High school student gives his teacher a lesson in education

Bipolar Joe

I've got two teachers for an example, here. Both taught pretty much the same thing (Media law and analysis), one last year and one this year. The first got us to discuss the topics, debate it as a class, do our own presentations, so on. It was easily the best class I've ever been in. She turned a tedious and clinically boring subject into something that made your mind work, gave us a better understanding of how media law works, and it was incredibly fun. Everyone passed the exams, with the lowest being a merit.

The second, this year, copy and pasted stuff from the Internet into Powerpoint and read it to us. She got paid for that. There could have just been a mass e-mail with the web pages instead. Everyone in the class could have done her job. That's not teaching. That's not even regurgitating what she's learned. She used Google. Test results are pending, but in the end, the class got into groups ourselves and studied with each other in the same fashion as we did last year (It's a different crowd, mostly).

A number of tutors at the college are going to be losing their jobs because of budgetary constraints. It's unfair that someone like that should be allowed to work when she's clearly inefficient and has no time for students. Don't understand the subject matter? She tells us to go to the website she got the information from. Didn't manage to take it all down before she went to the next slide? She tells us to go to the website she got the information from.

Teaching isn't just forcing people to learn. If the brain isn't engaged in the subject, it won't retain anything. It's up to the tutors to open up that pathway and make the students want to know the subject. You'll get messers and you'll get the ones who are too hungover to be bothered, but sitting down and clicking "Next" isn't the way to deal with it.

Ave Sodalis

fishy fishy, you seem to have the exact attitude that all my worst teachers (and lecturers) had. Yes, indeed, they only need to teach the curriculum but going in and just handing the kids the information is not learning. You need to teach them, you get them actively involved and the best way to do that is to get them engaged. One of the main reasons kids hate school is because they teachers seem like they don't give a damn. How do you expect kids to care if the teachers don't?
Yes, they have to learn for themselves and take responsibility. In fact, that's one of the best ways to learn but why would they when teachers walk in every day and just seem lazy and as though they don't care about the subject they teach. So yeah, they need to take responsibility for their own learning... but teachers need to take responsibility for their own teaching. If you walk into any school in the country, the best teachers are always going to be the ones that actually care.
Take, for example, a young boy I know well. He's in primary school and has a few behavioural problems. It's a struggle for the mother to get through to the teachers exactly what's going on. At home, he's relatively well behaved. The family have found a system that works for him. When the mother tried approaching the teacher however, she seemed disinterested and didn't want to take on this approach regarding the boy because "it was her job to teach the curriculum". As a result, the boy despises school and hates learning. That, to me, is tragic... a young child who doesn't enjoy learning is not right. If the teacher, however, had gone that little extra step to change her teaching methods regarding this boy, it would have been fine.

FTA69

up for anything wrote: »

More Dead Poets Society teachers are needed.

What, fictional ones?

If we had to go for highly-exaggerated Hollywood examples I'd prefer your one off Dangerous Minds.

Zillah

Fishy fishy, you are profoundly failing to accept the reality of what teaching is and what makes a good teacher. You're already assuming failure and jumping to assigning blame. Simply declaring that students have to be responsible for their own motivation is entirely missing the point; they are students, they need guidance by definition. If they were responsible, wise and disciplined they wouldn't be students any more. A pragmatic teacher knows that successfully engaging their students in the subject matter is top priority for their success.

So sure, you can sit back and declare that that isn't a teachers job. Ok, fine, congratulation, your teacher gets much worse results from their class.

This isn't about obtuse moral declarations about duty, this is about what works best. You are advocating what works badly. You also sound like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

fishy fishy

not at all. Im simply suggesting that you cannot blame a teacher for teaching a curriculum that is given to them under the guidelines of the system.

Their job is to teach that - it is not to mollycoddle, pamper, or play with the students. It is to teach that curriculum - Im sure if an interested student doesn't understand and asks a question they will be helped.

the problem is that when students get a bad mark they automatically blame the teacher for "teaching in a boring way". Easy way out.

Its all part of the pampering you see around nowadays. If a student fails it has to be the bad teachers fault.

School is not a new venture - people have been going to school for decades or more - wow some of these kids went on to be highly successful. This came from learning the curriculum no matter how boring it was and passing exams. Yes the curriculum can be boring and wouldn't it be lovely to be entertained every day at school However thats not how it works.

