blast from the past - new info on a bad teacher I hate, decades later

[TheoK]

Hadron owns the Moomintrolls. 

[Lucifer]

/shrugs.

fine - if he needs to score the points so desperately, he's welcome to them, with my blessings.

[Christopher McCandless]

hadron, i really would give up if i were you.  more or less every word you've said the post above just continues to prove my point.

I could find teachers who more than agree with my arguments

how many?  hadron, you're reverting to "i'm a sprog and i know everything" territory again.  take it from me (with 20+ years experience of hundreds of teachers), you really *don't* know, in this case.

Most of my old teachers were in their fifties too

er, you think i'm in my 50s?  if that's the level of attention you pay to things, then the rest of your comments are worth jack shit.

Your nearing them - mentally you may as well be. Little difference between being late to mid forties and passing the mark of 50 anyway.

- and I could find 10 people who pretty much agree with me, with more experience than yourself.

ten?  well done - when you can talk about hundreds, i'll start listening.  

Actually all you have done is waded in here and announced you have been in a classroom for 20 years - slightly different.

Not that I believe in argument from authority of course...

you'll learn to listen to people, one day.
[/quote]
Listen yes. Agree with a lot less often.

as for:

Half of it is the same parents who have failed to raise their kids to any extent blaming their own ineptitude on teachers.

are you saying this about the people who have complained about dodgy teachers in this thread?

No - I was referring to in general. Lets say I overheard enough from them when attending parents evenings - basically middle class parents who can barely control their own kids, let alone get them to do their homework.  Though if their kids were brighter, then perhaps they would not need to...

again, you should see things from "the chalk face", as it's called.

You mean the resource website for teachers who dont know / cant be bothered to write their own lesson plans?
http://www.chalkface.com/products/Maths/

no, i mean what teachers call actually working in classrooms.  again, i refer to your lack of experience and knowledge.  

In modern classrooms the chalkface no longer exists - instead they have the wonderful (and pointless) interactive whiteboard.

you can argue all you like, hadron, but it doesn't detract from the fact that - as has been pointed out on here several times, by several people - you're using an extrapolation of minimal experience to argue against people who know what they're talking about.  

Yeah - because I keep a pocketbook full of evidence just in case I need it...

i dare say you really do believe you're right, and not just arguing to save face, and to avoid admitting that others know more than you - been there, done that.  but, quite frankly, it's not worth engaging in debate with you if either is the case.

I believe targeting the brightest is the best way of fulfilling my objectives yes. It puts the bullies in the fun position of having to make friends with the smarter kids, or fail

i thought we'd been through all this before, and you realised you didn't *have* to prove you have a brain.  but obviously not.  shame.

Its not about proving myself at all

[Christopher McCandless]

who are you to judge me?

you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?

Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...

[TheoK]

 

[Pyraxis]

who are you to judge me?

you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?

Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...

Normal lines? What normal lines?  I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.

I think the answer to the rates-of-learning problem isn't to focus only on the gifted kids, any more than it is to focus on the poor students or attempt to force everyone to conform to some lowest-common-denominator "average".

Really, a lot of the problem lies with the erroneous idea that all students are created equal - and that they must be told they are, even when there is blatant evidence that they are not.

Once people can get that through their heads - that some people are better at some things than others, and that that's okay - not hideously scarring to anyone's self-esteem - then the idea could be introduced that every student deserves the same amount of attention. Not the same coursework, not the same standards for grading, but the same amount of attention to their learning. Gifted kids are generally quite capable of reaching to the moon if they're just given a push in the right direction. Pointing them to some advanced material that actually challenges them, and then sending them off to investigate it on their own, would be far more help than most schools today offer. Then there would be plenty of time left to sit down with the weaker students and help them through the work they were struggling with.

And if anyone wants to question that dealing forthrightly with students' differing abilities wouldn't be detrimental to their self-esteem, I'd suggest that people of any level of ability are happiest when they're working in their flow zone (the sweet spot between too boring and too stressful). So gearing each student's work towards that place, to let them face challenges of their own level, and overcome them, and learn success, would do much more for their self-esteem than trying to force-fit them into the sugar-coated fallacy that everyone's abilities are equal.

I know the main problem with this is that nobody has the energy to treat kids that individually. All the force-fitting does save time and money. But I think the system could be much better than it is, if there were just a movement towards meritocracy to counterbalance the whole never-be-anything-but-positive self-esteem movement of the 1980's.

