Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

It's always better to teach yourself, although, to learn for sure and from experience it's best to ask a teacher which you also have access too. Great way of learning but I still think teachers are needed. They can provide an experienced and educated response and/or solution to
whatever you might be questioning. Don't ever doubt the need for teachers, they are good to have around.

That's fine for a private school probably. But at a public school, if a kid were to fail there'd be an argument that no one ever taught him the material, blah blah, blah....

See my point?

carmodyarc: I see your point, I know children have tendency to argue if they think they have a valid point. But the fact of the matter is, if you fail, you fail. And of course the parents will back the child or adolescent in any situation and quite possibly make the matter worse. I'm going to stick with what I said first and I also think that the self-learning environment would only be suitable for mature adults that can hold themselves responsible for their own actions and understand the matter at hand.

I don't see this working in every situation, as there are some subjects that need immediate interaction from experience. Take Spanish. Even if the students work together, they will never know if they are pronouncing words correctly without the teacher stepping in to give an example and critique.

mwilsonemt: True, I've tried learning a second language by myself and I can't say I was in anyway successful. But I'm seeing the bigger picture and understand that other subjects can be difficult too, especially networking.

siyun: What are you studying?

Students cannot learn on their own, maybe you can because you're smart but think of others before you assume everyone can figure things out in a similar fashion. Also, just because you see some teachers not actually teaching do not pidgeonhole all teachers into that incorrect assumption as it is unfair and inflammatory.

I work with the "troubled" students, and I've got to say, that sometimes, I think they only come to interact with the teachers.

We're often the only adults who are able to provide them with BOTH love and boundaries.

It seems that most often, they are only provided one or the other... Maybe mum "loves" him too much to tell him no. Maybe dad keeps him on such a short leash that he doesn't feel he loves him at all.

So, in direct response, I think that for students who have strong self motivation, they would thrive with a teacher as "just a guide", and truly, teachers should allow those situations as practice. But as a whole, I know there are too many students who are so glad we're there to both guide and teach... not just oversee.

Carmodyarc: This is a public school that I'm talking about and students have to apply to the school and go through a process of interview and testing to get considered for admission.

Moskau: Well I'm planning on studying graphic design but I'm a senior in high school right now.

Mwilsonemt: I agree with you on that. Teachers are needed to teach a foreign language, as you've said. I've been taking three years of Spanish in that school and I've already forgotten 3/4 of it. It's pretty sad actually, because the teachers gives us videos and audios to watch and listen to, and writing activities before we take each test. I think in this case, it's not sufficient for a student to obtain the necessary materials for long-term memory. We do move pretty fast.

Mike: The whole point of our school is that students engage in "independent learning" and teachers only step in if students ask for help. Teachers in the whole school are not supposed to teach, well, actually they give seminars once a week to sum up everything but most of them don't even do that for upperclassmen.

In my opinion, teachers are necessary. There are those students who can self-teach, but there are those who do not have the self-discipline, motivation, etc., to be entirely self-taught. Some students need structure, and need a teacher reinforcing them each day.

Public schools in the US do not have any process of screening to receive their legally mandated services.
Kids can and will learn with teachers (and I guess this means principals) in an indirect role when:
1. they have food in their stomachs
2. they have a safe place to sleep every night
3. they have warm enough clothes
4. they are exposed to at least one adult outside of school who genuinely cares about them and who models that learning is important
5. they are healthy and have no medical (including psychiatric) diagnosed or undiagnosed problems
6. they have been exposed to books and the dominant language of the culture
7. they are of least average range intelligence
8. no one, including the State Education Department, dictates a set, rigid curriculum that they must demonstrate mastery of
9. they have no special educational needs at all such as a leaning disability

And "no" I am not a teacher or public school administrator, but I am familiar with US inner city schools for 20+ years.

Actually, magnet schools in the United States (almost always High Schools, but occasionally a middle or elementary school) often require entrance applications and examinations. It would be really difficult to have a public arts or science academy where the students couldn't hack the work or were attending just because it was close to home.

