Discussion Forums > Politics
Extending school time~
Sosseres:
You also don't need 3 months to rest, after 2-3 weeks I feel ready to go back and even get a tiny bit restless until I stamp that out with entertainment.
nates1984:
--- Quote ---China runs at 1,742 hours in school with 1,374 instructional hours per a year of 221 days.
Korea runs 1,442 hours in school with 1,067 instructional hours per a year of 225 days.
US runs 1,303 hours in school with 1,061 instructional hours per a year of 180 days.
Japan runs 1,593 hours in school with 1,057 instructional hours per a year 223 days.
Canada runs 1,358 hours in school with 979 instructional hours per a year 188 days.
Englad runs 1,271 hours in school with 953 instructional hours per a year 190 days.
--- End quote ---
"Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days)."
Even if I scratch Japan off that list, it's only one of four.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_kong: In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and reflecting the policy known as "one country, two systems" by the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region in all areas except defence and foreign affairs.
--- Quote ---There you go nate1984....
--- End quote ---
There I go what?
--- Quote ---Here in the states, having smaller classrooms while nice, is still unrealistic. I can't find the numbers off hand, but figure out how many children there are, and divide it by 10. That is a helluva lot of teachers. Then you have to pay those teachers. Since while most schools do receive federal funding, teachers are usually paid by the local city school district. It would place huge burdens on already bankrupt urban school districts coffers, likely collapsing them all together. So how do we pay for them? Tax the crap out of everyone? It's just to unrealistic right now. If someone wants smaller class sizes, they have the option to pay for it via private schools. Which is exactly what you are paying for. Smaller class sizes and the teachers to go with them.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if the American governments at all levels didn't piss away money frivolously. That's the real problem.
--- Quote ---I had my share of good teachers, but had my bigger share of shit teachers. Though I find the ones that ended up being better either had another job that they used the skills in or were old.
--- End quote ---
Old as in they had made enough in the private sector that they could come back and teach like they probably wanted to their whole life. What do you think would happen if teacher's pay was on par with what these people made in the private sector?
Now, because I'm bored as hell, and dumb, I shall address XinWind.
--- Quote ---I see 3 flaws in this statement of yours.
--- End quote ---
Wall of fucking text! Your post lacked logic in a lot of places.
--- Quote ---1. Teachers will go after favorites and work with the people who already got most of the subjects down and the ones with weakness will usually get ignored regardless of how much they get paid. All the teachers will think is they learned the material and thats good enough. Like Foh has said its pretty rare to see teachers who actually cares for the student.
--- End quote ---
For the last fucking time: The current teachers are the bottom of the barrel, so what do you really expect? Do you really think all of the American workforce is like this? You're saying that the teachers are a certain way, and no matter who in the world takes a teaching position they will be the same. Retarded.
--- Quote ---2. You do realize even with how your idea will work out about smarter students moving ahead and getting challenge and stuff that over 50-80% of students would rather take easier work. They just wanna know they are at grade level work thats it. A lot of students dumb their selves down to make sure they don't get more difficult work. Almost all of my high school that I went to was exactly like that.
3. Most students don't wanna challenge and push their limits..... What they want is to get the fuck out of the school already. So placing them into school for a longer period will make sure they hear the information they need to learn and understand they need to be there.
Yes its about education and not about anything else like a paper that says you graduated, but with all honesty how much of this is logical and would actually happen when you think about people's actual attitude towards things and what they wanna do.
--- End quote ---
Wrong for multiple reasons, but all I'll say is: The disposition and attitudes people pick up at an early age, likely from their parents, persist far into adulthood. Once said dispositions and attitudes die off because they are in an environment that doesn't let them thrive, which you won't currently find in most schools I think you'll find over 90% would not slack anymore.
Tabula rasa!
--- Quote ---We might be 2 different cultures, but still humans. We still have similar thoughts and attitudes towards things. A lot of the learning methods are very much alike and the information is a lot alike. Looking at how other people run and teach is how we learn also and make our own methods of teaching and look at what is more effective. So what relic did say is quite relevant and is a great way to look at this.