[Christopher McCandless]

who are you to judge me?

you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?

Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...

Normal lines? What normal lines?  I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.

Odeon jumping to really lame personal attacks for no good reason.

I think the answer to the rates-of-learning problem isn't to focus only on the gifted kids, any more than it is to focus on the poor students or attempt to force everyone to conform to some lowest-common-denominator "average".

The thing is if you can get the gifted kids to learn stuff effectively - you then have a few students who can show the rest of the class when they get stuck. Especially in maths. One teacher is not enough to help 30 pupils.

Really, a lot of the problem lies with the erroneous idea that all students are created equal - and that they must be told they are, even when there is blatant evidence that they are not.

Agreed - though I believe every kid should be given an identical education by eliminating the parental choice nonsense.

Once people can get that through their heads - that some people are better at some things than others, and that that's okay - not hideously scarring to anyone's self-esteem - then the idea could be introduced that every student deserves the same amount of attention. Not the same coursework, not the same standards for grading, but the same amount of attention to their learning. Gifted kids are generally quite capable of reaching to the moon if they're just given a push in the right direction. Pointing them to some advanced material that actually challenges them, and then sending them off to investigate it on their own, would be far more help than most schools today offer. Then there would be plenty of time left to sit down with the weaker students and help them through the work they were struggling with.

My old teacher actually said he was effectively banned from doing that with me - otherwise he would have.

And if anyone wants to question that dealing forthrightly with students' differing abilities wouldn't be detrimental to their self-esteem, I'd suggest that people of any level of ability are happiest when they're working in their flow zone (the sweet spot between too boring and too stressful). So gearing each student's work towards that place, to let them face challenges of their own level, and overcome them, and learn success, would do much more for their self-esteem than trying to force-fit them into the sugar-coated fallacy that everyone's abilities are equal.

Exactly. Failing occasionally anyway is a good thing - I got into being lazy and drifting through school, having never been challenged really.

I know the main problem with this is that nobody has the energy to treat kids that individually. All the force-fitting does save time and money. But I think the system could be much better than it is, if there were just a movement towards meritocracy to counterbalance the whole never-be-anything-but-positive self-esteem movement of the 1980's.

Agreed. Though they could at least stream properly within schools. Ideally I would take the bottom 25% out at 11 and make them go and learn to read + write + catchup in an intensive schooling system. That way then neither group interferes with each other.

[Callaway]

who are you to judge me?

you're doing just that here, so why shouldn't anyone else?

Actually you started this - and Odeon went well past the normal lines in his post...

Normal lines? What normal lines?  I don't see any aspect of this argument that hasn't been done a dozen times already on here.

I think the answer to the rates-of-learning problem isn't to focus only on the gifted kids, any more than it is to focus on the poor students or attempt to force everyone to conform to some lowest-common-denominator "average".

Really, a lot of the problem lies with the erroneous idea that all students are created equal - and that they must be told they are, even when there is blatant evidence that they are not.

Once people can get that through their heads - that some people are better at some things than others, and that that's okay - not hideously scarring to anyone's self-esteem - then the idea could be introduced that every student deserves the same amount of attention. Not the same coursework, not the same standards for grading, but the same amount of attention to their learning. Gifted kids are generally quite capable of reaching to the moon if they're just given a push in the right direction. Pointing them to some advanced material that actually challenges them, and then sending them off to investigate it on their own, would be far more help than most schools today offer. Then there would be plenty of time left to sit down with the weaker students and help them through the work they were struggling with.

And if anyone wants to question that dealing forthrightly with students' differing abilities wouldn't be detrimental to their self-esteem, I'd suggest that people of any level of ability are happiest when they're working in their flow zone (the sweet spot between too boring and too stressful). So gearing each student's work towards that place, to let them face challenges of their own level, and overcome them, and learn success, would do much more for their self-esteem than trying to force-fit them into the sugar-coated fallacy that everyone's abilities are equal.

I know the main problem with this is that nobody has the energy to treat kids that individually. All the force-fitting does save time and money. But I think the system could be much better than it is, if there were just a movement towards meritocracy to counterbalance the whole never-be-anything-but-positive self-esteem movement of the 1980's.

These are really good points, Pyraxis.

What some schools are doing now reminds me of something I saw once called "Animal School." 

Here it is:

Once upon a time the animals had a school. They had four subjects, running, climbing, flying, and swimming, and all animals took all subjects.
 
