rushing because it was an 80 minute block. Some
other subject teachers didn't like it, and some even simply crammed two days into
one block. That didn't work so well.
>
>
>
> > Our school has never reached the internet age!
>
> My school is definitely in the Internet age. We have internet hookup in all of
> our classrooms, in the library and in the Mac Lab and the PC lab. However,
> many of the teachers at my school are technological dinosaurs. They won't even
> give it a chance.
We had teachers crying for connections to be made into the classrooms. Several
years ago several of us spent all day on a saturday wiring the main floor in the
ceilings and through the walls. It was called Net Day, and at the end they were
supposed to come in and deliver a srver and finish the connections in the rooms.
They never did! To this day (i went to visit a few weeks ago.) the wiree still
dangle out of the holes. Then last year they came in AGAIN and REWIRED the
school, parallel to where we did it before. Guess what- they never completed
that job either! So, now they have two sets of cable running through the ceiling
and through the walls and NO internet hookups!
>
> > Advance home preparation by students? Rare, if at all.
> I hear you. Many of my students fail, or earn D's because the won't do
> homework. I'm still working on that.
> > If our students
> >quit their night jobs the whole economic system of the mall would
> >collapse.
>
> The majority of my students work--some for necessities, others for luxuries.
These kids mostly work to supplement the wages their parents make. In the inner
city most parents make less than a living wage on one job, so parents work two
jobs and kids work at night so they can afford cable tv, $100 Nikes, Tommy H.
shirts, and all the other *necessities* of life.
It's tough where I come from. Not as physically tough as the South Bronx or
North Philly, or South central LA or places like that, but psychologically tough
and highly stressful! Very poor, very depressed area, high rate of child
pregnancy and missing parents, drugs and guns- high murder rate and shootings
every night. High turnover of young teachers.
Seveigny53
>
> Sounds like presently you are on A/B block scheduling. How can you get
>some
>classes on full year and some on A/B?
We are on a modified A/B block schedule. English and Social Science classes
are double blocked, all the rest of the classes are single blocked with the
exception of ROP classes.
> Some
>other subject teachers didn't like it, and some even simply crammed two days
>into
>one block. That didn't work so well.
>
We had some at my school who tried that--doesn't work at all.
> In the inner
>city most parents make less than a living wage on one job, so parents work
>two
>jobs and kids work at night so they can afford cable tv, $100 Nikes, Tommy H.
>shirts, and all the other *necessities* of life.
>
I teach in the burbs--or to be more exact, in a community which is
suburban/rural. My kids actually work for necessities--some are paying rent,
grocery money, clothes (not Tommy H) and the like. Others work for
luxuries--car payments, etc.
Cate
vieuxbouc
Seveigny53 wrote:
> We are on a modified A/B block schedule. English and Social Science classes
> are double blocked, all the rest of the classes are single blocked with the
> exception of ROP classes.
I would have thought that science classes would be blocked. It is so much easier
to do science with 90 minutes with proper planning and execution of labs,
projects, etc. We had one school with A/B block and science teachers liked it.
The other subjects were not so happy, though.
>
> > In the inner
> >city most parents make less than a living wage on one job, so parents work
> >two
> >jobs and kids work at night so they can afford cable tv, $100 Nikes, Tommy H.
> >shirts, and all the other *necessities* of life.
> >
> I teach in the burbs--or to be more exact, in a community which is
> suburban/rural. My kids actually work for necessities--some are paying rent,
> grocery money, clothes (not Tommy H) and the like. Others work for
> luxuries--car payments, etc.
> Cate
Actually what I wrote was true to some degree but not for all. We did have
many where the parents worked two jobs to keep bread on the table and the kids
worked nights in the mall to get the extras. Others had intact families where
both parents worked plus the kid worked. Still they were considered working
poor. This city is rated in the ten poorest cities under 100,000 in the
country. In 1990-92 it was number one for infant mortality. In 1994 it had the
highest murder rate per-capita in the country. It is still rated the poorest
city in NJ.
cars? The ironic part was they bought the cars outright- no credit payments
here because most of them had no credit. So, in the beginning they worked to
save to buy the car. Then after they had the car, they worked to afford gas and
repairs because the only cars they could afford were old cars which broke down
all the time, or else they modified them to be hot-rods. Every morning you
would hear the sounds of salsa or gangsta-rap blasting from 15 inch speakers
sticking up from the rear deck.
One thing that always got me angry was when I said they needed a scientific
calculator for physics ($15 at the most) and some said they couldn't afford it.
They used their status as *working poor* to justify why they couldn't buy a
calculator. "My mom can't afford it. She works to buy food, not a
calculator." So, I pointed to their shoes and said "Swoosh! $90" (Nikes)
Sometimes this embarrassed them so eventually somehow they got the calculator.
The funny thing was that everytime I said to a parent, "your daughter needs a
calculator", the parent would go out and get one no questions asked. So, it was
the kid herself who resisted it! Why take physics if you don't have the
necessities, especially when it will help you pass the class?
