Easy @Lewdog, it was a joke. I apologize if that didn't come through. And I don't think I will honor the rest of your post. @KaTrian you, as always bring in some good perspectives. and a touch of humor.
Isn't it kinda narrow-sighted to bunch every "modern teacher" into one group like that? To exaggerate a bit, isn't it like saying African-Americans should stop their yapping about their rights, racism etc. already because one of them is the president of the US? I know some teachers are well off but some are barely scraping by, barely avoiding eviction when they can't pay the rent on time because of how little they earn (not to mention how some have a really hard time at work because some schools are harsh work places while some schools are filled with angels so some teachers breeze through their work days). The relation between cost of living and wages is different in every country, so is it really just to say modern teachers don't deserve sympathy? Why shouldn't we sympathize with a person in a difficult situation? Just because they have a certain occupation and somehow simply bearing the title of "teacher" makes them automatically privileged? Why limit the no-sympathy only to teachers? Why not include, say, LEOs (their working conditions have improved too, better equipment, better support systems etc), factory workers (their conditions are a lot better now than during the industrial revolution... no, wait, this applies only to Western countries and those countries where conditions are better than in sweatshops), prostitutes (who work in places where prostitution is legal, and since their working conditions are usually better than those of their colleagues a few centuries ago, why should we care about their problems?)... why not include minorities too? I mean, African-Americans, homosexuals etc. have things much better than they did 100 years ago. Why sympathize with their plight?
Good grief, who said limit the no-sympathy only to teachers? There are a lot of people who whine about their jobs, whine about having trouble paying the rent, whine about everything that means they aren't living as well as their neighbor or sibling or some stranger they saw with a better car. I don't have sympathy for any of them. Someone who's struggling and just keeps trying without wailing "I've got it sooooo hard!!!!" - those are the ones I admire. If people don't like their job, or the pay, or the hours, or whatever, they can start looking for something else. If they say they love the job but... then suck it up. Lots of people make sacrifices to do what they love; if they don't love it that much, maybe it's time to move on.
Well, you didn't really mention any other professions, just that you didn't have sympathy for the plight of modern teachers, so is it a wonder it looks like you don't have sympathy for modern teachers? So you never whine? Wow. You're probably the first such person I've ever encountered, but good for you, hats off. After all, judging "whiners" while whining yourself would be pretty hypocritical, right? For the sake of clarity, maybe I should ask what constitutes as whining in your book? Does merely bringing up one's problems count? Does this apply only to monetary problems and if not, is there anything a person can "whine" about without losing their sympathy privileges? Unemployment? A broken heart? Health problems? The way I see it, I don't think just bitching about everything is good either, but, then again, I don't think that's been going on in this thread anyway; more like people bringing up different problems and discussing how they could / should be fixed. I don't usually consider that whining, but maybe that's just me. If they can. Surely you admit there are circumstances where you just can't hand in your notice? I mean, not everybody lives in such a great area (wherever that may be) where they can quit their job and pretty much immediately get a new one before bills start piling up and debtors start looking for them. I don't know how things are where you live, but around here there are plenty of people with a Master's who can't get a job that matches their education since there simply are none available (or there are so few, only the most experienced candidates get them, still leaving hundreds without the job they spent years studying for), so they have to settle for shitty entry level jobs with shitty wages, barely making ends meet. Guess all's good just as long as they don't talk about how much their situation sucks, why it sucks, and how it could be made to suck a little less. All seriousness aside, I do subscribe to the notion of lying in the bed you made, to a degree, but I also admit there are situations where things go to hell and it's not even always your fault. That's when I'm willing to grant a bit of leeway for the person to just vent out their frustrations because I've encountered some people who've truly had some bad luck with the cards they've been dealt. I also don't see anything shameful or unsympathetic in it if someone brings up their problems to discuss what the problems are and how they could be fixed (or even to just voice their thoughts on the matter).
The discussion was about teachers. Next time I'll be sure to add "Oh, and all other professions/people/countries/worlds/animals/etc etc etc". There is also a difference between whining and complaining. Yes, everyone complains about something at some time, and everyone needs to talk about their problems at times. Whiners continually harp on their problems and typically do nothing about it. And yes, I stand by my statements about getting a different job if one is sooooo unhappy in the one they have. Did I say it would be easy to do so? No. It took me almost three years but I didn't sit around whining - I LOOKED. So spare me your own holier-than-thou attitude.
