Teachers versus Parents; Is One More Important than the Other?
There had been an op-ed piece in the Times about what is needed for good education, namely, good teachers that are assessed regularly. Then, as a follow-up, a Federal Way administrator suggest parents aren't serious about telling their kids the realities of learning i.e. it's hard work.
It's an interesting take because the WASL was originally developed to assess teachers, not students. This is not to say that teachers don't likely get feedback from WASL results but I'm not sure what is in place to help teachers whose classes score below standard.
Also, I've always thought that parents are the third rail of education but, as we all know as parents (and teachers probably know really well), you can't critizize another parent's parenting. And, what I think is good parenting re;education, you might think is overkill (or lax). The Federal Way administrator thinks that the Singapore way might be better and that kids should feel obligated to do well for their parents and, to some extent, the greater society. And, that we are permissive parents and allow too much technology fun for our kids. (I plead guilty to that to some extent.)
But he ends with something like "learning is not supposed to be easy or fun". I'd agree; I think when you are really interested in something, it sets you on fire and times flies but mostly, it's hard work.
It's an interesting take because the WASL was originally developed to assess teachers, not students. This is not to say that teachers don't likely get feedback from WASL results but I'm not sure what is in place to help teachers whose classes score below standard.
Also, I've always thought that parents are the third rail of education but, as we all know as parents (and teachers probably know really well), you can't critizize another parent's parenting. And, what I think is good parenting re;education, you might think is overkill (or lax). The Federal Way administrator thinks that the Singapore way might be better and that kids should feel obligated to do well for their parents and, to some extent, the greater society. And, that we are permissive parents and allow too much technology fun for our kids. (I plead guilty to that to some extent.)
But he ends with something like "learning is not supposed to be easy or fun". I'd agree; I think when you are really interested in something, it sets you on fire and times flies but mostly, it's hard work.
Comments
I am old school. I prefer the traditional model. I want my kids to like school but I want them to know that school is serious business and that we expect them to work very hard. So far, both of my kids seem very happy, and love school.
In my classes of high-skilled students, I have little trouble challenging them to work hard. Most of them come to school feeling secure. They feel they belong in my class. They gain a sense of power when I make activities student-centered, with opportunities for student choice. They equate challenging, interesting, and imaginative lessons with fun. And they're given oppportunities to move around and work with colleagues in small groups.
The story is much different with my low-skilled students. They often have manifold problems that leave them feeling insecure when they enter my classroom. They often feel unsuccessful in school and don't feel they belong there. Sometimes the only sense of power they feel is by rebelling or refusing to learn. For them, there is nothing fun about failing. And they equate freedom with doing things they're good at--things that often have little to do with language arts.
Too many of my low-skilled students simply don't believe they will be successful through hard work, no matter how many times I try to show them how effort leads to higher marks. They have an entire lifetime of experience that tells them that they will fail if they try.
Mr. Hoff is, as usual, idiotically simple-minded in his approach to education. I can hardly believe what I hear about the lives of some of my students outside of school. There are no easy fixes to these problems. They are societal.
In the meantime, I think it's possible we can reach many of our troubled, failing students, but we need more people doing the work. However, that won't happen without increased funding, something I don't hear Mr. Hoff calling for. Personally, I'm outraged that so many of our students are neglected by our underfunded education system, and I don't think it's the slightest coincidence that the majority of our failing students are poor and non-white. We should be outraged by this. I know I am.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have papers to correct.
I know their are problems, and I understand the dire financial state of our schools, but that can't negate accountability. I think we must move to accountablity. If no teacher could possibly manage the situation, then that would be apparant if all were held accountable. It would force the district to more properly fund the programs. But....if some teachers performed succesfully with good outcomes, and others didn't, it would identify the "bad" teachers, and believe me there are some "bad" teachers out there.
Students go to school six hours a day. With lunch, recesses and whatnot, that's five hours a day of teaching time.
Parents exert influence on their kids more than do teachers.
But especially in poor households, the kids also spend hours a day, and three to five hours a day is not uncommon in very poor households, sitting in front of a television set.
Take five hours a day of teaching, add five hours a day of television watching (probably of the worst available shows), and the result is a real lack of progress for those kids.
It's not just that something besides reading, writing and thinking is taking up their time. If that something were five hours a day of helping their parents run a small business, that would be far different.
The pervasive messages of television further a passive spongelike consuming mentality, and an
expectation and taste for everything to have -tainment tacked onto it. This represses kids' ability to closely question what they are seeing and learning.
Many of these kids are up against not only less literate parents but five hours a day of propaganda that acts against real education.
Why is this so seldom addressed in discussions of improving kids' ability to do well in school?
These parents enable the incredibly lazy 'work' lack of habits of their brats ...
yes, "brats" ...
by blaming the teachers and getting the administration to run the teachers around by the nose.
How many parents have any of you spoken with?
How many were parents of "students" in a supposedly competitive program?
How many of these parents have banded together to blame YOU because their brats do NOT
stop talking in class about their social lives,
take notes,
do homework on time,
do homework at all,
take responsibility for failing quizzes and tests?
The SATs and the AP tests and competitive jobs will filter out those with the skills and the work ethic, and the filtering won't be nice.
Too bad too few parents realize that they'd be better off supporting their offspring by developing realistic expectations, versus enabling excuses and enabling NOT taking responsibility.
I know have the political tools to evade / placate these enabler parents, but, their influence in the system is toxic.
It isn't 1965, Leave it to Beaver is gone.
anonymous for now.
It's an outrage really, and parents seem to turn the other cheek, and teachers just shrug. Principals try to explain away as part of development. Like a phase that they will out grow.
Parents we MUST teach our kids to be respectful of one another, and of authority. It used to be that we were all scared of the low income, crime ridden kids. The ones you cross the street to avoid. We'd better start looking at our own little middle income and affluent, self indulgent, disrepsctful, brats. With no boundaries, consequenses or accountability, I'm going to be watching my back for these "brats" in the future.It will be interesting to see what happens with this "permissive" generation
"These are the students who simply won't be educated, and these are the challenge for the district. It's a high bar when schools have to reach and educate kids in spite of their circumstance... but that is the reality of SPS's job"
Again and again the priority of the district is expressed in relation to underachieving students. The need to educate ALL students seems to be lost by the SPS staff and leadership.
Agreed social support of all youth needs to be provided - whether by parents, social service agencies, schools, or youth centered non-profits.
I would like the schools to get focused on providing the education to all of our students. Raise the bar and tell the community, legislature, and parents what the kids need to succeed.
No it doesn't. What you're "struggling" with is that you're already in the ALL, you already get a decent education (maybe not perfect), and you don't want others to join you. When the district drew the midpoint of the city at I90 for sharing the pain, that says it all about the "ALL" who are their focus. Lucky you! You're already "in".
How many times have we seen posted, "I know we have this huge gigantic problem of an achievement gap... but, no, I don't really care about that, and, no, I don't have any ideas for it, I wish they didn't focus on that, ALL means me... and, we should really worry about some other thing that's really important to me... which most usually is, keep me away from that big problem and those kids in it."
1) 50% of kids don't graduate and will end up burdens to me next year.
2) Sally doesn't get tap dancing lessons or summer trips to Europe like she would at the private schools. Luckily, she does get instrumental music starting in 4th grade, school tutoring and a few other things.
We wouldn't want to be "PC" and try to solve problem 1, would we?