--- End quote ---
No. Comte is rolling over in his grave.
--- Quote ---So with your statement of quality over quantity. You're saying a student who gets better information and how they are taught would be better, but what good is information if you don't get time to understand it fully, what good is it if the teacher doesn't get more time with the students to understand the students more, and see the students mistakes and show them where they messed up. Also students are already being taught well with great amount of information and teachers working with their students a lot.
Me as a student who hasn't been gone from school not that long ago. I know I learned more from my classmates than the teacher because of 1 factor group work and sharing how we got to the answer. With more classmates the chance of this is greater and will allow the other students see where they could improve. After that the students can ask the teacher where they messed up at and ask for the teach to explain what happened.
--- End quote ---
Wouldn't it have been better if the student could go directly to the teacher (who should be the smartest in the room) right off the bat, and skip the part where they lean on other students?
--- Quote ---We are in school to learn not just from the teacher, but also from one another. Quality is good and well, but if there is no time with it all. Its no better than not even learning the work. A lot of students needs more time with the work from what I have seen. A lot of students don't study outside of school and having more time in school will make sure they are learning.
--- End quote ---
Nanny state arguments can fuck off.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: You support a system that makes students the way you described in 2 and 3 earlier in your response, then claim these changes are necessary to combat this problem. Well, if the institutions didn't create this behavior, we wouldn't need to fix it.
--- Quote ---Also something I forgot to say. A good middle size class with a decent teacher allows other students to help students who don't fully understand the material and allows the teacher to work with other students also. So a smaller class won't do much, but slow down the class a bit more and burn more time so less time with students would be placed into effect.
With more time not only does the teacher get more time with the students, but other students can help each other more AND get help from the teacher after that. It brings in more time for studying, understanding, gaining help, and even socializing which is a big thing we need in the future.
--- End quote ---
You already made this point, you didn't forget it.
--- Quote ---So with what I said I think having more time in school is a smart way to have more effective learning.
Also sorry if my grammar sucks and stuff I have never been too bright in that area =X.
--- End quote ---
Bright enough to understand the complexities of the educational institutions, but not bright enough for grammar. Amazing.
--- Quote ---I'm sorry, but this statement is so false it ain't even funny. Increasing pay won't do nothing, but attract more greedy teachers who are there for the money not helping the students.....
--- End quote ---
An elevated level of competition would make them help the students whether they want to or not.
Greed doesn't have shit to do with it. When I graduate I need to pay for the family I know my girlfriend will want to start (and I'd love to start a family with her), pay off student loans, and pay current living expenses. I will take my masters in mathematics and go to the private sector to fulfill these financial requirements. Teaching, for me, will have to wait until my financial burden is reduced such that I can be comfortable on a teacher's salary. It's your loss, and your children's loss, that I won't be in that classroom my whole working life.
--- Quote ---Another thing the teachers who actually stay are the ones who actually care for the students and actually wants to be there to TEACH not for the money.
--- End quote ---
But earlier you said this:
--- Quote ---1. Teachers will go after favorites and work with the people who already got most of the subjects down and the ones with weakness will usually get ignored regardless of how much they get paid. All the teachers will think is they learned the material and thats good enough. Like Foh has said its pretty rare to see teachers who actually cares for the student.
--- End quote ---
So which one is it? You're contradicting yourself.
--- Quote ---If they aren't well qualified as you say they wouldn't of gotten the job in the first place.
--- End quote ---
No. I have more than one college teacher I could point my finger at to prove this. If they're getting in at the college level, then my lord, think of the implications for K-12. I look back at my high school teachers and realize over half of them were complete idiots.
furuoshiki:
Nate you have me beat at being Quip-master-flex 3000 AKA Mista Quick-to-slap-a-bitch-in-his-or-her-throat.
All hail.
