[Elianna]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-26, 23:01, said:

Elianna, I presume you are dealing with gifted students. When I was in school with ordinary students, I'd be surprised if many of them even knew what 18 was. It's hard to believe that anybody that isn't gifted would come up with a start of 15 squared. If these are ordinary students, then you and your predecessors are doing a tremendous job.

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!

Most of the students that come to my school come in below grade level. Of our freshmen, 95% test below grade level, over half are 3+ years below grade level. While I currently only teach seniors, I have taught younger classes at this school, and it is with them in mind that I answer all questions.

In fact, the example I gave was from our MS coach's 6th grade classroom, which is basically 12 year olds.

I expect a lot more of my students this year than what I've written.

Just to be even clearer, while I teach at a charter school, it is a school who's mission is to reach first generation students and help them get to-and-through college. While this sounds like we might get the best students, the truth is that the majority of students who are already being served by the regular public school system continue at public school, and we get ones who have struggled, but their parents want them to succeed at school (or the parents don't like their friends and want them to move - probably 25% of our freshmen are gang-affiliated or in danger of it). (The other end of the spectrum of students who aren't being served by the public schools would not go to our school, either, because we do not offer as many AP classes or electives as a public school so that's reverse incentive for them.)

about 40 out of 350 students have an IEP (are supported by Special Ed, usually for moderate disabilities but that still hinder education) and another 40 or so have a 504 plan.

billw55, on 2016-October-27, 06:22, said:

But now you have spent perhaps half an hour on 3x+15=75. In my experience one of teachers' top complaints is not enough instruction time. Certainly they cite this when opposing standardized testing. So is this a wise use of time? As an alternative, how about using that half hour to drill them on perhaps two dozen such equations? Which approach would actually get them proficient at basic algebra faster? I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm open to discussion. But I know how I learned, and it was good enough to get me through 30 credits of math in college.

Barmar's response applies to this:

barmar, on 2016-October-27, 08:52, said:

One of the techniques that is becoming popular is "active learning", which replaces much of the lecturing and textbook reading with group activities that require the students to solve problems. Children are naturally good at this, it's basically how they learn most of the games they play (no kid ever sat in a lecture learning how to play sports, and they pick up card and board games with only a minimal amount of explanation of the basic rules). And when they learn through an active process, they understand and retain it better.

Basically getting them to vocalize their understanding of what's going on (AFTER practice, not INSTEAD of) means they retain it longer, and don't have to memorize the process if they have an understanding of why it's mathematically true. They can then approach a lot of problems that involve using inverse operations with the same principles (like logs are inverses of exponentials and one "undoes" the other so it's the same as solving linear equations and not a whole new process to learn).

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-27, 10:27, said:

What seems interesting to me is that we are discussing teaching children as if it is a given that you will be able to spend your time teaching.

I have several friends and acquaintances that are teachers and every single one of them tells me that the teacher has to spend more time on discipline problems than actually teaching; they are not allowed to do anything about a disruptive child that will cause him not to be disruptive (they are allowed to yell at him but anything else would be grounds for disciplinary action against the teacher and/or a lawsuit from the parents), and yelling rarely does any good, and the disruptive children simply ignore requests for time-out or to go to the principal's office; and there are usually multiple disruptive children per class not just one.

I don't normally swear, but this made me feel like trotting some out - specifically whisky tango foxtrot! They're "allowed" to YELL at a CHILD? And they DO? I have no other response to this except that perhaps your friends should consider other professions that don't ever involve being around others.

I can't imagine that yelling does anything other than make the child more obstinate in refusing to cooperate.

I know that if I get yelled at, I make sure to stay the heck away from whoever is the lunatic doing the yelling and it doesn't make me think well of them or what they're trying to tell me.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-27, 10:27, said:

Teachers who have taught college level courses where the child or his parents are paying for it actually get to teach. Their experience is that they must teach the material that should have been taught in high school but nobody got to learn anything in high school because of all the disruption from misbehaving students.

In another discussion board, I suggested that a solution was to segregate based on behavior so that the 80% or so of children that want to behave and learn will all be in the same schools and the students will learn. Of course, since most internet discussion boards are mostly populated with liberals, I was chastised for this suggestion, but not one single poster disputed my depiction of what goes on in a high school classroom.

I categorically dispute it (in classrooms where teachers know how to teach - we do have some 1st year teachers who haven't even student taught and that might be their classroom in the first month, but by second semester, I dispute it for all except the ones that refuse to manage their classrooms appropriately.)

