Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, there's a fairly crappy theory of educational psychology that says, basically:
-There is a correlation between success and self esteem.
-Therefore, high self esteem must CAUSE success!
-Therefore, anything that damages a child's self esteem damages their chances, and should be avoided. Criticism, telling them they're wrong, marking in red pen, etc etc.

Of course, the alternate explanation for that theory (that successful people have higher self esteem BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL) does not get much discussion. This is the training I got a few years ago, so it's still current, apparently. It blatantly doesn't work, but whatevs.

*Jumping in with my left foot forward*

You might find that it can work both ways, in a sort of positive feedback loop. People tend to enjoy things when they perceive themselves as being 'good' at that thing. The more you enjoy something the more you do it, the more you improve, the more positive feedback you get, and the loop continues (until you turn pro, and then everyone starts hating you again).

On the other hand, people become easily frustrated and give up on subjects that they feel they are bad at. This is usually followed by some kind of cognitive dissonance, and eventually a change in attitude towards the subject/activity in order to protect the ego: "This subject is a stupid anyway", "This subject has no value in the real world", "Going to the gym is for self obsessed douchebags" etc... You will hear these kind of things all the time from people, on all manner of issues (we probably all say them ourselves about something). But really they are defense mechanisms to protect people from facing up to their failures. This attitude obviously makes the person very resistant to ever improving in that subject/activity. I can understand why a teacher would want to avoid this situation.

Having said that, these kind of loops are likely very fragile and difficult to create artificially. I agree with you that lavishing undeserved praise on children is unlikely to do much other than delude them, which is probably equally damaging.

I think by far the best way to get someone absolutely fascinated with a subject/activity is to tell them that they're not allowed to do it. This seems to work especially well on teenagers for some reason...

The classroom needs more profanity. I want to hire sailors for our schools.

"Because students deserve sailors sir."

Has a nice ring to it no?

To this day I don't understand why America get's insulted by profanity so quickly...

Teachers that used lots of profanity were loved more in my school.

Damn, and suddenly im glad to be British

Profanity wasnt used in my school but we had measures that we where expected to live up too and if you didnt, you where out.

Still didnt stop me from skipping class to sleep on the roof though

Mhm, we went to the roof to throw a shopping trolley off it, that counts right?

It counts more if there was a person from the UK sleeping in it.

Bullockist wrote:
It counts more if there was a person from the UK sleeping in it.

You would probably hear some profanity then, albeit: slowly Doppler shifting away from you.

Mhm, nah, we did unintentionally break a window because the thing exploded on impact. Well, exploded more then we expected.

 Frazzled wrote:
"Because students deserve sailors sir."

Funny Anecdote.
A friend of mine who was in the marines went to sub for a class. He told me "I would rather go for another Tour, then go back to teaching"
I think it is a problem that we cant fail kids. I mean maybe when their young "Fail" is to harsh a word. Especially around K-3. Maybe "cant grasp the concept" would be better for kids that young. But around other classed. Failure should a legitimate thing. At 6th grade, I failed things. If you cant realize what you did wrong, How will you know?
And my god, the "Rewards for everything" Should stop. I once got a reward for "doing all my homework" and "Perfect Attendence"and when I was a freshmen I got a "Most improved" reward for P.E.

Kids need failure to grow. I prefer the days when little league had tryouts and if you weren't good you didn't make the team. Or you only got a ribbon or medal if you did well. None of this participation crap. I don't care that I participated, that just means I didn't do well.

If a kid wants to do something they should have to work for it. If their work is not good enough that should be motivation to do better not to whine and complain to mommy just ot get what you want. There is no work ethic anymore its all gimme gimme and I will scream if I don't get what I want.

What America needs is some good ol fashioned discipline and hard work.

 Smacks wrote:

*Jumping in with my left foot forward*

You might find that it can work both ways, in a sort of positive feedback loop. People tend to enjoy things when they perceive themselves as being 'good' at that thing. The more you enjoy something the more you do it, the more you improve, the more positive feedback you get, and the loop continues (until you turn pro, and then everyone starts hating you again).

