Teacher's "lazy whiners" blog

[Scytail]

How do you peeps feel about this?

personally i think she hit the nail on the head. and the people who think its the teachers job to motivate students to learn either dont have kids or really dont care about their education to begin with.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_hi_te/us_teacher_suspended_blog

 

[SuperUberBob]

As a teacher myself, those students certainly exist and are frustrating to deal with. But a teacher's job IS to motivate students to learn. That's what she was educated to do in college. That's why she took a teacher's certification test. To bash her students even anonymously is highly unprofessional.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that she wasn't fired.

 

[darth.pixie]

I think it's true. There are so many things I couldn't have gotten away with in high school.

I, however, think that teachers have to motivate their students. A proper teacher (not just someone who knows things but someone who can actually inspire) could always capture the attention of the younger crowd. Maybe I'm speaking from personal experience, but there are teachers whom you remember and cheerish no matter what grades you had and those that believe that talking for two hours about a subject is the same thing as educating. I've had both and I still remember some lessons fondly while others I despise.

 

[Orange643]

Um.... what's the point in public school at all? The public school system is a joke, a broken system that makes children memorize things they'll never need, but never actually learn. Schools aren't places of education, they're prisons designed to turn otherwise bright, creative children into apathetic, complacent "good citizens". Maybe the reason why those students are "lazy" is because they hate the teacher's subject and will probably never use it in their actual future career. So what's the point in actually being in that class?

"If you want to learn, you go to the library. If you want to get laid, you go to school." - Frank Zappa

 

[Scytail]

its still not the teachers job to make the students do the work. part of the motivation lies with the parents. you cant heap every part of the educational aspect onto the teachers and then spin around and blame them if your kid doesnt do well. if the parents just let the kid sit at home and dick around with video games or run around with their friends instead of doing homework or studying for tests of course they will fail causing much frustration on said teacher when she gets a billion phone calls from parents asking why their kids arent doing well. and besides, i think her blog falls under the freedom of speech.

 

[Orange643]

its still not the teachers job to make the students do the work. part of the motivation lies with the parents. you cant heap every part of the educational aspect onto the teachers and then spin around and blame them if your kid doesnt do well. if the parents just let the kid sit at home and dick around with video games or run around with their friends instead of doing homework or studying for tests of course they will fail causing much frustration on said teacher when she gets a billion phone calls from parents asking why their kids arent doing well. and besides, i think her blog falls under the freedom of speech.

Yes, of course it falls under freedom of speech, she can rant and rave about stupid kids all day long for all i care. Doesn't make her right, but whatever. Thing is, kids aren't going to dick around on videogames and hang out with friends ALL THE TIME, want to know why? Because EVERYONE has a natural curiosity and desire to learn, it's just human nature. All public school does is discourage that in favor of subjects kids don't even care about and will never use in real life. Example: Currently i'm in Algebra 2. I despise math. (I'm more of a Social sciences/literature/art kind of dude) Why am i in that class when i know for sure that i'm not going to use anything more complicated than simple 6th grade math in real life? Because it's the "law."

 

[DanDeFool]

Um.... what's the point in public school at all? The public school system is a joke, a broken system that makes children memorize things they'll never need, but never actually learn. Schools aren't places of education, they're prisons designed to turn otherwise bright, creative children into apathetic, complacent "good citizens". Maybe the reason why those students are "lazy" is because they hate the teacher's subject and will probably never use it in their actual future career. So what's the point in actually being in that class?

"If you want to learn, you go to the library. If you want to get laid, you go to school." - Frank Zappa

Agreed. Even in college, in science and engineering programs, we get told our degrees don't mean much in the real world. It kind of seems like all education is pointless.

This is where the good teacher would come in and remind the students that school isn't about learning specific things, it's about developing learning as a skill. It's about learning how to gather information, synthesize ideas, and come to conclusions. Its about learning how to reference and read textbooks to be able to apply knowledge to solve problems. Its about learning how to work together with people you don't know well and may not even like that much to complete a shared objective.

And last, but not least, it's about learning to discipline yourself to accomplish something even if you don't really want to.

To discount school as pointless because the specific knowledge you learn isn't always useful in the real world is to miss the point, and I think any good teacher will be able to impress that upon their students.