The issue that Siyun had with Spanish is a lack of practical practice (conversation), not of poor teaching. Even if you have a terrific, hands-on Spanish teacher, you won't retain what you don't use.

What Siyun's experiencing is what people experience in graduate school and at a lot of universities and in adult life. You suddenly have to teach yourself and your prof/mentor/friend is there to answer your questions, not to tell you the answers.

This isn't a system that works for everyone and it doesn't work at every age. I taught 3rd grade, the year when most kids are making the transition from learning to read to reading to learn. There aren't a lot of kids our there who are able to do that on their own.

Abi: my district has two middle schools (grages 6,7,8) of about 1500 students each, 10% are learning English, 11% receive some form of special education services and 77% get free and reduced lunch. We are a magnet school that is selected by lottery and no other measure. My district has another middle school that is identical.
What he is describing sounds to me like a Montessori type learning environment which is exciting to see for preschoolers. For it to be effective, though, a preschooler still needs almost all of the above outlined.

@auburn: those are also excellent reasons to make yourself learn. I've been in both situations in my life: private schools were my lunch was packed lovingly full of sustenance by my mother and, later, in a crusty white ghetto where dad forgot what year it was let alone to buy food for the house...

I went to a school - the Art Institute of Pittsburgh (though i am talking college now) - where this was generally the style... Those who couldn't motivate themselves to learn on their own failed and the rest of us did exceptionally well.

Okay, lol, maybe I didn't word my question right. I apologize for that. What I actually meant was are teachers needed for high school students to have a better education. Because as I've said before, compared to the other traditional schools in our district, we are leading academically. (I'm not trying to sound cocky or anything.) So do students actually perform better when they have the freedom to complete coursework at their own pace then if they were to go through lectures and other restrictions placed on students at traditional schools? (high school wise b/c they already have the basics of core subjects mastered)

Just a little necessary

http://classroom20.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=649749%3ATopic%3A32056
<quote>
"The role that the computer can play most strongly has little to do with information. It is to give children a greater sense of empowerment, of being able to do more than they could do before. But too often, I see the computer being used to lead the child step by step through the learning process. Ivan Illich said the most important thing you learn at school is that learning only happens by being taught. This is the opposite of empowerment. What you ought to be learning at school is that you don't need to be taught in order to learn."
</quote>
I do belief people who are interested in any subject, can study that subject on their own, but the standard curriculum embraces more subjects then just those students are interested in.

I do belief it's risky not to provide at least a general basis to start from.

Finally, not all students are capable of the concentration required for studying by themselves, some do like to be taught as the easier way.

Anyhow, you always need some guidance by a relevant and trusted master. In this sense, teachers have to stay available.

Great point, Jansegers. Waldorf Schools, which I can't speak of highly enough, are all about teaching children to learn for themselves and "learn how to learn" - instead of just feeding them facts and seeing what sticks.

Since I am in honors classes, I often do independent study. It works very well, and the teacher educates students who opt not for independent study.

But at a public school, if a kid were to fail there'd be an argument that no one ever taught him the material, blah blah, blah....

So you're saying that kids in Private education are more capable than those in Public education?

After all you did say that if a kid in a public school failed they'd blame the teachers... who would they blame if a kid failed in that system in Private education?

Honestly... different people learn in different ways. I am a visual learner, if you try to make me learn something by lectures then good luck. I learn best by examples and visual stimulation. My brother learns best through aural learning. He can absorb lectures without notes and zero visual stimuli.

So who's to say that the system above doesn't work or does. If you only accept children into the program that learn best through peer review then you bet your butt that program would soar.

When you're learning you need someone to guide you in the right direction. It doesn't matter if it's your parents, a qualified educator or some homeless guy wandering the street who seems wiser than he looks.

We need teachers, lecturers and mentors to guide us in the right direction. If we're going to start self-teaching ourselves, who knows where we're going to end up.

