posted
Nope. I read it on some strange news site and never bothered to verify it. I just looked it up, though, and while it's status is undetermined, snopes makes some pretty good arguments that it is indeed false.
posted
Tell me then, has promiscuity and drug use risen amoung teenagers? Whether or not they admit it on paper, the answer is yes.
With more knoweldge they may use contraception, but the knowledge coupled with with society flings them through the media tells them that sex is the end all be all of life. When eleven and twelve year olds, if not younger are having sex there is something wrong with the way they are learning about it. Schools are the front runner for what facts students learn about sex. However, they learn much more through the variety of other outlets that exist that make them believe that sex is safe. Abstinence is no longer preached in schools, but rather to use safe sex. It is now essentially assumed that students are going to have sex and therefore need to use protection.
Telling them about drugs and sex only add fuel to the fire thanks to what the media shows them daily. They may get a marking period of sex education, but the ideas are thrown around a thousand times a day. I know in my town that before we had D.A.R.E. and sex education, the biggest concern of students was who held hands with who. Now in elementary schools it is becoming more frequent to hear of children touching each other, and in middle school finding girls who are pregnant.
Nowhere did I say to lie to the students. However, making schools do the job of parents is wrong.
You want to pull your child from public school only avoids the larger problem. That we are developing a society where parents roles are minimal and the state plays a larger part in an almost 'Brave New World' style. Be a parent and take responsibility.
quote:Tell me then, has promiscuity and drug use risen amoung teenagers? Whether or not they admit it on paper, the answer is yes.
There's not just one cause you can point to here. You're ignoring a LARGE number of factors in this.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to pull your child from public school only avoids the larger problem. That we are developing a society where parents roles are minimal and the state plays a larger part in an almost 'Brave New World' style. Be a parent and take responsibility.
1) She's NOT a parent yet. 2) Isn't "taking responsibility" what she's saying she intends to do?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Increased movie, music, magazine, and game related material that ignores the negative aspects...
Inefficient ability for teachers to effectively discuss the negative aspects involved....
In your opinion, what else is there?
It was a general statement regarding parenthood. Taking responsibility by fleeing the public school issue doesn't solve it.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tacit government approval of drug importation on high levels, even as a "war on drugs" is supposedly conducted.
An increased societal acceptance of sex outside of marriage.
An increased societal acceptance of unwed parenthood.
An increased societal acceptance of abortion.
The breakdown of taboos as referenced in those last three is probably the biggest factor. And that is a cause of teaching sex in schools, not an effect.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My apologizes.... I link those three issues as part of the breakdown of the family state.
The acceptance of these things, I agree is the problem. I didn't say that it was an effect.
My point is merely that avoiding by withdrawing students will not solve the problem.
If she doesn't have children yet, then she should be working NOW to solve the problem so that she can feel good about sending her children to school when she has them.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You contradict yourself. Here's one instance:
quote:Schools are the front runner for what facts students learn about sex. However, they learn much more through the variety of other outlets that exist that make them believe that sex is safe.
Schools are the front runner, but other outlets teach them more.
Also, if the other outlets are the problem, then why ban the one place (school) where students are getting the most accurate information.
I haven't sat in a sex ed. class lately... have you? But I would venture that they probably ARE teaching abstinence, they're just not ONLY teaching abstinence. And good for them. Good for all. Because kids ARE having sex, and should be told how to help keep themselves safe.
If anything needs to be changed, I would say ADD to the sexual education program. Tell them about the emotional aspects of having sex. Give them all of the facts, physical and emotional. Stress abstinence, but not at the expense of those kids already having sex. Teach them about pressure from their boyfriends and girlfriends and how to say no. Tell them WHY to say no, and give them more reasons than STDs and pregnancy. Teach them that sex is special. Teach them how to objectively view the message the media sends them. Get college students in there to relate their own stories.
I assume by saying "ignores the negative aspects" you mean ignores the negative aspects of having sex and using drugs??
The appropriate response to the negative aspects being ignored or not properly discussed is not to pull the education programs altogether, but to refine the curriculum to address those points.
You can get mad all day that it's the parents' job--but the fact is, they're NOT doing it. And the ironic thing is, [warning: gross generalization ahead] so many of the ones who get angry about sex ed and say the parents should do it are the Christian fundamentalists who think sex is dirty and are afraid to talk about it with their children. Think of the puritans, after all. What a repressed bunch of people.