The was good at swimming, better than the teacher, in fact. He made passing grades in running and flying, but he was almost hopeless in climbing. So they made him drop swimming to practice more climbing. Soon he was only average in swimming. But average is okay, and nobody worried much about it except the .
 
The eagle was considered a troublemaker. In his climbing class he beat everybody to the top of the tree, but he had his own way of getting there, which was against the rules. He always had to stay after school and write, "Cheating is wrong" five hundred times. This kept him from soaring, which he loved. But schoolwork comes first.
   
The bear flunked because they said he was lazy, especially in winter. His best time was summer, but school wasn't open then.
   
The penguin never went to school because he couldn't leave home, and they wouldn't start a school out where he lived.
   
The zebra played hooky a lot. The ponies made fun of his stripes, and this made him very sad.
 
The kangaroo started out at the top of the running class, but got discouraged trying to run on all fours like the other kids.
 
The fish quit school because he was bored. To him all four subjects were the same, but nobody understood that. They had never been a fish.
 
The squirrel got A's in climbing, but his flying teacher made him start from the ground up instead of the treetop down. His legs got so sore practicing take-offs that he began getting C's and D's in running.
   
But the bee was the biggest problem of all, so the teacher sent  him to Dr. Owl for testing. Dr. Owl said that the bee's wings were just too small for flying and besides they were in the wrong place. But the bee never saw Dr. Owl's report, so he just went ahead and flew anyway.

[Pyraxis]

I believe every kid should be given an identical education by eliminating the parental choice nonsense.

What exactly do you mean by this? Identical in what sense? Why do you want to eliminate parental choice?

My old teacher actually said he was effectively banned from doing that with me - otherwise he would have.

How was he "effectively banned"?

Ideally I would take the bottom 25% out at 11 and make them go and learn to read + write + catchup in an intensive schooling system. That way then neither group interferes with each other.

I don't think total segregation would be the answer - then who would kick the nerds' asses in gym? 

[garmonbozia]

...
I wonder what Mr. Loser, the teacher who should not be teaching anyone anything, is doing now.  Hopefully not teaching anymore.

Pushing up daisies, I hope.

[garmonbozia]

...
I don't think total segregation would be the answer - then who would kick the nerds' asses in gym? 

Don't even get me started about gym.  Worthless class!  The last gym teacher I had would literally show up for work drunk, and kept a stash of whiskey up in the ceiling of the fieldhouse.  The vast majority of the social problems I had as a kid, started in gym class.

I would rather see them give the kids some options in how they burn their daily quota of calories (as decided by a bunch of distant politicians in the state capital, who haven't set foot in a locker room in decades).  You don't need to shove football and basketball and soccer and track-&-field and shit down every kid's throat, because frankly anyone who's not going after an athletic scholarship or harboring ambitions of professional athletic careers DOESN'T FUCKING NEED IT!

For the nerds, my recommendation is martial arts.  I was a nerd for a good portion of my school days, and later studied karate while I was in university.  Martial arts will take care of the hand-eye coordination, anxiety management, and ass-kicking skills.  Then the nerds can be everything they were meant to be instead of targets for any and every asshole to prey on.

They use physical fitness and the obesity rate as an argument in favor of gym classes.  I seriously doubt it has much effect on how kids turn out physically as adults.  If anything, it made me resent anything having to do with sports for a very long time.  If the government wants Americans to be in better shape, they need to attack the fast-food and junk-food industries with the same ferocity that they attacked the tobacco industry (limiting advertising, taxing the fuck out of it, making them fund awareness campaigns against their own product, etc.).

P.E. rant done. 

[Christopher McCandless]

I believe every kid should be given an identical education by eliminating the parental choice nonsense.

What exactly do you mean by this? Identical in what sense? Why do you want to eliminate parental choice?

Before I explain what I mean here - how well do you know the British educational system?

My old teacher actually said he was effectively banned from doing that with me - otherwise he would have.

How was he "effectively banned"?

Restricted by both the curriculum and the timetable. Though apparently it would have also gone against political correctness to set me such a project - in that he would be isolating me from my peers.

Ideally I would take the bottom 25% out at 11 and make them go and learn to read + write + catchup in an intensive schooling system. That way then neither group interferes with each other.

I don't think total segregation would be the answer - then who would kick the nerds' asses in gym? 