Secondary school kids should know how the system works.

quit the messing, learn what you need to get your exams and move on. Stop looking to be entertained. In college and work you certainly won't be entertained so its a good learning curve.

It would be lovely to be taught in a comical way but until that is introduced into the system students will have to buckle down and follow the rules if they want to get ahead. Yes, thats life and thats what you must do. So stop waiting to be entertained. Suck it up and get on with it.

fishy fishy

Zillah wrote: »

Fishy fishy, you are profoundly failing to accept the reality of what teaching is and what makes a good teacher. You're already assuming failure and jumping to assigning blame. Simply declaring that students have to be responsible for their own motivation is entirely missing the point; they are students, they need guidance by definition. If they were responsible, wise and disciplined they wouldn't be students any more. A pragmatic teacher knows that successfully engaging their students in the subject matter is top priority for their success.

So sure, you can sit back and declare that that isn't a teachers job. Ok, fine, congratulation, your teacher gets much worse results from their class.

This isn't about obtuse moral declarations about duty, this is about what works best. You are advocating what works badly. You also sound like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

i love that oul nugget "I differ in opinion, therefore you have a chip on your shoulder".

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

Im sure if an interested student doesn't understand and asks a question they will be helped. .

I'm sure you're not even bothering to read the posts tbh, if you did you'd know that wasn't true

Ziphius

fishy fishy wrote: »

not at all. Im simply suggesting that you cannot blame a teacher for teaching a curriculum that is given to them under the guidelines of the system.

And which part of the curriculum says that a teacher must bore their students to death?

Seems to be a problem with some (many?) Irish teachers. They really do not care about either their subjects or their students.

I suppose this my be related to the way teachers self select. Ie. those that have a passion for a subject will go on to pursue it through higher education, research or employment.

As the axiom goes:

"those you can do, those you can't teach".

fishy fishy

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm sure you're not even bothering to read the posts tbh, if you did you'd know that wasn't true

and the posts on here are always so accurate.

I give up - I will be sticking to my opinion -

stop blaming teachers for students dis-interest.

Its up to the student to decide how interested or disinterested he wants to be.

Ranting about how bad a teacher is only discloses the lack of interest of the student.

Its the student that will fail - not the teacher - so forget about being entertained and get on an learn your curriculum if you want to get ahead.
Stop waiting to be "entertained" thats what tv is for when you get home.

Ya, reality bites.

old hippy

Eathrin wrote: »

I'm sorry, regardless of the content, I can't take anything said in that accent seriously.

Southern? Texan? Texan urban? What's wrong with it? The kid spoke the truth.

fishy fishy

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, we noticed. Maybe you could stop pretending to respond to posts you're not reading, so?

:rolleyes:

I've posted my opinion- like it or don't - up to you. I won't be losing any sleep over it. I have my exams done.

desertcircus

It seems unfair to heap blame on teachers in this manner, especially at secondary level. When I was a teenager I was an absolute idiot; hell, nearly everyone I know was an absolute idiot in school. Be an exciting teacher with unexpected teaching methods, and you'll probably help a couple of high achievers get a few extra points. Drill through the curriculum and you'll raise the grade of everyone in the class. I had a fascinating teacher for applied maths and another for technical drawing in the Leaving Cert, and I got Cs. I had one deeply boring teacher in my repeat year for both, and simply spent a year working on exam questions - by the time June came around I'd done every higher level technical drawing question ever asked. Result? Two A1s. I can barely remember anything about that teacher, but he pushed me to a seventy-point improvement in those two subjects.

armaghbhoy

American schools are a tiny bit better off than what we are. They get to wear their own clothes and have whatever hairstyle they like.

I got suspended one time for dying my hair when it was a really popular thing to do at the time. What a joke!

School just felt like prison, with the majority of teachers in very serious mode standing in front of the whiteboard the whole time and at the ready to hand out detentions for the slightest thing that bothers them. Trying to understand and engage students didn't even cross their mind, we just have to listen to what they say, and their opinion is way more important than ours.

Yeah, that Oughta teach us!