Thanks kq, for coming to my defense. Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I happen to be a teacher. I'm not teaching currently, because I'm getting my masters, but I'll be going back next year.
And beyond that, I don't believe it is my responsibility to fight the system alone. The majority of parents seem to be perfectly happy with the public school systems. I am not.
Besides, as you must have seen since I'm sure you've read this thread very carefully before replying, I have other reasons also for not putting my children in public schools. I want them to have a religious education, included values and morals that I deem important.
And in my classroom, I'll do my best to educate other people's children with respect for their individual beliefs. I don't trust all school systems do the same.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking your kids out of public schools might not solve the problem. But in cases like when the teachers are not willing to work with parents in a childs development, what other choice do we have?
The only good case for public schools is that a greater proportion of society can afford to send their kids there. But consider, if you will, a school set up by the community with teachers either brought in or simply from among the most qualified in that community, or both. If you opt the latter, you can provide more diverse and qualified teachers for the kids to get information from. This is because 1. Having their own job to worry about, these teachers will be more part time and so more teachers will be available, and 2. as a result the teachers will all be paid severely less for that job. Any teachers brought in become part of that community and so join that system by default. And as a result the "public" school becomes the resource to the entire community that they were always meant to be.
If a state or federal government body is regulating the "public" school system, the schools will not simply go away if they turn out to be a less than an adequate investment. The way they work right now and the requirements we currently have for entering the workforce makes them a (despairing for some) necessity. This system demands that, in order to work, all schools must be equally beneficial to students, including Private schools. There is absolutely no way to affect schools in a good way if they happen to not be working.
Of course, this simple rule of supply and demand is constantly overlooked because, if they did take heed of it, everyone would see just how much of a failure the public schooling system really is.
I personally would never send my kids to a public school. When my fiance and I eventually have kids we plan to send them to the best Private school in the state. But not everyone can afford this.
This is where community schooling could, if done right, be even better than a public or Private school which is why I started a thread on homeschooling in the first place, but I got no opinions whatsoever on what could be. All I got was reference to how each of you had either been homeschooled or gone to public school (the private schoolers seeming to stay out or else label themselves as public schoolers?) and how well either had worked for you.
But the world today is different. When I (and I am probably one of the youngest here) went to public school, they were not questioned whether they worked or not. Not one of us can speak first-hand about the problems of public schooling today and I realise now that bringing up that post was a complete waste of time as far as getting an answer to my question. But it was extremely helpful as far as getting general advice. Thank you for that.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that it's your intent to make friends, but you certainly won't make friends with me by implying that just anybody can be a teacher. Sure, there are bad teachers, but most of them are good and they really care.. and if they don't care anymore it's because they've been broken down over time by a bad system.
The problem isn't the teachers. The problem is administration, the school system, the school board, the government--basically ANYBODY who makes laws and guidelines for educating the children--especially when they never ask the teachers what should be done. The TEACHERS are on the front lines. The TEACHERS are the best qualified to make changes. But their hands are tied by incompetent administrators who get their orders from a government that is swayed by the uninformed whim of the populace and lobbyists.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, teachers know HOW to teach, and they know WHAT to teach. I don't care what Joe Somebody's profession is, it doesn't make him qualified to teach the subject.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your completely against homeschooling then, I take it? I know thats what the heading of this thread is and you yourself are a teacher, but let me ask, how would you and you alone be more qualified to teach your kids than an entire community?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I AM a teacher. I've taught for many years, and I also have been in sex education classes within the last year. Whether or not you want to believe it, sexual education is NOT taught abstinence first, safe sex second. But sadly the reverse.
I am also VERY familiar with how incredibly easy it is for someone to become a teacher. Whether or not you would like to admit it, being a teacher in name only is MUCH different than being a good teacher. You over-emphazise the 'skills' that you believe teachers in their content area understand. As I would hope you have realized the vast majority of teachers are severely lacking in knowing HOW to teach.
I have worked as an adjunct recently for the purpose of showing potential teachers why they shouldn't become teachers. There are many out there who fail on all accounts both intellectually and on their use of common sense. I have seen student after student go to their student teaching, hate it, but realize they have no other option due to the educational system that was set up and so where are they now?