OT: My sister is a a high school teacher in a lower-class school, and I think she feels the other teacher's pain. Of course, instead of being just lazy, most of her kids are dealing drugs and getting pregnant.

Underpaid/Underappreciated civil servant: Thy name is High School Teacher.

 

[Orange643]

Um.... what's the point in public school at all? The public school system is a joke, a broken system that makes children memorize things they'll never need, but never actually learn. Schools aren't places of education, they're prisons designed to turn otherwise bright, creative children into apathetic, complacent "good citizens". Maybe the reason why those students are "lazy" is because they hate the teacher's subject and will probably never use it in their actual future career. So what's the point in actually being in that class?

"If you want to learn, you go to the library. If you want to get laid, you go to school." - Frank Zappa

Agreed. Even in college, in science and engineering programs, we get told our degrees don't mean much in the real world. It kind of seems like all education is pointless.

This is where the good teacher would come in and remind the students that school isn't about learning specific things, it's about developing learning as a skill. It's about learning how to gather information, synthesize ideas, and come to conclusions. Its about learning how to reference and read textbooks to be able to apply knowledge to solve problems. Its about learning how to work together with people you don't know well and may not even like that much to complete a shared objective.

And last, but not least, it's about learning to discipline yourself to accomplish something even if you don't really want to.

To discount school as pointless because the specific knowledge you learn isn't always useful in the real world is to miss the point, and I think any good teacher will be able to impress that upon their students.

OT: My sister is a a high school teacher in a lower-class school, and I think she feels the other teacher's pain. Of course, instead of being just lazy, most of her kids are dealing drugs and getting pregnant.

Underpaid/Underappreciated civil servant: Thy name is High School Teacher.

Yes it's true that school helps develop discipline and character and teaches one how to work well with others, etc. Thing is, it's not necessary for school to develop those characteristics. Prior to the 20th Century, most people were too poor to even dream of going to school. Some of history's greatest geniuses were homeschooled or autodidacted, people like Mark Twain, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Thomas Edison, etc. None of those men were natural born geniuses. They simply became as smart as they were due to natural curiosity and a hunger for knowledge. Public school is really a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts: The system breeds kids who can't think for themselves, making them that much more reliant on the system. Trust me, if i had trillions of dollars, i'd go to every public school in the United States (I'm not all that familiar with the educational system in other countries) and replace the schools with public libraries with as many books as you could ask for.

It'd sure as hell be a lot more educational.

 

[Scytail]

its still not the teachers job to make the students do the work. part of the motivation lies with the parents. you cant heap every part of the educational aspect onto the teachers and then spin around and blame them if your kid doesnt do well. if the parents just let the kid sit at home and dick around with video games or run around with their friends instead of doing homework or studying for tests of course they will fail causing much frustration on said teacher when she gets a billion phone calls from parents asking why their kids arent doing well. and besides, i think her blog falls under the freedom of speech.

Yes, of course it falls under freedom of speech, she can rant and rave about stupid kids all day long for all i care. Doesn't make her right, but whatever. Thing is, kids aren't going to dick around on videogames and hang out with friends ALL THE TIME, want to know why? Because EVERYONE has a natural curiosity and desire to learn, it's just human nature. All public school does is discourage that in favor of subjects kids don't even care about and will never use in real life. Example: Currently i'm in Algebra 2. I despise math. (I'm more of a Social sciences/literature/art kind of dude) Why am i in that class when i know for sure that i'm not going to use anything more complicated than simple 6th grade math in real life? Because it's the "law."

Youre right, its the LAW. the government runs your school so therefor they get to say what you do and do not learn. now when you get to college and you actually have to pay for your own education, from what i hear there is a little (not much but some) more flexability (other than your core classes which do consist of math, science, social science, and language arts.) in choosing what you get to take by way of picking a major/minor.

 

[Orange643]

its still not the teachers job to make the students do the work. part of the motivation lies with the parents. you cant heap every part of the educational aspect onto the teachers and then spin around and blame them if your kid doesnt do well. if the parents just let the kid sit at home and dick around with video games or run around with their friends instead of doing homework or studying for tests of course they will fail causing much frustration on said teacher when she gets a billion phone calls from parents asking why their kids arent doing well. and besides, i think her blog falls under the freedom of speech.