Zillah

fishy fishy wrote: »

not at all. Im simply suggesting that you cannot blame a teacher for teaching a curriculum that is given to them under the guidelines of the system.

Their job is to teach that - it is not to mollycoddle, pamper, or play with the students. It is to teach that curriculum - Im sure if an interested student doesn't understand and asks a question they will be helped.

the problem is that when students get a bad mark they automatically blame the teacher for "teaching in a boring way". Easy way out.

Its all part of the pampering you see around nowadays. If a student fails it has to be the bad teachers fault.

School is not a new venture - people have been going to school for decades or more - wow some of these kids went on to be highly successful. This came from learning the curriculum no matter how boring it was and passing exams. Yes the curriculum can be boring and wouldn't it be lovely to be entertained every day at school However thats not how it works.

Secondary school kids should know how the system works.

quit the messing, learn what you need to get your exams and move on. Stop looking to be entertained. In college and work you certainly won't be entertained so its a good learning curve.

It would be lovely to be taught in a comical way but until that is introduced into the system students will have to buckle down and follow the rules if they want to get ahead. Yes, thats life and thats what you must do. So stop waiting to be entertained. Suck it up and get on with it.

You are obsessed with assigning blame. You're the only one talking about blame. We don't care who's fault anything is, we're talking about what gets the best results. We're not talking about what a teacher is required to do, we're talking about what the best thing to do is.

Motivating students to love the subject and being engaged with the material gets better results than simply presenting the curriculum by rote. Do you accept that? We're not saying they're obliged to do so, we're not saying it's their fault if students do poorly if they don't do so -- I'm just asking; do you accept that a class will tend to do better if the teacher makes an effort to motivate them to like and engage with the topic?

Zillah

armaghbhoy wrote: »

American schools are a tiny bit better off than what we are. They get to wear their own clothes and have whatever hairstyle they like.

I got suspended one time for dying my hair when it was a really popular thing to do at the time. What a joke!

School just felt like prison, with the majority of teachers in very serious mode standing in front of the whiteboard the whole time and at the ready to hand out detentions for the slightest thing that bothers them. Trying to understand and engage students didn't even cross their mind, we just have to listen to what they say, and their opinion is way more important than ours.

Yeah, that Oughta teach us!

Our schools are at least fairly consistent. If we assign them a score out of 100, most Irish schools are, say, between 60 and 80. American schools can go anywhere from 1 (with metal detectors at the door, students in open defiance of teachers, gang wars in the corridors and no equipment at all) to 100 (where they have a rich alumni funding everything, they have 200 year old historical buildings, all the best and newest equipment and can afford to pay for the best teachers available).

So the US system is great if you're rich. An nightmare if you're poor. Like with most things in the libertarian land of Freedom and "F*ck you, got mine".

armaghbhoy

Zillah wrote: »

Our schools are at least fairly consistent. If we assign them a score out of 100, most Irish schools are, say, between 60 and 80. American schools can go anywhere from 1 (with metal detectors at the door, students in open defiance of teachers, gang wars in the corridors and no equipment at all) to 100 (where they have a rich alumni funding everything, they have 200 year old historical buildings, all the best and newest equipment and can afford to pay for the best teachers available).

So the US system is great if you're rich. An nightmare if you're poor. Like with most things in the libertarian land of Freedom and "F*ck you, got mine".

Students can be in defiance here too, have thrown a couple of dententions out the window myself only to get another one for it, then throw it out too.

I've actually seen 3 teachers getting punched by students

So basically everythings similiar apart from the metal detectors though, we never had that.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

and the posts on here are always so accurate.

I give up - I will be sticking to my opinion -

stop blaming teachers for students dis-interest.

Its up to the student to decide how interested or disinterested he wants to be.

Ranting about how bad a teacher is only discloses the lack of interest of the student.

Its the student that will fail - not the teacher - so forget about being entertained and get on an learn your curriculum if you want to get ahead.
Stop waiting to be "entertained" thats what tv is for when you get home.

Ya, reality bites.

And this is the attitude of a bad teacher.

I'm paid to teach, not entertain.
Why should I do more than the bare minimum?
Students who aren't engaged are just lazy/stupid/messers.
I need to teach the curriculum so I don't have time to make it interesting.
It's not my fault everything is about tests these days.
If all the students hate me/my class, it's not my fault.
I don't need to motivate them - that's not my job.
They should be enthusiastic about learning, even though I'm not.
They should just 'decide' to be interested because I say so.
If students are struggling, it's because they're not paying attention.
I don't have time to help individual students.