XinWind:
--- Quote from: nates1984 on September 30, 2009, 08:30:58 PM ---Now, because I'm bored as hell, and dumb, I shall address XinWind.
--- Quote ---For the last fucking time: The current teachers are the bottom of the barrel, so what do you really expect? Do you really think all of the American workforce is like this? You're saying that the teachers are a certain way, and no matter who in the world takes a teaching position they will be the same. Retarded.
--- End quote ---
They aren't all the same as you claim. If all teachers were the same no matter who takes the teaching position, you might as well say good bye to education. There are different teachers ALWAYS. Some teachers are actually there to actually TEACH instead of looking for money. Most teachers that are even fucking left in the high schools here are there to teach and don't give a fucking rat's ass about the money. Current teachers aren't the bottom of the barrel. Just because your ass had horrible teachers doesn't mean ALL are horrible. Stop being fucking bias and look at the big picture.
--- Quote ---Wrong for multiple reasons, but all I'll say is: The disposition and attitudes people pick up at an early age, likely from their parents, persist far into adulthood. Once said dispositions and attitudes die off because they are in an environment that doesn't let them thrive, which you won't currently find in most schools I think you'll find over 90% would not slack anymore.
Tabula rasa!
--- End quote ---
At a young age most people I knew were top students and had straight A's and amazing records and never slacked. By the time they hit middle school all of them or at least most became slackers. Even with parents who care and teachers who care. They still changed because of friends and who they come around to knowing and hanging out with. If its environment thats causing problems wouldn't it be better to have them in school more where its a safe and is a place for them to learn to work hard and study? Since I sure as hell remember after school most kids would go hang out because their friends are going to hang out or go home and play video games or watch tv. Also I find that 90% still slacking off because they aren't in school and think they are free to do what they want. When I look back I saw most students actually working and paying attention in class, but the moment they step out of the school its slackers all over again. So the whole environment thing you are stating and your idea of not having longer school time honestly contradicts itself.
--- Quote ---No. Comte is rolling over in his grave.
--- End quote ---
Don't see how this is even relevant to the whole convo. o.O
--- Quote ---Wouldn't it have been better if the student could go directly to the teacher (who should be the smartest in the room) right off the bat, and skip the part where they lean on other students?
--- End quote ---
Yeah, go to the teacher who is helping another student? Wouldn't it be better to have other people who know how to do it also aka some other students and get the information sooner? I mean seriously teachers can't help EVERYONE at once so to have someone in the class who also understands is great. Yeah, the teacher is the smartest in the room, but what good is having only 1 resource to go to when you can have over a few? Especially when that 1 resource the student has is helping another student.....
--- Quote ---Nanny state arguments can fuck off.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: You support a system that makes students the way you described in 2 and 3 earlier in your response, then claim these changes are necessary to combat this problem. Well, if the institutions didn't create this behavior, we wouldn't need to fix it.
--- End quote ---
Well I'm sorry you dislike my statement. Its the truth and if you can't face that than honestly all your statements are bias and is based off your opinion and your ideals alone. Why not think of all possibilities and not cut out what you think is wrong.
You can't say that my statement is the truth. Students can learn from others not just the teacher and we go to school for material teacher, but we can learn from each other.
The institution doesn't control the students. They have their own opinions and brain and soul. They think for themselves. The system didn't make them bored, lazy, or want to get out of things quicker. What made that happen is their opinions and they grew to learn and think is fun comparing to the things they have to do in school. I support a system that is trying their best to educate the students. Its not their fault like I've said countless times. Its the students that is the real problem and the things they grew up with.
--- Quote ---You already made this point, you didn't forget it.
--- End quote ---
I was adding on details. I didn't forget it. Didn't feel like going back to it and add it on so I just kept typing instead.
--- Quote ---Bright enough to understand the complexities of the educational institutions, but not bright enough for grammar. Amazing.