What we saw there were many parents who wanted their kids to do better, but
were powerless to know how to help unless we guided them directly. But, a lot of
the kids absolutely resisted every effort unless it was an exhausting one-on-one
tutoring session after school. You tried to help as many as possible, but unless
you kept up the tutoring they would fall behind again. Powerless parents,
resistant kids.
Every one could get into college on affirmative action, but they absolutely
weren't prepared for universities. I can't count how many entered colleges
where we teachers would say, "You should get one or two years in community
college first to prepare yourself before going to Rutgers." The kid would go off
to the big university anyway, and within two months would be home knocking around
for the rest of the semester because they couldn't handle the freedom and not
having a teacher constantly on their backs about working. In fact, some of the
so-called Black leaders among teachers and administration would chastize us,
"You can't tell Tyrone that he shouldn't go to Rutgers. He got a scholarship, so
he has to be good enough." (Who was I, a Jewish white guy, to advise some
minority kid he needed to prepare himself more before going to the big time
school?) I remember, bitterly, one time when I checked *average* on one of
the common college application checklists for *motivation* for a student. A
so-called leader came to me and said, "You can't do that." First of all, how
the heck did she see the private application? Second, why was she questioning a
judgement call? Guess what? The kid lasted one semester in a large university
and flunked out!
These things eventually wore a lot of us down. In the end it was the adults,
not the kids who were the cause of inner city failures you read about in the
papers. "You should pass him anyway because, after all when is he going to take
physics again?" or "I know the homework was due last month, let him make it up
now so he can get the football scholarship to University of Connecticut."
(Guess who got kicked out of UConn after the season was over for cheating and
fighting with the coach?) I don't care who it offends on this group. Many
of the minority adults in the city schools are their own worst enemies!
Thanks for letting me rant!
Marty
--
J. Z. A.-H.
wrote:
>
>
>Seveigny53 wrote:
>
>> We are on a modified A/B block schedule. English and Social Science classes
>> are double blocked, all the rest of the classes are single blocked with the
>> exception of ROP classes.
>
>I would have thought that science classes would be blocked. It is so much easier
>to do science with 90 minutes with proper planning and execution of labs,
>projects, etc. We had one school with A/B block and science teachers liked it.
>The other subjects were not so happy, though.
We've been on 90 minute blocks for four years, and I love it. There
has been some wavering on maintaining the schedule, and that was one
of the reasons I decided to quit mid-year. Before the block, I had 5
preparations, and I'm not keen on going back to that.
I think training and flexibility are essential to it. We were taught
to plan at the unit level (rather than just lesson by lesson) and run
off everything at once, so that you always have materials ready and
you can use all the time you have. That works very well for most of
us. But yes, there are still teachers who give them 30 minutes to do
"homework" in class.
>> > In the inner
>> >city most parents make less than a living wage on one job, so parents work
>> >two
>> >jobs and kids work at night so they can afford cable tv, $100 Nikes, Tommy H.
>> >shirts, and all the other *necessities* of life.
>> >
>> I teach in the burbs--or to be more exact, in a community which is
>> suburban/rural. My kids actually work for necessities--some are paying rent,
>> grocery money, clothes (not Tommy H) and the like. Others work for
>> luxuries--car payments, etc.
Our situation is somewhere inbetween, since many of our students who
work are in the voc-tech program. Many of them use their jobs as an
excuse for falling asleep or not having done assignments.
I had one student who was failing my class and used working as an
excuse. His mother went to the principal and complained about how I
graded her son, etc etc. It turned out he was working 40 hours a week
in addition to school of course, and was failing another class besides
mine. When I suggested that this work schedule was the reason he
didn't study enough, and that he needed to cut back, the mother got
offended, but it got the principal off my back.
> Actually what I wrote was true to some degree but not for all. We did have
>many where the parents worked two jobs to keep bread on the table and the kids
>worked nights in the mall to get the extras. Others had intact families where
>both parents worked plus the kid worked. Still they were considered working
>poor. This city is rated in the ten poorest cities under 100,000 in the
>country. In 1990-92 it was number one for infant mortality. In 1994 it had the
>highest murder rate per-capita in the country. It is still rated the poorest
>city in NJ.
> cars? The ironic part was they bought the cars outright- no credit payments
>here because most of them had no credit. So, in the beginning they worked to
>save to buy the car. Then after they had the car, they worked to afford gas and
>repairs because the only cars they could afford were old cars which broke down
>all the time, or else they modified them to be hot-rods. Every morning you
>would hear the sounds of salsa or gangsta-rap blasting from 15 inch speakers
>sticking up from the rear deck.
Sounds familiar.
> One thing that always got me angry was when I said they needed a scientific
>calculator for physics ($15 at the most) and some said they couldn't afford it.
>They used their status as *working poor* to justify why they couldn't buy a
>calculator. "My mom can't afford it. She works to buy food, not a
>calculator." So, I pointed to their shoes and said "Swoosh! $90" (Nikes)
>Sometimes this embarrassed them so eventually somehow they got the calculator.