All taken from the Big Fat Book of Excuses for Bad Teachers.

Zillah

armaghbhoy wrote: »

Students can be in defiance here too, have thrown a couple of dententions out the window myself only to get another one for it, then throw it out too.

I've actually seen 3 teachers getting punched by students

So basically everythings similiar apart from the metal detectors though, we never had that.

I'm not saying we never have serious incidents. But they are vanishingly rare compared to some bad areas in the USA. I really think you don't realise how bad some of it is. There are schools where students frequently bring knives and guns with them into school, gang wars break out between different factions and they literally have no texts for the students, or have books from twenty years ago.

Kirby

Kadence Warm Wing wrote: »

All taken from the Big Fat Book of Excuses for Bad Teachers.

I'm pretty sure they banned that book...

armaghbhoy

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not saying we never have serious incidents. But they are vanishingly rare compared to some bad areas in the USA. I really think you don't realise how bad some of it is. There are schools where students frequently bring knives and guns with them into school, gang wars break out between different factions and they literally have no texts for the students, or have books from twenty years ago.

I understand what you're saying and this won't be the case for every part of Ireland but when I was at school this did happen. Different groups fighting among one another. Here the sort of gang I'm mentioning would call themselves hoods, but they were basically a criminal gang...although it wasn't that bad. and wasn't a regular thing. I actually recall one time when a fella was stabbed in the toilets. I understand that its not as bad as America though, I have seen a documentary about it and some of their schools are divided just like their prisons with gangs. The main thing in Irish schools would just be normal fights mostly between 2 people. They happened alot in my school.

anncoates

I would have just slapped the whining little fucker.

Zillah

anncoates wrote: »

I would have just slapped the whining little fucker.

Well we're not all cut out to be responsible human beings.

topper75

I don't think you can teach somebody passion.

He is asking a bit too much on that and abdicating his own responsibility to himself.

I taught before. I could have gone all Dead Poets on it and that would have been a wonderful ego trip for me and entertaining lessons for the kids. However, if that comes at a cost to LC points and undermines entitlement to college education, screw that. I taught for the exams and I stand by it. They are all out there in the workplace now, hopefully doing things that they have a passion for themselves and the credit for that is theirs to glory in. Adolescence is a time to become a big boy/girl.

dark crystal

fishy fishy wrote: »

Ranting about how bad a teacher is only discloses the lack of interest of the student.

Did you actually watch the video?

That student had plenty of interest in learning. he was p!ssed off that his teacher had a lack of interest in teaching him.

dark crystal

dark crystal wrote: »

Did you actually watch the video?

That student had plenty of interest in learning. he was p!ssed off that his teacher had a lack of interest in teaching him.

You could tell from her voice that she couldn't give two sh*ts. No passion, totally worn down. Perhaps with good reason. Teaching can be one of the most thankless and difficult jobs there is, but once you get like that, it's really time to quit.

GalwayGuy2

I'm not saying we never have serious incidents. But they are vanishingly rare compared to some bad areas in the USA. I really think you don't realise how bad some of it is. There are schools where students frequently bring knives and guns with them into school, gang wars break out between different factions and they literally have no texts for the students, or have books from twenty years ago.

As a matter of interest, have you been to America?

Some, perhaps even a lot, of our schools are falling apart at the seams.

On to the video. To me, it sounded like he was just repeating what he heard/read off somebody else. Not saying I agree, or disagree, but I don't think it was entirely his own opinion.

Jimmy Iovine

Chorcai wrote: »

Ken Robinson's TED talk is also worth a mention here. There is a huge problem within pedagogical system at the moment.

Absolutely. Every teacher, scratch that, everyone should watch it. It's brilliant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

As for that teacher in the video, she seems to be everything that I hope I'm not when I'm a teacher.

kilkenny12

Fair play to him. Too many teachers go into the job for the short hours and long holidays.
When i was in sixth year, we got a sub english teacher for the year. I hated english and all the BS essays ya had to write, but she was sooo passionate about her subject and we had so much craic in the class.
Tbh, she wasn't the brightest and she'd often spell words wrong and say silly things but she had a lot of patience and a talent for teaching.
I ended up getting an A in the leaving cause I actually started to enjoy her classes.