Yes, of course it falls under freedom of speech, she can rant and rave about stupid kids all day long for all i care. Doesn't make her right, but whatever. Thing is, kids aren't going to dick around on videogames and hang out with friends ALL THE TIME, want to know why? Because EVERYONE has a natural curiosity and desire to learn, it's just human nature. All public school does is discourage that in favor of subjects kids don't even care about and will never use in real life. Example: Currently i'm in Algebra 2. I despise math. (I'm more of a Social sciences/literature/art kind of dude) Why am i in that class when i know for sure that i'm not going to use anything more complicated than simple 6th grade math in real life? Because it's the "law."

Youre right, its the LAW. the government runs your school so therefor they get to say what you do and do not learn. now when you get to college and you actually have to pay for your own education, from what i hear there is a little (not much but some) more flexability (other than your core classes which do consist of math, science, social science, and language arts.) in choosing what you get to take by way of picking a major/minor.

Which is particularly why i'm waiting for college with bated breath. About a year and a half, by my last estimate

 

[Gasaraki]

The teacher's just as lazy as the kids IMO

 

[Gxas]

Example: Currently i'm in Algebra 2. I despise math. (I'm more of a Social sciences/literature/art kind of dude) Why am i in that class when i know for sure that i'm not going to use anything more complicated than simple 6th grade math in real life? Because it's the "law."

Its actually because you may need it eventually. Sure, you might not use it ever, but, the public school system is not set up to cater to each individual. That is what colleges do. The public school system is there as college prep. Now, I do agree that you should be able to choose not to take a math if you are absolutely one-hundred percent positive that you will not use it, but most kids in high school have no idea what they want to do.

Hell, I'm in my third year of college and I still don't know that my major is the right one for me. But, I am so glad that I went through AP Calculus and Physics. It may turn out that I choose a job in a literary field where I will never use either of them, but I'm glad I did take them, because I am now eligible for more careers and majors, should something happen where my major doesn't work out, I can move on to something else with ease because I am well prepared due to my studies in high school.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Prior to the 20th Century, most people were too poor to even dream of going to school. Some of history's greatest geniuses were homeschooled or autodidacted, people like Mark Twain, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Thomas Edison, etc. None of those men were natural born geniuses. They simply became as smart as they were due to natural curiosity and a hunger for knowledge.

Not to rain on argument there that curiosity is really important (because I agree), but you ARE aware that most of those geniuses were tutored by some rather excellent teachers ?
Da Vinci learned under Verrocchio, Beethoven was tutored by van den Eeden and Pfeifer, etc.

Bad teachers are a waste of space and, yes, if you have a shit teachers, you will learn more in a library. But quite frankly, if you actually do not believe, that a good teacher is a tremendous help when it comes to learning, I really, REALLY pity you, because it seems like you never even saw one.

Edited for spelling and missed words. Man, I´m tired.

 

[Orange643]

Prior to the 20th Century, most people were too poor to even dream of going to school. Some of history's greatest geniuses were homeschooled or autodidacted, people like Mark Twain, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Thomas Edison, etc. None of those men were natural born geniuses. They simply became as smart as they were due to natural curiosity and a hunger for knowledge.

Not to rain on argument there that curiosity is really important (because I agree), but you ARE aware that most of those geniuses were tutored by some rather excellent teachers ?
Da Vinci learned under Verrocchio, Beethoven was tutored by van den Eeden and Pfeifer, etc.

Bad teachers are a waste of space and, yes, if you have a shit teachers, you will learn more in a librabry. But quite frankly, if you actually believe, that a good teacher is a tremendous help when it comes to learning, I really, REALLY pity you, because it seems like you never even saw one.

Those were private tutors that Da Vinci and Beethoven apprenticed under, not at all the same thing as a public school teacher talking at a class of 30 bored-as-shit teenagers. Of course, having a teacher is extremely helpful, and for some personality types necessary in order to get the best education possible, but "teacher" doesn't necessarily mean "public school teacher". The only reason why i'm singling out public school is because i've been to both private schools and public schools, and private school teachers tend to be the ones who more often legitimately care about their students learning anything. Compare that to your average public school teacher, who probably doesn't give two shits about their students getting an education as long as they pass standardized tests. (Note: I'm generalizing)

 

[LightOfDarkness]

My thoughts about school are that they force you to take subjects that you will hate. I have to take history next year and god damn it's going to be a looooooong semester.
What irks me the most is that schools tell you to be exemplary at all subjects, and yet if you ask a science teacher something about history they probably wouldn't know what you were talking about. Yet the science teacher still has a job.