On the other hand, people become easily frustrated and give up on subjects that they feel they are bad at. This is usually followed by some kind of cognitive dissonance, and eventually a change in attitude towards the subject/activity in order to protect the ego: "This subject is a stupid anyway", "This subject has no value in the real world", "Going to the gym is for self obsessed douchebags" etc... You will hear these kind of things all the time from people, on all manner of issues (we probably all say them ourselves about something). But really they are defense mechanisms to protect people from facing up to their failures. This attitude obviously makes the person very resistant to ever improving in that subject/activity. I can understand why a teacher would want to avoid this situation.

Having said that, these kind of loops are likely very fragile and difficult to create artificially. I agree with you that lavishing undeserved praise on children is unlikely to do much other than delude them, which is probably equally damaging.

I think by far the best way to get someone absolutely fascinated with a subject/activity is to tell them that they're not allowed to do it. This seems to work especially well on teenagers for some reason...

I agree with most of what you've said there, the problem is when the idea that you absolutely can't harm a kid's self esteem becomes an unquestioned dogma. There's certainly an argument for positive feedback loops, there's also however the argument that if that doesn't work the best thing to do is to acknowledge failure and deal with it.

If kids are protected from failure through school and education, the real world is going to be hard for them, because most people fail at something in their lives. How you deal with failure is a pretty important personal characteristic.

 FirePainter wrote:
Kids need failure to grow. I prefer the days when little league had tryouts and if you weren't good you didn't make the team. Or you only got a ribbon or medal if you did well. None of this participation crap. I don't care that I participated, that just means I didn't do well.

If a kid wants to do something they should have to work for it. If their work is not good enough that should be motivation to do better not to whine and complain to mommy just ot get what you want. There is no work ethic anymore its all gimme gimme and I will scream if I don't get what I want.

What the westernworld needs is some good ol fashioned discipline and hard work.

quoted for truth. Back when I was fit and played sports getting the "encouragement award " was looked on as something bad in ALL the teams i was in, it meant generally that you were the worst on the team. Recieving it was truly a moment of shame, I got one once , parents said to me" isn't that good" and I was truly embarrassed at having received it.

Apparently everyone nowdays is the worst in the team. Positive feedback loops only work if there is something other than positive feedback loops to compare it to, otherwise the positive feedback loop becomes normal and therefore useless.

Death to positive feedback loops. I must have been scarred by my childhood , I swear the most used phrase by my parents was "it builds character" , goddamn negative feedback loops


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:


I agree with most of what you've said there, the problem is when the idea that you absolutely can't harm a kid's self esteem becomes an unquestioned dogma. There's certainly an argument for positive feedback loops, there's also however the argument that if that doesn't work the best thing to do is to acknowledge failure and deal with it.

If kids are protected from failure through school and education, the real world is going to be hard for them, because most people fail at something in their lives. How you deal with failure is a pretty important personal characteristic.

Most people who achieved a lot in the world failed at something rather catastrophically before picking themselves up and succeeding. Wasn't there a quote from someone that went something like " It's not whether you fail or not , it's how you respond to failure that's important". How are people who have never failed ever going to pick themselves up off the ground to succeed?

 Frazzled wrote:

As recently as October 2013, she received yet another written reprimand for using profanity and derogatory language on several occasions in the presence of students. Investigators believe she said phrases like “Sit your a** down”, “get out my f****** class”, and “pull your damn pants up”. Quiller was still receiving counseling as a result of the most recent reprimand when this most recent investigation happened.

I love it. Why am I getting the impression she's not teaching the Ivy League bound members of our future generation?

This. Before we judge this woman, let's get an idea of her work environment mmm?

If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

How about that the previous teacher passed up a class where 75% of them had no business actually getting graduated, and that happened several times, so now you're faced with a class full of high school students with 3rd grade reading levels?

One teacher deciding to put their foot down and not just ignore the fact their students aren't actually able to pass their classes doesn't mean that teacher sucks.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

Unless 70% of the class simply refuses to engage the teacher, read, complete any assignments, or perform on the tests...

 dementedwombat wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

How about that the previous teacher passed up a class where 75% of them had no business actually getting graduated, and that happened several times, so now you're faced with a class full of high school students with 3rd grade reading levels?

One teacher deciding to put their foot down and not just ignore the fact their students aren't actually able to pass their classes doesn't mean that teacher sucks.

"Putting your foot down" by failing everyone and swearing up a storm isn't teaching, it's being a child.

 dementedwombat wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

How about that the previous teacher passed up a class where 75% of them had no business actually getting graduated, and that happened several times, so now you're faced with a class full of high school students with 3rd grade reading levels?