Wibbs

fishy fishy wrote: »

School is not a new venture - people have been going to school for decades or more

Ehhhh people have been going to school for millennia. For decades or more? W. T. F. You really need to read more.

quit the messing, learn what you need to get your exams and move on. Stop looking to be entertained. In college and work you certainly won't be entertained so its a good learning curve.

It would be lovely to be taught in a comical way but until that is introduced into the system students will have to buckle down and follow the rules if they want to get ahead. Yes, thats life and thats what you must do. So stop waiting to be entertained. Suck it up and get on with it.

A fine formula for beige minded cubicle stuffers and even then it leaves much to be desired, but it's hardly within an asses roar of a well rounded education. I hope to fcuk you're not a teacher of the next generation and if by some miracle you are I hope they see your class as sleepy time and something not to be absorbed.

UCDVet

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not saying we never have serious incidents. But they are vanishingly rare compared to some bad areas in the USA. I really think you don't realise how bad some of it is. There are schools where students frequently bring knives and guns with them into school, gang wars break out between different factions and they literally have no texts for the students, or have books from twenty years ago.

I don't know how things work in Ireland; but in the US the quality of public schools are dramatically different from one area to the next. Even within the same state, it's broken up into endless numbers of 'districts' each with different standards, curriculum and funding. There are some standardized tests and guidelines though.

There are US public schools I'd never even consider sending my children too (mostly in poor urban areas, to be honest); but there are also really amazing schools...with most of the rest somewhere in between.

Basically, the wealthier neighborhood you can afford to live in; the better funded the schools will be and the higher quality of education you can expect.

languagenerd

I think it's impossible to say whether or not the kid is in the right in this situation without knowing the context. But he does make some general points that hold true everywhere: a teacher should not just sit at the top of the room reading from the book.

There are some teachers who literally just read aloud from the book for 45min and set questions from the end of that chapter for homework. That's not teaching. I could do that, and I don't have any teaching qualifications whatsoever. Hell, I could have done that even back when I was in school and hadn't learned the subject yet - it would have made no difference who was reading the book, because that's all they do.

On the other hand, there are the teachers who do other activities along with the book, or explain the topic in their own words instead, or make the class debate the topic, or whatever. And it was always those teachers I learned more from. Yeah, they have to teach to the exam - but reading from a book at the top of the room isn't teaching, it's reading. And anyone literate could do that.

Ann22

fishy fishy wrote: »

Remember, the teachers have passed their exams already and are in a job - once they teach the curriculum they get, thats all they need to do - they don't have to jump through hoops to entertain and engage. .

That's actually not true. Maybe all they have to do to earn a paycheck is to show up and drone on but the results at exam times show the difference between teachers like these and ones that show an interest in what they teach. We all remember them I'm sure.

My son is in teacher training atm and a huge part of it is learning how to engage the students. Yes there are problem students and it is a hugely stressful job but over all most students will respond to an interesting and animated teacher.

Cian92

Kadence Warm Wing wrote: »

I underperformed in secondary school because it felt like prison camp, the teachers didn't give a crap and when I was struggling

The only reason you underperformed was your only laziness, do you expect somebody to spoon feed you? The rest of us realised the importance of our education from a very young age and put the work in.

This idea that comes from that film dead poets society is complete bull****, the teacher shouldn't be the one who has to make you enthusiastic about the subject you should put the work in and just learn it. How self centered and spoilt are you that you believe someone else should make you become interested in education. It's pretty damn obvious the importance of education.

BOHtox

Stupid college exams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TW18e2HPQ

Mardy Bum

Cian92 wrote: »

The only reason you underperformed was your only laziness, do you expect somebody to spoon feed you? The rest of us realised the importance of our education from a very young age and put the work in.

This idea that comes from that film dead poets society is complete bull****, the teacher shouldn't be the one who has to make you enthusiastic about the subject you should put the work in and just learn it. How self centered and spoilt are you that you believe someone else should make you become interested in education. It's pretty damn obvious the importance of education.