That would be the point - well actually I would get rid of team sports in PE lessons as well. Tbh - all the sport nonsense means female aspies have it quite a bit better than male aspies in most cases. Of course I am biased here in wanting to reform society - ideally we need a system where Aspies are at least allowed to reach their full potential.

But I have a nice study that backs me up on this from a different angle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/05/schools.schoolsports

[Pyraxis]

For the nerds, my recommendation is martial arts.

Yeah, I wish. I used to live for the two weeks or so of high school gym that they spent on self defense. (Well, that and rugby, 'cause I had a lot of repressed desire to knock the crap out of people.) They kept saying we'd get to do fencing, and then they never got the funding.

[Pyraxis]

Before I explain what I mean here - how well do you know the British educational system?

Not well. So if your system is applicable only to solve the current problems of Britain's schools, I probably won't have much interesting to say about it. I was trying to find a system that would be helpful in lots of places.

How was he "effectively banned"?

Restricted by both the curriculum and the timetable.

I would say his flaw was more of unwillingness to go against the system, then. Don't you have independent studies in the UK?

I would get rid of team sports in PE lessons as well.

What problems would this solve? I don't have a clue how eliminating team sports would reduce an advantage of female aspies.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you believe. Elsewhere you said you want a meritocracy, but athleticism is a form of merit, and you also said the bit earlier about giving everyone an identical education. It doesn't fit together.

But I have a nice study that backs me up on this from a different angle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/05/schools.schoolsports

Interesting. It looks like people in your area are pretty conflicted over whether competition in sports should be fostered or not.

[Christopher McCandless]

Before I explain what I mean here - how well do you know the British educational system?

Not well. So if your system is applicable only to solve the current problems of Britain's schools, I probably won't have much interesting to say about it. I was trying to find a system that would be helpful in lots of places.

Its applicable wider I believe - but as I know quite a lot about the British system then I could have cut a few corners in my explanations. In fact I would say the US system perhaps has the issue even more than our system.

Firstly, in Britain effectively (to be concise) parents can buy their kids access to the best schools - often to the disadvantage of those kids in poorer backgrounds. This then effectively stacks up to allow lots of very dim but incredibly well educated students to take the places in our (publically funded) universities and ultimately onto the best jobs and positions within the social hierarchy. Unfortunately most of this happens at the expense of the geniunely intelligent and even those of a poorer background (but brighter) are at a disadvantage when they get to the good universities. Why? Because these people have had access to the cultural structures etc, allowing them to advance to the top of societies and other aspects of university social structures, adding to their CV and even further entrenching their undeserved advantage.

By removing parental choice, you vastly reduce the opportunities for all these people to cheat like that. Not that I am saying there are not a few from private schools that did actually deserve their places, but the majority did not. Its not just private schools, there are also grammars and state schools in very affluent areas which distort the system. The percentage of those who get to a top university from a comprehensive school (bear in mind these people make up the vast majority of the population) without heavy private tuition or other forms of cheating is disgustingly low - on one of my courses its as law as 25%. The system stinks.

How was he "effectively banned"?

Restricted by both the curriculum and the timetable.

I would say his flaw was more of unwillingness to go against the system, then. Don't you have independent studies in the UK?

Nope - not until degree level really in practise. Well asides a little coursework (which the government are busy trying to bring into the classroom)

I would get rid of team sports in PE lessons as well.

What problems would this solve? I don't have a clue how eliminating team sports would reduce an advantage of female aspies.

The way social structure currently is in the UK and other western civilisations is that its very difficult to be deeply into a social circle as a male without doing some form of sport. Gutting it from schools (and the TV imo) would help our cause a lot. Females can easily avoid having to sport (asides perhaps the odd gym session) as soon as they leave school - often before. Plus being good at sport as a female does not carry the same social kudos as it does being a male...

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you believe. Elsewhere you said you want a meritocracy, but athleticism is a form of merit, and you also said the bit earlier about giving everyone an identical education. It doesn't fit together.

The only form of merit that can be justified in a modern society is intellectual ability and the openmindedness to think originally. The rest may as well be morons which we might want to farm like Horses for our own entertainment - but nothing else.

But I have a nice study that backs me up on this from a different angle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/05/schools.schoolsports

Interesting. It looks like people in your area are pretty conflicted over whether competition in sports should be fostered or not.

I could not quickly find the article - but recently the education secretary decided he agrees with it.