One teacher deciding to put their foot down and not just ignore the fact their students aren't actually able to pass their classes doesn't mean that teacher sucks.

Yes it does.

Because we live in a country where public school is divided into 12 grades of schooling, with a student getting a new English teacher every year.

So, considering that the average district has at least two or three of each school (elementary, middle school, high school), and the make-up of any high school class is going to have kids coming from all those schools, the only way your assertion would work is to assume that literally dozens of English teachers in a single school district are passing along students who are failing english tests miserably.

Unlikely.

Proctor said "Right now, 50 percent of Florida students leaving high school cannot read at grade level." The results for 10th grade reading FCAT show only 39 percent at grade level. Some additional students met that grade level mark through retests or by a sufficient score on the SAT or ACT, which would boost that 39 percent figure. Another way to measure Proctor’s claim is by looking at the percentage who were deemed college ready for reading based on college entrance exams, and that figure was 55 percent for 2009-10. By both measurements, the figure is close to 50 percent. We rate this claim Mostly True.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/feb/23/bill-proctor/rep-proctor-says-half-high-school-grads-cant-read-/

Admittedly 50% is not 70%, but this report shows that many teachers are passing up students that are not reading at the level expected of their grade level.

The American school system is garbage, I think anyone would agree to that.

However, if 50% of a *total school population* has below-grade level reading skills, that means that any *one* English teacher is only going to have a small percentage of their class consist of those students, because that 50% is being distributed among multiple teachers (my high school was about average sized and had two or three english teachers per grade). So you're looking at something like only 10 or 20% of a class having below-average reading skills, a relative handful, and a far cry from 70%.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

How about that the previous teacher passed up a class where 75% of them had no business actually getting graduated, and that happened several times, so now you're faced with a class full of high school students with 3rd grade reading levels?

One teacher deciding to put their foot down and not just ignore the fact their students aren't actually able to pass their classes doesn't mean that teacher sucks.

Yes it does.

Because we live in a country where public school is divided into 12 grades of schooling, with a student getting a new English teacher every year.

So, considering that the average district has at least two or three of each school (elementary, middle school, high school), and the make-up of any high school class is going to have kids coming from all those schools, the only way your assertion would work is to assume that literally dozens of English teachers in a single school district are passing along students who are failing english tests miserably.

Unlikely.

I was talking to a TAFE teacher the other day (which I guess is the equivalent to vocational college/community college ) and he was saying the number of students who have to do english/maths bridging courses just to be able to do TAFE work is amazingly high. TAFE isn't particularly hard so from that conversation I'd have to say that your premise of unlikely is probably more likely than you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 plastictrees wrote:


"Putting your foot down" by failing everyone and swearing up a storm isn't teaching, it's being a child.

It may be being a child but passing people who don't deserve it is both cowardly and irresponsible.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The American school system is garbage, I think anyone would agree to that.

However, if 50% of a *total school population* has below-grade level reading skills, that means that any *one* English teacher is only going to have a small percentage of their class consist of those students, because that 50% is being distributed among multiple teachers (my high school was about average sized and had two or three english teachers per grade). So you're looking at something like only 10 or 20% of a class having below-average reading skills, a relative handful, and a far cry from 70%.

If each teacher has 20% failing students, then when you add them all up only 20% of students are failing school-wide. So, wouldn't it be closer to 50% of each class that's failing? Unless one teacher has all the good kids in the Honors program and the rest of the teachers have more than 50% subpar students to compensate statistically.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The American school system is garbage, I think anyone would agree to that.

It was difficult to read this without thinking of this.



My mother was first year teacher in the South Bronx for kids with learning disabilities when I was a kid. She was really excited about it, it was good security, decent (not good, but decent) money, and good hours for someone with kids, and as a native Spanish speaker she was well suited to the kids she was teaching. Well, halfway through the year, she was brought in with some administration members and asked to change the grades on tests. You're probably thinking it was to cover up that the kids weren't doing well. No, that would be bad enough, but this was worse - they had to change the answers because they needed to fail a higher number of their kids, because they would lose their funding if too many kids did too well. So, that's why my mom is a librarian now, not a teacher. /not so cool story, bro

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The American school system is garbage, I think anyone would agree to that.