Teachers aren't just there to spoon feed us. They are there to inspire us, motivate us and help us find our direction in life. Even as you said, the teachers are there to answer any questions you have. Some of the most important things you learn in school don't come from the textbooks you read.

They come from the educators that are there to say "Move the cursor there!! Now click it!! Click it!! Noo!! You fool!!"

Who teaches the children at the Waldorf schools? Isn't there a person who guides them as to how to learn independently? Teachers are still necessary, no matter what, whether the teacher be a certified educator, a parent or mentor, one must learn from someone, initially.

My thought is, you can't say you're learning without a teacher if someone is still outlining your course of study. If you've got a sylabus and a list of assignments set out that must be done to pass (no matter the time frame), a teacher has done that for you. It didn't magically appear out of no where.

To learn without a teacher would mean that you show up to school, and without any goal what so ever (such as needing to complete an assignment), you decide what you're going to learn today.

As a long time student (and when I was little, my goal in life was to go to school forever), I think teachers are invaluable. They teach even when it doesn't look like it.

Just because they're not lecturing doesn't mean they're not teaching. Some time, it's only their presence that is needed to inspire students to do more.

Lisa: You're absolutely right, in every aspect. And a teacher's presence often does help to inspire some students.

The following link demonstrate that even for foreign language teacher are becoming less and less necessary...

Les accents

Like I'm a teacher of French as a foreign language, I'm not quite sure I really like this, but facts remain facts...

Lisa's got the whole point. Teachers can have an active or an indirect role, the latter is invisible but just as valuable. Somebody who is much more knowledgeable than the student must select the curriculum, provide the resources and do the 'guiding' and maybe support or encourage the student's motivation. Most of us are more familiar with the high school teachers in an active role that you can see and complain about. The public taxpayers, elected Board of Education and State Education Department mandate the curriculum as well as standards of accountability.

Even if you can ask a person, you may not be asking the right question. I think a teacher is needed in schools even if this model you're saying is pretty cool. I mean, you have to be pretty smart to identify the points and eventually formulate the right questions but what if you know everything on how to open a door turning the knob but don't know what' a knob is, for example? A teacher could tell it even if you forgot to ask.

I think teachers are needed in school to guide students to think for themselves; instead of telling them what is right and what is wrong. Teachers are to support and inspire their students.

Even Harvard, the elite of the elite, is offering on-line courses. Is this decision purely economic? I think not.

I think YES..
Teachers are the guides of students after their parents.
Pupils spend most of their time with their friends and teachers in school, The personality of a child will be molded from his school age. So good teacher will be an Inspiration for each students

In india we consider teacers and elders as God..

Matha, pitha, guru, daivam

Teachers are necessary. Not every child has the self-motivation necessary to teach himself. That is often a skill acquired with time (if ever).

Teachers are not present just to educate, but to encourage. They foster conversation, encourage debate, and explain when necessary. Teachers don't get enough credit in this world; to imply that they are somehow unnecessary is to discredit them even further. That makes me sad.

I think teachers should be commended for what they do and what they have to put up with... that being said, if you're going to be giving anything the boot, why not teachers unions.

Oh, come on. School starts again soon, and thanks to unions, I'm not fired because I'm short or over 50!

So teachers unions are good because you can have a job based on your height and age...

What about being able to fire someone because they don't perform?

I meant it is the unions that have protected someone from firing me based on other reasons other than professional competence. You'd be surprised maybe, but I do think the process of 'firing' a school professional should be more flexible.

I think you'd find that Equal Opportunity laws can do just as good a job on that front if you could PROVE someone fired you for being short and 50.

Given that it can take in excess of 8-10 YEARS to fire a teacher who sexually molests children in New York, I'd say THANK YOU UNIONS!

I'm not absolutely positive, but I think anytime the NY Child Abuse and Neglect Registry gets an allegation that Child Protective investigates, that staff person is automatically put on 'administrative leave' until the investigation is concluded. By law, that investigation takes 30 days.
If Criminal Court is involved, the staff person is also put on 'administrative leave' until the trial is over. If the jury recommends 'guilty' they lose their license as well as whatever the sentence is and cannot teach or be in a public school afterwards.
All public schools have a fingerprinting etc. process in interview so that goes for any adult (bus drivers, cafeteria, custodians etc) employed by the district.