You would be amazed to find 13 to 16 year olds have other things on their mind and have not yet fully grasped this notion mainly because their brains have not fully developed among other things.

Teachers are there to create autonomous learners. This takes time, patience and a lot of work from both people. Teacher education in Ireland for teachers who taught most people on boards was terrible i.e pre 90s. Nowadays things are changing, paradigms are shifting. It is important that the teacher is enthusiastic about their subject. It is also important that they follow their students progress. The traditional models of education which a lot of boardsies are used to are dying a slow death. No more take down the notes and do a test before a PT meeting instead continuous formative assessment is being implemented. Kids no longer respect traditional power roles regardless so teachers must have some other qualities (organised, charismatic etc) if students are going to respect them and the proof of that can be seen in this video alone.

Teachers get a bed rep in the media but if done correctly it is a very hard job.

Cian92

Cian92 wrote: »

The only reason you underperformed was your only laziness, do you expect somebody to spoon feed you? The rest of us realised the importance of our education from a very young age and put the work in.

This idea that comes from that film dead poets society is complete bull****, the teacher shouldn't be the one who has to make you enthusiastic about the subject you should put the work in and just learn it. How self centered and spoilt are you that you believe someone else should make you become interested in education. It's pretty damn obvious the importance of education.

I have a feeling my idea of underperforming is kind of different to yours, but OK. Whatever you say. Just don't ever become a teacher.

I haven't ever seen this 'Dead Poets Society'. I just know from being a teacher myself that motivating the students and making them want to learn is one of the most important things. If you can't do that, you've failed.

Mardy Bum

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You would be amazed to find 13 to 16 year olds have other things on their mind and have not yet fully grasped this notion mainly because their brains have not fully developed among other things.

Teachers are there to create autonomous learners. This takes time, patience and a lot of work from both people. Teacher education in Ireland for teachers who taught most people on boards was terrible i.e pre 90s. Nowadays things are changing, paradigms are shifting. It is important that the teacher is enthusiastic about their subject. It is also important that they follow their students progress. The traditional models of education which a lot of boardsies are used to are dying a slow death. No more take down the notes and do a test before a PT meeting instead continuous formative assessment is being implemented. Kids no longer respect traditional power roles regardless so teachers must have some other qualities (organised, charismatic etc) if students are going to respect them and the proof of that can be seen in this video alone.

Teachers get a bed rep in the media but if done correctly it is a very hard job.

I don't even know if it's a respect thing. The kids in my school did respect authority and very few were ever rude to the teachers. The issue was that the 'traditional' way of learning just isn't effective for most people.

I teach a lot of adults who start my class thinking they hate English because their secondary school English classes were so horrific and they didn't learn anything. Most people don't have the type of mind for which staring at a page of bilingual vocabulary is effective. Telling them they're lazy and that they should just learn it is completely pointless. Not least because they could really just do that at home. I came away from 90% of my secondary classes feeling like I could have just learned that at home and understood it better and in the end, I did just stay at home and teach myself. That's a pretty serious failing on the teacher's part. What's the point?

jack presley

It was all going well for him until he threw in the line about 'credibility' at the end

fishy fishy

Cian92 wrote: »

The only reason you underperformed was your only laziness, do you expect somebody to spoon feed you? The rest of us realised the importance of our education from a very young age and put the work in.

This idea that comes from that film dead poets society is complete bull****, the teacher shouldn't be the one who has to make you enthusiastic about the subject you should put the work in and just learn it. How self centered and spoilt are you that you believe someone else should make you become interested in education. It's pretty damn obvious the importance of education.

totally agree.. its up to the student to motivate himself - its all part of growing up.

I suppose its the sign of the times that everything is somebody else's fault and nobody takes responsibility for themselves. People now have to be coerced and pampered into things or and if not, they blame others for their lack of interest or laziness

Its funny too, how poster here quote Sister Act and Dead Poets Society to get their point across - hollywood movies. :D

Ave Sodalis

Cian and fishy, believe what you would about teachers only having to do the bare minimum but if you go into ANY school in the country, it's the teachers that put in the effort that get the results. It's not about spoon feeding the kids, no one said it was. It's about presenting information in a fun, relatable way.
Fine, you can keep your ideas about how children should be taught but if you do, you clearly don't have a strong enough grasp of what it is to educate, as opposed to just waffle on.
But, sure, why should teachers do what's best for children... that's what the kids themselves are for, right? :rolleyes:

Vojera

I had two teachers for junior cert that were at complete opposite ends of the scale.