Quite a mouthful. Wouldn't it be easier to just leave out "modern teachers"? According to whom? This is why it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by whining a bit more clearly from the start since your definition is stricter than that of dictionaries. Then again, you say "typically," so how does someone who whines about their problems and does all they can to fix them differ from someone who complains about their problems and does all they can to fix them? Or what's the function of "typically" there? Gotta love semantics. Still a bit unclear: if I spend three years trying to get a better job but bitch about my situation to a friend now and then over the course of those years, does that make me an unsympathetic whiner? Or a sympathetic complainer? In this context, I tend to use "compalin," "whine," "bitch," "cry" etc. interchangably, so please pardon the confusion. Anyway, in the context of this thread (since your original comment was related to what was being discussed here at the time), it almost looks like you are saying that people shouldn't fight to improve their situation at their current work place, that they should just quit without trying to get a raise or improve their working conditions. Surely you don't mean that? The reason why I ask these borderline rhetoric questions is that usually the struggle to fix the problems at your work place is a lengthy and often arduous process and hence is likely to wind up being discussed at least to some extent by the parties involved which, I suppose, may come off as whining. Then again, if the whiners eventually succeed, they might not need to change their jobs or careers. Who knows, they might even manage to turn the job that makes them whine into that dream job if they don't give up at the first hurdle and actually stay and do something to not only improve their situation, but usually that of their colleagues as well (albeit often by proxy). Kinda like what some teachers are trying to do, it seems. But of course. And I wasn't even slicing any onions yet...
Okay, all teachers are terribly abused and deserve the very best of care. And I will in the future cite Websters for every word I use, so no one gets confused. Happy now?
Not really what I said, suggested, or asked in any part of any of my posts in this thread, but you are, of course, free to do as you please.
Hot off the press... http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-students-lag-around-average-on-international-science-math-and-reading-test/2013/12/02/2e510f26-5b92-11e3-a49b-90a0e156254b_story.html
Hmm, this is interesting. I was having a nice chat with my Sociology professor this morning and this came up. The general consensus is that we need to change our attitude towards education. Test-heavy education and weak curriculum will not boost the success of our primary and secondary education systems. We should be teaching students how to think critically and apply skills, not the rote memorization and regurgitation we we've been perpetuating. Most of that stuff is gone right after the exam, anyway. I think middle schools and high schools should offer more intensive and comprehensive classes. That will start the critical thinking process earlier and get students into the mindset of making connections between the courses they take, which would make for better retention. I personally think there should only be a few exams each semester, and courses should be directed towards homework and projects. Then, students can demonstrate their knowledge and advancement by actually applying what they should be learning instead of simply learning how to pass a formulaic exam. On another note, I have a former teacher who had this to say on Facebook today: While I disagree a bit with the first comment, I think the short article in the link helps to put things into perspective regarding the comparison to other coutries. That doesn't change the fact that Americans in general are not scoring well.
Given the discussion of teacher's salaries and the diminished funding of education in the US, I thought this deserved its own thread. But I've been too busy with work and the sci-fi short story entry to start one. Last night on the token right winger on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, I wanted to throw my beer at the TV. He went on about how the [bogus] studies showed the money we put into schools does nothing. It's a confirmation bias lie. But in addition I thought of the studies in my state, WA, that showed test scores correlated with income. So yeah, Scarborough, when the 99% get further and further distanced from the 1%, that's what you see. A greater proportion of working poor and less public funding for schools and gee, guess what predictable double whammy outcome one gets?
I will argue that is does not always have to do with the funding but with the teaching. I went to a school in NJ where you have to have $$$$ to live in the town. There were a majority of students that did pretty well because of the teachers and how they taught as well as their class structure. Teachers were very accessible in my district and had after school hours for extra help. However there were students, and in my year and younger sister's year (I will refer to HS) where 25% was nearly failing and 4% have failed more than 3 classes. We did have proper funding, great teachers and a school structure based on privilege (basically if you were a good student and had good grades you got perks), however students were performing badly. The culprit.....we have a drug problem. Because the area we lived in, places where students would hang out after class, cafe's, entertainment, movie theaters etc. started closing fast. There was nothing much to do unless you could drive a car or had the money to travel into NYC. Nothing! Even with our sports teams and after school activities, I could not tell you how many students would snort a line in between classes in the bathrooms. Overall I will say it is a collection of factors. I will agree that income does have some influence and the family structure has a major influence. However, if a teacher cannot teach correctly.......students will fall between the cracks. I will say that 3/4 of my literature teachers in my entire school career from k-senior of college, really did not teach me properly.
Because of the teacher shortage, the teachers in poorer schools may not be as qualified to teach. After all, there's going to be less competition for the teaching job at a school in a poor neighborhood. So I would wager that teachers in richer schools are more qualified and more effective on average.
@live2write: I grew up in the drug culture of the 60s and 70s. It never affected the whole, always just some. I don't think drugs explain the latest test scores. I don't doubt it explains local numbers, but considering how rampant drug use was then compared to now, I can't see that drugs explain the bulk of the problem. I just paid for my son's graduate degree. The students are being burdened with such a bigger share of the cost, all the while the state cuts funding more and more. It sucks. I had enough but few parents do. It takes a village. We'll all suffer for the ignorance of the TEA Party and the right wingers who bought the lies of the 1% who had the money to spin them.