IMO they shouldn't have required courses "History? What will I do with the knowledge of some guy who did this 150 years ago when I'm a doctor/software developer/engineer?"

 

[Barciad]

I'll be teaching excitable, eager Korean kids in a few weeks time so this is all quite irrelevent. Yet, children by their very nature, especially when they hit 13 (or some even younger) become incredibly lazy. They don't want to do this boring stuff, I should know, I was one of them.
To be honest, you have one of two choices. Choice a) was what they did up until 40 years ago. This involved putting a proverbial gun to the children's head and make them an offer they really couldn't refuse. This involved either being quiet in lessons and doing homework or getting caned repeatedly. In the modern world, this has been deemed barbaric and so a new approach has been suggested.
This involves choice b), to make lessons fun, creative, and involving, so no child, no matter how violent, hyperactive, or disturbed, will ever get bored. Fine in theory, and do-able (I know maths teachers that can do this) but much easier said than done not to mention requiring a ton of preparation work beforehand.
The problem always seems to me that teachers are such a bunch of pleasant, agreeable, well-intentioned individuals. To do choice b) requires the same amount of work as someone that works in high finance. How do I know this? You look at burn-out rates, i.e. how many teachers and financiers quit their jobs through exhaustion, they are basically the same. Yet one gets paid gazillions, and the other gets paid pittance.
Of course, there are private schools where you meet teachers that have the ideals of financiers and so get paid what they really are worth, but lets not go into that.

 

[DMonkey]

What horrible experience can happen in a persons life that would traumatize them into becoming masochistic enough to teach in a public school? Its hard to have pity for them as they are doing it to themselves at this point. Its like staying in an abusive relationship... who do you shake your head at more- the one doing the hitting, or the one who puts up with it?

 

[BlumiereBleck]

As a teacher myself, those students certainly exist and are frustrating to deal with. But a teacher's job IS to motivate students to learn. That's what she was educated to do in college. That's why she took a teacher's certification test. To bash her students even anonymously is highly unprofessional.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that she wasn't fired.

Tis very hard to get a teacher fired.

OT: I think what she did was wrong and second if a child doesn't want to learn, get out!

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

From the looks of it, if it is accurate, the kids are misbehaving. Thats an issue of parenting, not education. Children learn how to act from their parents if the parents fail kids act like little monsters and doesnt help that the way the education system is, it acts like a part-time prison.

What I dont get is that a good amount of parents nowadays believe their kids can do no wrong, thats not a healthy attitude to begin with.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Those were private tutors that Da Vinci and Beethoven apprenticed under, not at all the same thing as a public school teacher talking at a class of 30 bored-as-shit teenagers. Of course, having a teacher is extremely helpful, and for some personality types necessary in order to get the best education possible, but "teacher" doesn't necessarily mean "public school teacher". The only reason why i'm singling out public school is because i've been to both private schools and public schools, and private school teachers tend to be the ones who more often legitimately care about their students learning anything. Compare that to your average public school teacher, who probably doesn't give two shits about their students getting an education as long as they pass standardized tests. (Note: I'm generalizing)

Ahh, okay.
Slightly misread you there. I thought you had a problem with teachers and organized learning in general and just singled out public schools as an example.
Can´t really say anything about public schools in the USA, but where I grew up (Europe), public schools have a perfectly fine reputation, being a teacher in one is actually a respected job and I, visiting a public school myself, was taught by several really amazing people.

But as someone who frequents a lot of English speaking boards, I DO hear a lot of whining about the American school system, so there might actually be something awry there.

Actually OT:
If a teacher has a problem with their students and their attitudes, I think he has every right to express this problem.
To his students and their parents.
In a non-public way.
Without calling them names.
Should come naturally from the entire "respecting your students as people"-shtick....