--- End quote ---
Grammar has always been a weakness for me. Doesn't mean I can't understand other stuff. This statement is rude, arrogant, and insulting. Just because someone has a weakness in something(especially when its their second language) doesn't mean nothing at all about what they can or can not understand. So refrain from your smartass comments and insulting people and just stay on the topic.
--- Quote ---An elevated level of competition would make them help the students whether they want to or not.
Greed doesn't have shit to do with it. When I graduate I need to pay for the family I know my girlfriend will want to start (and I'd love to start a family with her), pay off student loans, and pay current living expenses. I will take my masters in mathematics and go to the private sector to fulfill these financial requirements. Teaching, for me, will have to wait until my financial burden is reduced such that I can be comfortable on a teacher's salary. It's your loss, and your children's loss, that I won't be in that classroom my whole working life.
--- End quote ---
Greed plays a big factor in everything. Competing against other schools to raise the their pays because of student test scores is a possibility.
Everyone is going to have financial problems in their life at least once. There are other teachers around also who are teaching also, don't flatter yourself. Do what you gotta go and those who have already got their financial things done will be there.
--- Quote ---But earlier you said this:
So which one is it? You're contradicting yourself.
--- End quote ---
Sorry let me rephrase it so it doesn't anymore in your eyes.
You said that raising the pay of teachers would attract more suitable teachers and I said that it would attract greedy teachers. So they would just teach what is required. Also in a small class size it would make it easier for THOSE teachers to close off a part of the class. When the teachers who are left with the small pay comparing to the big pay in your idea, would show the rare teachers that Foh was speaking of who are there to teach not for the money. Do you understand it now?
When I said regardless of pay I was saying it would be easy for who are after the money not teaching that do stay. Since in your idea smaller class and the teacher being greedy and lazy from how I would see it go. I was thinking if the teacher was lazy enough they would see they do barely any teaching and still getting a decent pay.
--- End quote ---
nates1984:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---1. Teachers will go after favorites and work with the people who already got most of the subjects down and the ones with weakness will usually get ignored regardless of how much they get paid. All the teachers will think is they learned the material and thats good enough. Like Foh has said its pretty rare to see teachers who actually cares for the student.
--- End quote ---
For the last fucking time: The current teachers are the bottom of the barrel, so what do you really expect? Do you really think all of the American workforce is like this? You're saying that the teachers are a certain way, and no matter who in the world takes a teaching position they will be the same. Retarded.
--- End quote ---
They aren't all the same as you claim.
--- End quote ---
I never claimed that, you did. The first sentence in your post proves you aren't following this conversation in a coherent fashion.
--- Quote ---Don't see how this is even relevant to the whole convo. o.O
--- End quote ---
That's because you have no idea who August Comte was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Comte
--- Quote ---I mean seriously teachers can't help EVERYONE at once so to have someone in the class who also understands is great.
--- End quote ---
With class sizes of 30+ your argument is valid, but I wasn't arguing for huge class sizes.
--- Quote ---I support a system that is trying their best to educate the students.
--- End quote ---
They're not trying their best.
--- Quote ---Its not their fault like I've said countless times.
--- End quote ---
Yes it is. The people who control schools are responsible for said schools.
--- Quote ---Its the students that is the real problem and the things they grew up with.
--- End quote ---
I never said there wasn't a problem with students. Just because one problem exists doesn't mean it can account for all the issues. Once school is compulsory and parents are ignored by the administrative staff of the schools (and they are) then the schools themselves take on a large amount of responsibility.
--- Quote ---Do what you gotta go and those who have already got their financial things done will be there.
--- End quote ---
The problem, in case you haven't figured it out, is that there aren't enough of these types to go around.
--- Quote ---You said that raising the pay of teachers would attract more suitable teachers and I said that it would attract greedy teachers. So they would just teach what is required.
--- End quote ---
You do not understand the implications of elevated competition for a particular type of job. Jesus H Christ, it's part of what makes Capitalism tick, and you're completely ignorant of it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version