TEACHING! Teaching a subject they hate to individuals who they despise, because they didn't want to restart their college experience. Teaching comes from the heart, not from a textbook. You cannot be taught HOW to be a teacher. Sure you can be taught how to fill out the forms and how to go through the motions. But at the end you fail everyone.
By putting the potential knowledge of students regarding such an important subject in the hands of many incompetent people you are undermining the system.
I do agree that it needs to be refined if kept, however I would prefer if it was taken out of school indefinately. Teach where it is necessary. Leave it to the school boards to decide, don't make it state law.
posted
I was referring mostly to the high school years. I am doubtful of my ability to homeschool my children in those years. If they were naturally gifted, independent study might work out--or, they could take classes at the local high school in certain courses. OR, they could go to private school. I'll probably go THAT route.
What bothered me is that you were implying that just anybody could be a teacher. That's simply not the case.
I think your community school idea is the same basic thing as a public school, except without qualified teachers. Who says who gets to participate? I'd rather have the public school system with it making sure the teachers are qualified, than have a community school where teaching is just a part time job and there are no standards of quality.
However, if I lived near my best friend, who is an elementary teacher, I would gladly merge my homeschool with hers, since I know her values are close enough to mine. Between the two of us, we could give our children a great education up to a certain grade level. After that, we'd probably both send them to private school.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To tackle the issue of public schools, the problem with removing students from them or eliminating them is one of funding. As more students withdraw from a school, its funding declines, because monies are tied to enrollment and daily attendance. The less funding a school has, the less it can do for its students, the more difficult it is to attract decent teachers with salary perks, etc.
Obviously, one possible outcome of this is that schools will do everything in their power to remake themselves and attract students back to the abandoned campuses. This is just what Charles M. Tiebout predicted back in 1956... his theory dealt with the lack of choice in the provision of a public good, a product provided in a monopolistic fashion by a single entity within a certain jurisdiction (water, electricity, education, city governance, etc.). Given the inflexibility of such monopolies, Tiebout theorized that, given a set of assumptions, “the consumer-voter moves to that community whose local government best satisfies his set of preferences. The greater the number of communities and the greater the variance among them, the closer the consumer will come to fully realizing his preference position."
Tiebout hypothesized that the more competing jurisdictions that exist within a geographical area, the higher the satisfaction of consumer-voters; and the higher the number of competing jurisdictions within the same metropolitan area, the greater the competition among them. These two predictions have some pretty obvious implications for school choice (charter schools, vouchers, etc.), which on this model can be seen as competing educational jurisdictions. Tiebout would claim that the introduction of multiple sources of school choice would raise the satisfaction level of taxpayers, and that the various educational institutions would begin to compete with one another, improving the quality of the public good.
We're still studying the issue closely to see what happens. But the total demolishing of public schools would be a horrible mistake, reducing poor regions to the sort of horrific conditions that existed before most states began to try to provide equity in school funding: rich areas would have dazzlingly equipped facilities, while impoverished sectors would be hard-pressed to even provide books and AC.
BTW, this case WAS largely handled outside of court in that the district dropped those questions from the survey, but the parents went ahead with their suit anyway. Most school districts, faced with irate parents (read: voters... school boards are very sensitive to this sort of thing) will be accomodating of public opinion.
We cannot, as public educators, defer to every ideological demand of parents (and not just because so many of them don't really have a clue about what is important for their children to learn academically), but we ought to have good community relations programs in place that keep a sensitive finger on the pulse of public opinion.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
My major problem with that, David, is that public opinion in recent days is rarely in the best interest of the students.... They don't understand the purpose for the system and aren't interested in anything other than complaining about it.
As well they have begun simply by turning their children off to authority figures in general to close their own strained ties with their children.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but it is theirs, strictly speaking, bought and paid for by their tax dollars. We must reach out to them while simultaneously reserving the right to do what we deem best for their children...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite this conversation having moved on, I rather like where it was when I began class, so I'm continuing from there.
One of the reasons my wish for a terminological division remains philosophical is that I don't see any adequate replacement terms. In a discussion such as this, though, where disambiguation is important, I'd prefer to use "rights" for the stronger usage and something like "rights under law" for the weaker one. Splitting things in this way is generally my preference given a stronger and weaker definition, because I feel it avoids conceding weakness in the stronger (by maintaining it as the unadorned form of the word) while acknowledging the weaker's partial terminological claim.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my experiences the Parent Teacher Organizations or in more recent days the dreaded Parent-Teacher-Student-Organizations have taken over the schools and are attempting to dictate more than they should. They attempt to dismantle the structure and have successfully, in many places, turned administrators against the faculty.