However, if 50% of a *total school population* has below-grade level reading skills, that means that any *one* English teacher is only going to have a small percentage of their class consist of those students, because that 50% is being distributed among multiple teachers (my high school was about average sized and had two or three english teachers per grade). So you're looking at something like only 10 or 20% of a class having below-average reading skills, a relative handful, and a far cry from 70%.

This may not be applicable where she is concerned, but this happened to a friends wife. She was taking fall off for maternity leave. So she didnt go to summer meetings. When she got back in spring. She found out that they decided to putt all the failure students with her. It is possible that this school district has teachers decide who they get. So it may be possible if you are not liked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

My mother was first year teacher in the South Bronx for kids with learning disabilities when I was a kid. She was really excited about it, it was good security, decent (not good, but decent) money, and good hours for someone with kids, and as a native Spanish speaker she was well suited to the kids she was teaching. Well, halfway through the year, she was brought in with some administration members and asked to change the grades on tests. You're probably thinking it was to cover up that the kids weren't doing well. No, that would be bad enough, but this was worse - they had to change the answers because they needed to fail a higher number of their kids, because they would lose their funding if too many kids did too well. So, that's why my mom is a librarian now, not a teacher. /not so cool story, bro

Wow, I guess being a teacher really does suck......feth it, Where is the plunger.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wow, I guess being a teacher really does suck......feth it, Where is the plunger.

You could always try to get a job at a private or charter school. The pay is even less than public school teachers make (i.e. pretty much 0), but you (mostly) get to teach intelligent people who actually care about what they're learning. Plus if you find a place with a values code that lines up reasonably well with yours then you even get to go on political rants in class without getting in trouble.

Speaking this from experience. Had a history teacher in high school who was a special forces soldier in Korea who had chronic back problems now because he ruined it from lifting weights with his buddies. Pretty much the most awesome teacher ever, tinfoil hat ultraconservative rants and everything.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

Unless 70% of the class simply refuses to engage the teacher, read, complete any assignments, or perform on the tests...

Or evidently where pants that aren't around their knees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If 70% of a class is getting F's, and it's not college, then the teacher sucks.

There is no other logical conclusion.

How about that the previous teacher passed up a class where 75% of them had no business actually getting graduated, and that happened several times, so now you're faced with a class full of high school students with 3rd grade reading levels?

One teacher deciding to put their foot down and not just ignore the fact their students aren't actually able to pass their classes doesn't mean that teacher sucks.

Yes it does.

Because we live in a country where public school is divided into 12 grades of schooling, with a student getting a new English teacher every year.

So, considering that the average district has at least two or three of each school (elementary, middle school, high school), and the make-up of any high school class is going to have kids coming from all those schools, the only way your assertion would work is to assume that literally dozens of English teachers in a single school district are passing along students who are failing english tests miserably.

Unlikely.

Clearly you've not been around the US inner city public school system.

1 - The American public education system isn't garbage. Is it broken? Yep. But it certainly isn't garbage. Saying that is a slap right in the face of all the good teachers trying to work within the confines of the rigid curriculum boxes they've been given, one of which is the idea that we no longer hold back children, but just shovel them through for numbers purposes.

2 - Failing a class isn't always about knowledge; effort figures in nearly as much.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The American school system is garbage, I think anyone would agree to that.

However, if 50% of a *total school population* has below-grade level reading skills, that means that any *one* English teacher is only going to have a small percentage of their class consist of those students, because that 50% is being distributed among multiple teachers (my high school was about average sized and had two or three english teachers per grade). So you're looking at something like only 10 or 20% of a class having below-average reading skills, a relative handful, and a far cry from 70%.

If each teacher has 20% failing students, then when you add them all up only 20% of students are failing school-wide. So, wouldn't it be closer to 50% of each class that's failing? Unless one teacher has all the good kids in the Honors program and the rest of the teachers have more than 50% subpar students to compensate statistically.

Yeah, Bob's definitely right. If 50% are failing, then on average, each individual class has 50% of its students failing. If some of the more intelligent students are selected, then it is easily within the realms of probability that 70% of her class are failures. Unlikely, but quite definitely possible.

You know if they would rewind the clock back to 50 years ago and starting busting these kids asses, you wouldn't have these problems. All this is is frustration with a dwindling system that has gives teachers absolutely no power to discipline a student in their classroom.