[Elianna]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-27, 11:19, said:

I am also curious how Elliana gets to teach is such a rarefied situation where she actually can spend time teaching and not disciplining.

billw55, on 2016-October-27, 13:49, said:

Private schools, wealthier public school districts, and advanced courses all present such an environment. Or maybe she is just really good at it. Anyway it is not as rare as you think.

I'll repeat: While I teach at a charter, it is not a wealthy public school. 85% (down from 90%) of our students are on Free or Reduced Lunch. The "rich kid" at school had a family income of 60,000 which may seem high for US standards but is REALLY LOW for the Bay Area (enough to qualify for Below Market housing). To give context, to qualify for Reduced Lunch in 2015-2016, a family of 4 needed an income of below 44,863 and for free lunch below 31,525 (numbers from http://www.cde.ca.go.../scales1516.asp). I think that knowing that 85% of our students have families that have an income below $45,000 will clarify that we are not a rich school. The public school district we are chartered by has 47% FRL.

And while I'm teaching an advanced course now, I haven't always and I've not had discipline issues get in the way of teaching.

The way I get to teach without disciplining ALL the time is very clear: (not in an order, just as I can think of them.)
Proactive List:
1) Proximity (I don't stay in one place, I wander and make my presence known and make it clear that I'm paying attention)
2) Choose interesting problems and make sure that students know why we are doing what we're doing (that everything has a purpose).
3) (Perhaps most important) TALK to students, not at them. Have conversations both while I instruct, and while they are working. Almost always about Math, but if they look like they are having a hard time in general, talk about what's going on with them. Not only will that student be more engaged, other students will see that I am caring and compassionate, and be more willing to do hard work for me. (By talk with them while I instruct, I mean that I usually ask leading questions that they have to think about and share with a partner and basically I try to convince them that they figured out everything going on without my telling them anything more than definitions.)
4) Make sure that all students can experience meaningful success early on in my course, and make sure that they receive positive feedback about it. Again, students are more willing to work hard if they believe that they have a possibility of learning.
5) Realizing that most behavior problems stem from some sort of fear, and that if you can get them to not feel afraid, but feel empowered and able, they are less likely to act out.
6) Asking lower grade teachers if there's a student in particular to watch out for, and then make sure that they in particular get to do something well, and then call their home to compliment them to their parents/guardians.

Reactive List:
1) "The Look" - I've worked on it and think that I have it down.
2) Quickly setting all students on some practice problem, and then asking misbehaving student to knock it off if it's something minor.
3) Quickly setting all students on some practice problem, and then talking to a student and asking them what's going on. I usually ask them what they were doing, how they think I feel about what they were doing, how they think others react to what they're doing, questions like that. The point is to get them to reflect. If they refuse, I straight out tell them that I need them to think about what they are doing and how it affects others, and that they need to take five minutes outside to do it.
4) Very rarely have I had to send a student to the office, but I have for things that my school considers Zero Tolerance (flashing gang signs even in jest, racial/sexual epithets, etc.)

Again, I'm sure that I do other things, I just can't think of them now. But trying to set up a good learning environment from the start (as much as is possible) is so much better than reacting to things as they happen.

[jeffford76]

For what it's worth I had my bridge partner ask her eight year old, and he answered all three problems correctly. These problems aren't dissimilar from ones I've seen him do for homework.

[diana_eva]

jeffford76, on 2016-October-27, 18:16, said:

For what it's worth I had my bridge partner ask her eight year old, and he answered all three problems correctly. These problems aren't dissimilar from ones I've seen him do for homework.

I asked my twin daughters too, they are 10, and they also answered correctly. But we're in Romania so not sure it's relevant, lots of things are different around here.

[kenberg]

jeffford76, on 2016-October-27, 18:16, said:

For what it's worth I had my bridge partner ask her eight year old, and he answered all three problems correctly. These problems aren't dissimilar from ones I've seen him do for homework.

Thanks. It's a sample size of one, but we have to start somewhere!

[kenberg]

diana_eva, on 2016-October-27, 18:35, said:

I asked my twin daughters too, they are 10, and they also answered correctly. But we're in Romania so not sure it's relevant, lots of things are different around here.

Romania? It's not mars, I think it counts.

[diana_eva]

kenberg, on 2016-October-27, 19:53, said:

Romania? It's not mars, I think it counts.

We use analog clocks in the house. They know how to count how many candies fit in a 1RON bill since preschool (where candy prices are like 17, 15, 50 "cents" - it's actually "bani", the sub-unity of RON - etc so they needed to do arithmetic up to 100 to manage it), they're not all hardwired into digital and automated stuff like your example with the cashier who couldn't figure out how to give the rest. Not to mention that teaching system and curriculum are surely different here.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2016-October-27, 20:51

[kenberg]

I mentioned I have to vote in the school board race, there are two open seats.
Some, maybe all of the candidates speak of Common Core.
Thinking through all the comments, I will be looking for a view such as "Let's make CC work the very best we can".
This is different fro saying I have thoroughly studied CC and that I am sure it is great. But I am willing to trust that it is a reasonable plan developed by serious people. As such it has the possibility but not a guarantee of working well. We should do our best to make it work well.