It is their CHILDREN'S education. Not theirs. They may pay for it, but they also pay for many things that they would probably NOT if they knew about it.
Ex. Educational classes for prisoners Cable Television for said prisoners
There are two things that no one argues against, yet tax dollars go for. Just because they see the funding for their children going to education doesn't mean that they can dictate the agenda of schools.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m not the kind of person who would home school my kids for fundamental reasons. But if they were to start up a Private LDS school here in Perth I’d send them there ina heartbeat. That’s probably why they cant just start one actually, because too many Mormon parents would want their kids to go there.
At no point did I say that professionally trained teachers wouldn’t be valued. The community teachers could go learn to teach first of course. And I don’t mean going to University for four years, I mean regular keeping up with teaching methods. These people wouldn’t need teaching specific training anymore than OSC does to teach writing AT A UNIVERSITY LEVEL. The ones teaching English would be the writers, a lot of people would be qualified to teach maths, high school teachers aren’t the only people who teach history (eg Museum attendants), and so on.
Islamic and Catholic Private schools are quite literally run by those communities because they thought they could do a better job than the US/Australian govt. How is this any different if a community is close. How do you, for that matter, get along with your neighbours and wider community? Surely a thing like this would bring a community a much, much closer so how is it a bad idea?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether or not you want to believe it, sexual education is NOT taught abstinence first, safe sex second. But sadly the reverse.
Maybe where you are. In the school district I grew up in, they're using the same texts they used when I took it (I am, after all, only 22), and every other sentence is "But abstinence is the only 100% safe and effective method of birth control." It's pretty well and thoroughly drilled in. There are also discussions on the emotional impact of having sex, religious beliefs about sex, and a gritty, dirty, graphic dicussion of abortion.
quote:Cable Television for said prisoners
There are two things that no one argues against, yet tax dollars go for.
I've heard LOTS of arguments against paying for cable tv for prisoners.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if they were to start up a Private LDS school here in Perth I’d send them there ina heartbeat. That’s probably why they cant just start one actually, because too many Mormon parents would want their kids to go there.
Catholic schools have selective entry requirements, such as testing. Why couldn't an LDS school do the same? Heck, why not start one yourself? You'll need to find accredited teachers, find a venue, choose accredited cirricula, and then get it all accredited by the state, but if you start now, it could be up and running by the time you have school-age kids.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ketchupqueen, are you serious? That may be the boldest idea I've ever heard, and I'm sorry to say I'm just not that bold. I will take the idea to my local ward though. Do you have any LDS schools in America these days? I know Utah used to have them but then they seperated church from state Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are several LDS homeschools-- they provide cirriculum, you teach your kids (not Church-owned.) BYU has homeschool cirricula available for high schoolers as well as part of their distance-learning program. There are also LDS day schools-- NOT owned by the Church, but owned by local parents and/or investors who run it as a private school with an LDS philosophy-- in some areas. I know the Church does operate schools in other parts of the world, but I'm thinking probably that's in third-world countries with no government-funded schools or something.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Catholic schools have selective entry requirements, such as testing.