God it does not take a village. I will admit the government spending is just far too great. I still want the IRS to tell me where my tax payers dollars are going because I do not see it fixing the potholes in my street. Drug culture from the 60s and 70s are very different from the 90s, 2000s. I will admit too that it is also culture itself that has found a way to thing that it is acceptable. Which is one reason why I despise celebrities that get caught with drugs and get a slap on the wrist. However, with drugs I will add alcohol because technically it is a drug. I have heard stories from my mother talking about tripping on acid, smoking weed and other drugs that were available. She described it more as an experience than an addiction. It hurts me to find that when graduating high school at least 4 students from my class died from a drug overdose and some from drinking and driving. I can also say that many of the students would be so high in class that they could not tell from the foot to their pencil in their hand. I guess it is a generation gap and I apologize if I take this personally, but this has an effect on my two where I do seem my friends struggling to find work, find a great school that does not cost their parents their home and live. Edit: I just see it got political. God why does everybody criticizes the Tea Party. I will point out that I am personally a conservative, not republican but some where on the right. I do agree that on both parties, actually all parties, there are times we butt heads on topics. To be honest I do believe that congress, senate and everybody working in office is only doing what they do to try to keep their jobs and not lead. The reason why I believe it does not take a village, I do not believe that I have the right to tell another parent how they should raise their kid when it should be none of my business and how I raise my family and my values should be none of theirs. (within reason where if it is a violation of Child Protection laws then I would step in and notify authorities). Just to back up on parenting and education. My parents were never there for me during my education. Rarely got involved unless there was a problem. If my parents were to teach me the values of sitting down, doing my homework, doing good in school, studying, researching etc. I would have done much better. No, never was encouraged. Then this goes with my first argument on teachers. There are only few teachers that can really teach excellent to student where the knowledge just soaks in like a sponge. And there are many that can teach well.
@live2write @GingerCoffee I asked this on facebook the other night, here are a couple of responses, and then my thoughts. "Who's responsibility is it to teach children? Who's responsible for what they learn?...or do not learn?" "uh... parents?" "When I think about it, I recall an old adage that says, " it takes a village to raise a child." The parents are responsible for teaching the children. So are the grandparents, and the neighbors, and the schools. In other words everyone has a hand in teaching the next generation, but the parents are primarily responsible for teaching children values and culture and family history, as well as for ensuring that children get the most out of their schooling." "I believe it is everyone who comes is contact with or is involved in the life of the child. Children learn from everyone, good and bad. Always model the attitudes and behavior and devotion you want the child to learn." ************************************************************************************** There is wisdom in the old ways. It is primarily a western European thing to isolate one's self and begin to propertize family instead of utilize community As for the statistics of test scores, finances sure do play a factor. Tell me poor people in San Bernardino care as much about crappy, poorly funded schools when they know they aren't going anywhere with it. They got families--mothers, sisters, sons and daughters even--they need to make money, and they know drug dealing gets people $$$ in San Bernardino. Working get's people money. A diploma ain't takin' them to some college they can't afford. No one has the time or funds to care about school. And Drugs are equally a part of it. We have too many drugged out people in our city too. And parents who are too busy messing around to keep their kids off of it. There is a whole range of social problems, but I firmly believe communities are what preserve and pass on values. Americans, in general, have lost the small-town/village sense of community and trust. We don't know our neighbors, we don't trust them, and we certainly don't want to meet them and have anyone knowing our business. Americans and western culture in general is obsessed with privatization and ownership and individuals. True community seems to be a fading idea in many places. As a result, no one looks out for each other, and no body has any valuable input to contribute for making a safe and value-filled place for kids to grow and play and learn together. Heaven forbid the neighbors are playing on our lawn or share some food. No body say anything when the neighbor's toddler walks into the street, don't want to get in their business. That's an extreme example, but that's real in my home neighborhood, and it wasn't like that when I was growing up. (Don't forget I'm just 19 at that.) It was COMPLETELY different when My mom grew up there 25 or so years ago, and my aunts and cousins somewhere in between there. We still have neighbors we can trust on our street, and lots of the kids play in our yard with my youngest sister. and My oldest sister watches them and gives them all snacks. We got too boys who may be neglected somewhat two houses down, but we sure fed them well when we let the kids have a party. Communities are good for children. It takes a village, I suppose.
Even if there's a decline in the US relative to other countries, that might be within a general rise worldwide. It's worth pointing out here that the decline in relation to other countries isn't unique to the US - it's found in most major western powers, including the UK. It's simply the result of far more populous Third World countries bringing their education up to scratch.
I think this is an important variable to consider. I don't think it's the only one, but you have a valid point.