As it happens, the current math Notices (of the American Mathematical Society) arrived today. There is a review by David Broussoud of the Andrew Hacker book The Math Myth and Other Stem Delusions. Broussoud takes reasoned and informed exception to much of what Hacker writes. My first thought was that this review is from the Notices, it's for a specialized audience, but Brossoud writes clearly and the Hacker book is intended for broad readership, so I decided to give the link. I think yo can access it w/o membership.
http://www.ams.org/p...rnoti-p1181.pdf

.I think this is a topic well worth thought and discussion.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2016-October-27, 18:16, said:

For what it's worth I had my bridge partner ask her eight year old, and he answered all three problems correctly. These problems aren't dissimilar from ones I've seen him do for homework.

Anyone ever see the game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"

Admittedly, the kids on the show are probably pretty advanced students, they didn't just pick a handful at random.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-October-27, 09:24, said:

While I am certainly opposed to teaching creationism in public schools, I think calling it child abuse is a large exaggeration.

It seems like an extension of Richard Dawkins's opinion that parents indoctrinating their children into their religion is a form of child mental abuse.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-27, 11:03, said:

I'm guessing that #2 is a hell of a lot more likely

Cut out the personal attacks, Richard.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2016-October-28, 09:14, said:

It seems like an extension of Richard Dawkins's opinion that parents indoctrinating their children into their religion is a form of child mental abuse.

Not really. Children know that other families have different religious beliefs and can view their parents' beliefs with that perspective. When the state itself asserts falsely that religious beliefs are actually science, the perspective is missing.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-October-28, 11:15, said:

Not really. Children know that other families have different religious beliefs and can view their parents' beliefs with that perspective. When the state itself asserts falsely that religious beliefs are actually science, the perspective is missing.

Oh, I guess I agree. I would play Devil's advocate, but that assumes the existence of a devil. But I will meander a bit.

Suppose a student is required to memorize Iin fact I was so required) the following:

Quote

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

Ok, I was required to, or at least supposed to, memorize a lot of stuff. Big deal.

Now suppose that the teacher explains that that John Donne was a religious man. that's true. Suppose she goes on to explain that this poem expresses views that came from his religious background. That's probably true. And now suppose that she explains that this poem captures essential truth. Has she strayed yet into child abuse?

I though that having to memorize poems by Shelley definitely was child abuse, but for the above, not so much.

Sure, I know. You are not speaking about islands. You are speaking of the 'Tain't necessarily so stuff. "li'l Moses was found in a stream...."
But nobody believes this anyway.

Or do they? Becky goes to water aerobics, during a break she was chatting with a woman and Halloween was mentioned. Oh my, they don't do that. Her family is Christian. Becky figured that further conversation might have some minefields.

It can all get a little tricky. Not teaching creationism because it is false seems like reason enough. And then we can save the accusations of child abuse for, well, child abuse. Being forced to read Shelley, for example.

But still. When I was, I think, 14 the minister of my church did take me aside to instruct me to get my parents to come more often so that they wouldn't burn in hell. But this was not state sanctioned. As I say, it gets tricky. Make a new plan, Stan. That was my solution.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-October-28, 12:22, said:

Now suppose that the teacher explains that that John Donne was a religious man. that's true. Suppose she goes on to explain that this poem expresses views that came from his religious background. That's probably true. And now suppose that she explains that this poem captures essential truth. Has she strayed yet into child abuse?

I though that having to memorize poems by Shelley definitely was child abuse, but for the above, not so much.

I'd be willing to substitute a word for "abuse" that's a bit milder and less highly charged, if only I knew one.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2016-October-28, 09:24, said:

Cut out the personal attacks, Richard.

Barry, I wasn't the one who started throwing around expressions like Libtards

If you are going to pretend to be a moderator please pay attention to the threads...

[onoway]

Two Ted talks that pretty much say what I think
https://www.ted.com/...oud?language=en and

https://www.ted.com/...kill_creativity

[Kaitlyn S]

Elianna, on 2016-October-27, 17:26, said:

I don't normally swear, but this made me feel like trotting some out - specifically whisky tango foxtrot! They're "allowed" to YELL at a CHILD? And they DO? I have no other response to this except that perhaps your friends should consider other professions that don't ever involve being around others.