Not all of them do. I went to parochial school for elementary, middle, and high school, and the only requirement for admission was that your parents pony up the dough. Of course, the public schools in Louisiana are dismal.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, some do. The ones around here have so many applicants that most of them, even some of the elementary schools, have to limit admission. They base admission on three things: interviews, test scores/records from previous schools unless you're entering in kindergarten or first grade (in which case they base it on a readiness evaluation instead), and whether the family are practicing Catholics. (Not all students are Catholic, but preference is given to Catholic students over equally or even slightly less qualified non-Catholic students, and Catholic students are much, much more likely to get scholarships and/or reduction of fees.) The high schools are very competitive and require a standardized test (I forget what it's called, but it's the standard one used by Catholic schools) as well as interviews.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant like a whole highschool of 1000+ primarily LDS students and the same sort of idea for primary (elementary) school(s). But there aren't that many LDS teenagers around here Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So start a school. Like I said. 1,000 plus probably isn't practical for a local private school, but you could serve as many as wanted to attend. (About 350-750 seems to be a manageable number for private schools around here, to balance making enough to pay their teachers and still having small class sizes and being able to serve the specific needs and goals they were organized for.) I bet that parents would be happy to drive their kids quite a way to go to a good school, and why not let in kids who are willing to abide by the values taught and whose parents are okay with LDS values being taught, like Catholic schools do? Seminary could be done on release time if you could get them to organize a class or two, which would be nice.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest not aiming for that 350-750 number. Aim for however many you feel you can teach in a good sized house, there are usually plenty of those around available to rent that are zoned commercially (which would presumably allow use as a school).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm not saying to start out. I'm saying that as the TOP number to try to accept, after it's well-established.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I have thought a LOT about starting a school. But it will probably never happen; I plan to homeschool, anyway.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you start a school, can I send my kids there? Not that I have any kids, but hypothetically.)
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need to start a school. There are lots of SDA schools out there. From kindergarten up to fine universities. They're all accredited... in fact, except for the first 3 years, all of my education up to graduating college was at Adventist schools. I'm getting my masters at a public university, though.
I'm kind of surprised that the LDS church doesn't have a system of K-12 schools. Of all denominations other than SDA and Catholic, I'd expect them to the most.
Our schools get bigger as you go up in grades. The elementary schools often serve just one community and may have anywhere from 25-100 students. (This varies, of course, with some having MUCH more--usually in University towns.) And then there are academies that have much higher enrollment, and will serve conferences and unions. Then there are universities... I count about 7 in the continental U.S., but I think there are more.
I know nobody asked, but I just thought I'd put in there that I don't have to homeschool if I don't want to. There are schools other than public I can send my children to if I want to. (And non-SDAs may also attend.)
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading this thread reminds me of the stories I've heard about where parents will refuse their children medical care because it goes against their religious beliefs. It's a thorny issue, of course, because on the one hand, there is a presumed right that parents are free to pass their values onto their children and then there are obvious cases where those values are really screwed up-- such as bigotry-- and the ones where those values are actually life-threatening. It's hard to know where to make the line. And the people who want to push the lines aren't all-knowing either.
However, I continue to fail to see what's the big deal about sex. In the olden days, people married young. Sometimes right after a girl got her first period. So, yes, historically, there have been lots of twelve and thirteen year olds having sex. The culture was different in the sense that they were married and were generally able to provide for themselves, but it was also different in that the twelve and thirteen year old females were in many cultures married to men twice their ages. (Fifteen and thirty-five, for example in ancient Rome.)
And yet the sky didn't fall. No, it wasn't always ideal, but society survived and even flourished.
(And I fail to see why just because the culture has changed the biological desires are expected to meekly follow along. Just because culturally you can't marry doesn't mean your biology is now programmed so you have no interrest in sex.)
And as for six year olds being asked about whether they touch themselves, etc, the horror of this denies the fact that in the olden times, kids would sometimes be in the room when their parents had sex. This wasn't a big deal, and it didn't scar them for life. (Actually, I had a friend who until she was about four used to be in the room when her parents had sex. Not scarred for life, I might add.)
I just fail to see why modern children are so delicate that they must be protected from the basics of human life like this.
I am a little disturbed that kids are expected to talk about their sex lives openly in ways that few would dare to expect from adults (adults have privacy after all and children none), but I can kind of see why it might be expected to be for their own good, and I remember taking surveys about my drug use in high school. I cheerily checkmarked randomly. ("Yes, I've had cocaine in the past week, but not in the past month." It amused me to screw with their statistics.)
I wonder what I might have thought having taken such a survey as a six-year-old. Regardless, I would probably have forgotten it by the following week.
It sometimes seems to me that it was to my advantage that I was allowed to live my childhood like a weed rather than being raised as a potted plant and protected from every illusory harm that just might come my way. Sometimes I wonder if being protected from everything-- from ideas, from questions, from anything that disagrees with my parents' worldview-- might be just as harmful, if not more harmful than attending a school which stresses conformity. For one thing, the school cannot and does not control everything. It's just too indifferent. Parents have much more effective means of controlling every aspect of a child's life from their friends to their every waking activity.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, dean - the methodology of the survey and the questions posed at the beginning of this thread very much disturb me, as well.