>The funny thing was that everytime I said to a parent, "your daughter needs a
>calculator", the parent would go out and get one no questions asked. So, it was
>the kid herself who resisted it! Why take physics if you don't have the
>necessities, especially when it will help you pass the class?
I go through the same every year with workbooks. If the students
don't pay for one ($10), they don't get one. My $200 allocation just
won't cover it. Then the same students who refuse to pay for it want
to go on my fall field trip (cost, $10), and get offended when I don't
allow them. Strangely, I get a lot of kids paying for both when the
field trip deadline approaches.
> What we saw there were many parents who wanted their kids to do better, but
>were powerless to know how to help unless we guided them directly. But, a lot of
>the kids absolutely resisted every effort unless it was an exhausting one-on-one
>tutoring session after school. You tried to help as many as possible, but unless
>you kept up the tutoring they would fall behind again. Powerless parents,
>resistant kids.
> Every one could get into college on affirmative action, but they absolutely
>weren't prepared for universities. I can't count how many entered colleges
>where we teachers would say, "You should get one or two years in community
>college first to prepare yourself before going to Rutgers." The kid would go off
>to the big university anyway, and within two months would be home knocking around
>for the rest of the semester because they couldn't handle the freedom and not
>having a teacher constantly on their backs about working. In fact, some of the
>so-called Black leaders among teachers and administration would chastize us,
>"You can't tell Tyrone that he shouldn't go to Rutgers. He got a scholarship, so
>he has to be good enough." (Who was I, a Jewish white guy, to advise some
>minority kid he needed to prepare himself more before going to the big time
>school?) I remember, bitterly, one time when I checked *average* on one of
>the common college application checklists for *motivation* for a student. A
>so-called leader came to me and said, "You can't do that." First of all, how
>the heck did she see the private application? Second, why was she questioning a
>judgement call? Guess what? The kid lasted one semester in a large university
>and flunked out!
This has happened to our students many times as well. We have also
been sued by students who lost their scholarships.
> These things eventually wore a lot of us down. In the end it was the adults,
>not the kids who were the cause of inner city failures you read about in the
>papers. "You should pass him anyway because, after all when is he going to take
>physics again?" or "I know the homework was due last month, let him make it up
>now so he can get the football scholarship to University of Connecticut."
>(Guess who got kicked out of UConn after the season was over for cheating and
>fighting with the coach?) I don't care who it offends on this group. Many
>of the minority adults in the city schools are their own worst enemies!
Amen. I have seen this over and over even in the few years I have
taught. As a teacher of an "unimportant" subject, it affects me less
than the core teachers, who are routinely harrassed by parents even
MONTHS after the graduation date to change grades, accept makeup work,
etc. just to let a student graduate. Colleagues of mine routinely
"lose" their senior classes if they give "too many" E's. Out of the
other side of their mouths, they tell us to emphasize "achievement".
Parents of athletes and the coaches are worse. They treat the
academic teachers here as an obstacle to the child's success. No one
is ever responsible for the outcomes except for the teachers.
Ron McDermott
wrote:
> On 12/29/99 vieuxbouc wrote:
> > We were
> >told to stick to the written schedule because the students had to be
> >prepped for the test in March!
>
> Our test (SAT9) cannot be prepped for--realistically. I "measures" knowledge
> aquired in previous as well a current classes. We are required to raise our
> scores by 5% each year.
Heh... Wouldn't pay to have a class of high scorers then, would it?!
Not only would the point increase "required" rise, but the top score
is fixed and can't be exceeded! Anyone give any thought to that
"policy" <g>?
Kleyle
<<We are required to raise our scores by 5% each year.>>
But if memory serves, that contributor mentioned that this was an LAUSD policy,
which, by itself, answers mcder's question below in the negative:
> rmcder:
<<Heh... Wouldn't pay to have a class of high scorers then, would it?! Not
only would the point increase "required" rise, but the top score is fixed and
can't be exceeded! Anyone give any thought to that
"policy" <g>?>>
As ever,
Homeschool if you can, and to Heck with the rest of them.
Seveigny53
>I'm not sure who wrote this:
><<We are required to raise our scores by 5% each year.>>
It was me. I believe it is a state requirement.
Cate
Corey Crawford
of us have worked long and hard to convince others in this NG webtvers
are not lame. You however come in and spell and write like a second
grader.
I know it is the infrared, watch out, they will eat you alive. :-)
Next, what is this coming in and dumping all over these veteran teachers
as you have? Most of us in here do neat things with our kids; do not
ever tell a group of veterans they do not know how to do it. If you
wish to inject some life in the teachers who have lost it, very good;
but you burn them more by your insults.
Please do not take this as a flame but as an advisory in the future.
Corey
*************************
"Our children are like mirrors, they REFLECT our attitudes and beliefs
in this world." E.A.