No, as a practical matter, most if my acquaintances realize that yelling will do little good. And many of them are considering other careers, not because they suck at teaching, but because they aren't given the opportunity to teach. Almost to a person, they tell me that their attempts to get children to behave are answered with "Make me" or "Kiss my a**", and the loud talking or spit wads or fighting conitinues.

My guess is that your students are much better behaved because the teachers that taught them before you got the did an excellent job if not letting bad habits take root, where I'm not sure that is common. Please realize that I am not taking away from your successes as a teacher; it sounds like you do an excellent job. However, one of my acquaintances had the problems I described, and decided teaching was no longer a rewarding career. She took up teaching a certain skill set to adults and is considered one of the top in her profession in the country. So I believe she was also an excellent teacher, but when she taught junior high school, the children that she had to deal with couldn't have been handled by anybody, simply because the people that had those children in previous years gave up on the children too soon and made the children permanently unmanageable by anything short of a military type school that is allowed to use tactics far more onerous than yelling.

I am not trying to sound racist here, but in many cases, I am talking about inner city public schools.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-28, 22:33, said:

No, as a practical matter, most if my acquaintances realize that yelling will do little good. And many of them are considering other careers, not because they suck at teaching, but because they aren't given the opportunity to teach. Almost to a person, they tell me that their attempts to get children to behave are answered with "Make me" or "Kiss my a**", and the loud talking or spit wads or fighting conitinues.

My guess is that your students are much better behaved because the teachers that taught them before you got the did an excellent job if not letting bad habits take root, where I'm not sure that is common. Please realize that I am not taking away from your successes as a teacher; it sounds like you do an excellent job. However, one of my acquaintances had the problems I described, and decided teaching was no longer a rewarding career. She took up teaching a certain skill set to adults and is considered one of the top in her profession in the country. So I believe she was also an excellent teacher, but when she taught junior high school, the children that she had to deal with couldn't have been handled by anybody, simply because the people that had those children in previous years gave up on the children too soon and made the children permanently unmanageable by anything short of a military type school that is allowed to use tactics far more onerous than yelling.

I am not trying to sound racist here, but in many cases, I am talking about inner city public schools.

The easiest way to sound racist is to say, "I am not trying to sound racist here, BUT...." I am certain you do not consider yourself racist - but you are when you suggest that inner city school problems are race-based.

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-28, 14:38, said:

Barry, I wasn't the one who started throwing around expressions like Libtards

If you are going to pretend to be a moderator please pay attention to the threads...

Indeed, the one who used the term was me. And I stated it only because I assume that you, like every other liberal, has been referred to by that term by many conservatives, probably to your face but definitely behind your back. It's a dismissive term stating that the conservative is not going to listen to your position, but assume you are just being stupid or misinformed. And you, being used to that treatment, are not going to waste your time with people that aren't going to consider your opinion.

I stated that I was not in that category. If you write something that you think makes sense, I'm going to consider it. In using that term that is offensive to you, I tried to make the point that I expected you to expect me to ignore your argument because that is what most conservative posters do, and I wanted to make if clear that this is not my method of operation.

[onoway]

Kaitlyn some people may be excellent teacher with a specific sort of student, that doesn't make them automatically good teachers in a general sense. An excellent teacher, which I would certainly assume for example Elaina is judging from her posts, is capable of adapting techniques to the students, rather than needing the student to respond to whatever approach the teacher is comfortable with. I doubt whether ANY excellent teacher had to find out the hard way that yelling doesn't work.

Most certainly there are many many authoritarian minded people trying to teach and most of them, unless blessed with an unusual set of characteristics such as imagination and humor to go with their authoritarian style, are going to run into a great deal of trouble with kids who are not doing well in school. That is not even remotely the way to reach them and most excellent teachers, with apologies to your friend, would intuitively understand that.

Arthur C Clarke supposedly said, any teacher who can be replaced by a computer, ought to be. I think that probably about half, maybe more, fall into that category, no matter how wonderful their intentions. I consider kids to be fortunate if they run across just one truly excellent teacher throughout their school life.

As far as inner city kids and schools are concerned, google Steven Ritz Ted talk on growing Green in the south Bronx. He talks about working with precisely the kids you dismiss in the inner cities, the real down and outer areas. He is an example of an excellent teacher. It was interesting to me that one of his points was that part of the success was getting out of the way of the kids teaching and helping each other, the teacher being mostly an enabler if you will. A vivid example of how well the principles work of the first TED talk linked to above.

There are others doing as well with these groups of kids but they are largely unsung heroes. Ritz is looking to gain wider support for something that works on many many levels past just the classroom. And incidentally, to bring to the world understanding that these kids that many, including you it would seem, would discard as unreachable, are not unreachable at all.