Dags pointed out earlier, too, that the problem lies greatly with the board that is supposed to oversee and approve such human research designs at the state level.
I have an extremely hard time believing that a board would allow those sorts of questions/survey tools without the parents having had the opportunity to see some sample questions, or be informed of how explicit the test would be.
The other thoughts you pose as regards what has been historically - it's a sure guess that at the height of the Dark Ages there wasn't this sort of worry about what the kids saw when everyone slept in one bed for warmth, or in the pioneering days when there were maybe two beds in a one room cabin. *grin*
Times do change - and you're quite right! Expecting biology to keep pace with changing societal mores is somehow a little, well, naive.
Or hopeful. Maybe hopeful is the better word - and we are living in the middle of a "great change", fully immersed in the dynamics of it.
*plays Twilight Zone theme in head for effect*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, teachers know HOW to teach, and they know WHAT to teach. I don't care what Joe Somebody's profession is, it doesn't make him qualified to teach the subject.
Just a sidebar note here -- several of the homeschooling moms that I know actually got a college degree in education (teaching degree) just because they planned in advance to teach any children of their at home.
posted
We have a great deal of murderinbg in our cultural history too, in cases when one person disagreed with another. This, too, carries on today, sometimes with assassinations and just blatant murdering.
But deans argument certainly doesn't carry onto that so why should it regarding offenses of a sexual nature?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:: Also, teachers know HOW to teach, and they know WHAT to teach. I don't care what Joe Somebody's profession is, it doesn't make him qualified to teach the subject.
This is exactly what apprenticeships are for, which is the most important learning on a specific subject a person can get. Any school preparation prior to that is to get them ready for the workforce and/or University. On top of that all University is for is to further get them ready for the workforce too!
Schools don't only hire people who have gone to learn how to teach. Plenty of teachers, especially in the Design and Tech (I think it's called Shop classes there?) classes, are brought in from among trained professionals who have never been foramalling trained how to teach... EXCEPT WHEN THEY LEARNT ON THE JOB THEMSELVES, they learnt by watching what their apprenticee taught them! And their training prior to that goes back to formal schooling as well. it's an endless cycle. The people who go to University to learn to teach merely prepare the students for their real teaching in the workforce (on the job jearning in other words).
George Washington was never taught in formal schooling at all AND HE WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Need I continue going around in circles like this?
I'm not trying to offend the teachers among us, you are teachers, but what people learn in formal schooling is not the be all and end all. Even after University, even when you become a teacher yourself in a high school or whatever, you still do your most important learning on the job. Think back to when you were a student teacher and how much of a milestone that was. And think of how much better you've become at it since you first became teachers.
I'm just saying, why not combine the two sides of teaching into one? On top of that, people who are purely teachers certainly wouldn't be excluded from this system. But they probably would eventually end up needing a second job. But so what?
You say having real life experience doesn't make you wualified to teach? I suppose that by that logic, no matter how bad a job George Bush does at being President, someone like Stephen Hawking, OSC, the leader of the US Military, etc. wouldn't be able to do a better job? because George Bush was bred for politics and you were all bred (bred yourselves rather) for teaching someone who did not go to University to learn how to teach couldn't do it better, no matter what they did, than even the worst teacher in history?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually he said, more than once, that this type of issues can be and should be resolved within the system itself, so no further recourse was needed....or he implied it at the very least.
quote:We are all in it together, that's why there are parent/teacher conferences, back-to-school nights, PTAs and school boards.
quote:Look there are checks and balences in the public school system. Parents can go to the teacher, the principal or the board if necessary, and its been my experience that all three of these entities are solicitous of parent's requests, and word rather the parent agree with the curriculum than disagree with the curriculum.
He also said that he disagreed with the idea that the school had
quote: ran rough-shod over the parents expressed wishes.
, and when Porter disagreed with that he simply laughed at the idea.
I would say we probably have a good idea where Irami stands on this issue.
posted
George Washington first went to a churchyard school, then a boarding school. Those are both formal education.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still havn't proved me wrong. You're just picking away at little bits of it, and not even the main points at that.
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rusta, let me observe that once all the supporting planks of an argument have been removed, there's no argument left.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I happen to be a teacher. I'm not teaching currently, because I'm getting my masters, but I'll be going back next year.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