Do you think teachers should be paid based on their accomplishments and skill... or based on their ability to show up?

Just ask the NEA and they'll tell you that they "worry that linking their pay to their students’ test scores would be unfair to those instructing kids from disadvantaged backgrounds."

After all... we ALL know that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are stupid and simply CAN'T be educated.

Ever heard of a "Rubber Room"?

The NY School system has designated "rubber rooms" where teachers under suspicion of neglect, sexual assault, and those they feel simply "shouldn't be teaching" go every day and do nothing and have ZERO access to children yet draw full salary and benefits.

No, never did hear of Rubber Room. The info I said before does not only apply to public schools but all treatment and residential centers. The process is not perfect. I want myself and others, though, to have the right of innocence until proven otherwise. There are some extremely manipulative people, vindictive in nature, that could accuse staff in schools or the other places I mentioned, of abuse. For the child, public, co-workers and license at stake----I want unions to protect our rights.

I do not think teachers, administrators, bankers, cops, secretaries, gardners, bricklayers, electricians or anybody else should be rewarded for showing up only :)

I want myself and others, though, to have the right of innocence until proven otherwise. There are some extremely manipulative people, vindictive in nature, that could accuse staff in schools or the other places I mentioned, of abuse.

So teachers and 'treatment center' staff should get kid gloves because there are "mean people" in the world? Sorry but if I was accused of the sexual assault of ANYONE I wouldn't have a job and I would have ZERO income. I deal with mean and vindictive people at work all the time... life sucks, especially when you're dealing with someone else's kids.

I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty but I am firmly against the belief that you should retain your salary and benefits while we find out.

You mean if you're accused of sexual abuse of a minor or anything else illegal, you're automatically fired? Even if you're proven innocent?
I'll stick to schools because that's really the subject... if a student earned a failing grade and his or her parent was ticked, accused the teacher of abuse to 'make sure they didn't ever teach in that school again'------or a male teacher offered a female student a tissue when she is crying and confiding in the teacher (perceived by the student as a trusted adult) some family or community upsetting events, and the parent is ticked------do you think they have the right or maybe responsibility to make allegations that ensures the staff member is fired stat?

Those examples are not made up.
I don't know what the answer is. There is much about schools, families, tax payers, unions, merit pay and special education / inclusion (see another note recently) I don't have answers for; in fact, most of the time I have only questions. On a really bad day, I don't even have the emotional energy for questions. I do know though, in my very soul, that almost every employee in a public school is doing their very best with inadequate resources, large classes and negative public opinion. I am positive that teachers and support staff are worthy of respect ... until proven otherwise.

Are teachers really needed in schools? - Yes of course they are.

The primary function of a teacher is to enable pupils to learn. There are of course many different ways to get a pupil to learn. Giving deadlines, handing out sheets of paper, marking exams and being a point of reference are all different techniques or approaches to getting someone to learn.

Of course, some teachers are better than others. I'd suggest that good teachers are the ones able to employ a range of learning techniques and able to adopt new techniques where needed.

There are also 'bad' teachers, I guess. Do schools need bad teachers? Almost certainly not but then perhaps the bad teachers are just those who have become de-motivated by their career choice or those who have been unable to employ newer approaches to teaching.I'd guess such teachers just need to be re-trained either in new approaches or a new career.

Yeah, like everyone else says, teachers are needed, even in Siyun's school. It's just there they are used more efficiently. At both high schools I went to, I estimate that only about a third of students got much benefit from sitting in classrooms. I didn't go to schools with only nice middle class kids - I went to one huge state school with a wide cross section from disadvantaged to very wealthy, and then I went to a hippie private school with a large proportion of dyslexics, ADDers and Aspergers, many of whom were state-funded.