One was for science, and I've never met another man like him. He was enthusiastic, interesting, and tailored all his examples to things that we, as rural kids, could understand. He understood that some people learn by listening, others by doing and others visually, and he catered to all those as much as he could. We didn't open a textbook once, it was all his own teaching plans that we learned from. I got an A in his class.

The other was for geography (and anyone who was in the class will instantly know him from the description). He didn't give a balls about teaching. He wrote things on the blackboard without explanation, told us to read from the textbook, played poker with the messers and smoked cigars out the window. A fairly extreme example, but he was there to collect his paycheck, nothing more. I got a C in his class.

As another example of how their attitudes differed, I missed two months' of school in my junior cert year due to illness. When I returned I approached all my teachers to see what I had missed. Most had been keeping notes for me and gave me the handouts and a caveat to come back if I needed help. My science teacher personally tutored me through what I had missed at lunchtimes, even though he had absolutely no obligation to. My geography teacher? He said "Eh, I dunno, why don't you ask the girl you sit beside?"

The messers preferred the geography teacher, of course, but which teacher do you think got better results for his students?

fishy fishy

sup_dude wrote: »

Cian and fishy, believe what you would about teachers only having to do the bare minimum but if you go into ANY school in the country, it's the teachers that put in the effort that get the results. It's not about spoon feeding the kids, no one said it was. It's about presenting information in a fun, relatable way.
Fine, you can keep your ideas about how children should be taught but if you do, you clearly don't have a strong enough grasp of what it is to educate, as opposed to just waffle on.
But, sure, why should teachers do what's best for children... that's what the kids themselves are for, right? :rolleyes:

and the parents - you forgot the parents. Or do they not have to bother because its all left to the teachers.

teachers that teach the curriculum with no entertainment involved and which the students think is "boring" are doing what they are paid to do - teach the curriculum to pass the exams. They don't need to add flourishes or flowers. They don't need to pamper or coax - its up to the students to cop on and realise they must pay attention or fail. Thats reality.

elefant

fishy fishy wrote: »

totally agree.. its up to the student to motivate himself - its all part of growing up.

I suppose its the sign of the times that everything is somebody else's fault and nobody takes responsibility for themselves. People now have to be coerced and pampered into things or and if not, they blame others for their lack of interest or laziness

Its funny too, how poster here quote Sister Act and Dead Poets Society to get their point across - hollywood movies. :D

I did quite well during my studies in second and third level and was perfectly aware that, as you said, school is about learning. Your attempts to dismiss peoples' desire for actual education in lieu of just fact-dumping as being merely a smokescreen for laziness on students' part are nonsense.

To be honest, your conviction that teachers should do nothing but disseminate information without actually trying to engage students is bemusing to me. If that was the case then why bother having schools at all now? Google may as well replace secondary schools.

Ave Sodalis

fishy fishy wrote: »

and the parents - you forgot the parents. Or do they not have to bother because its all left to the teachers.

teachers that teach the curriculum with no entertainment involved and which the students think is "boring" are doing what they are paid to do - teach the curriculum to pass the exams. They don't need to add flourishes or flowers. They don't need to pamper or coax - its up to the students to cop on and realise they must pay attention or fail. Thats reality.

Oh yes, the parents too, no doubt but take my earlier example when it comes to parents and these teachers.

They don't pass though... or they just scrape a pass and no more. Any high achievers coming out of those classes is merely because they have a good memory. I don't think you quite understand what it is to go that extra step. Read my last post, it's not about spoon feeding the students.
Here's another example (of which you have plenty at this stage), I did well in english, I had a fanastic teacher who really put in the effort. I would consider myself a hard worker anyway but when it came to one subject, we had a teacher who really did not care anymore. I found it really difficult to focus in her class, and even harder to get motivated. I did okay in that subject, but it was a struggle and now, I don't like the subject.
A teacher who cares gets results, one that is just there for a paycheck, does not. That's reality.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

and the parents - you forgot the parents. Or do they not have to bother because its all left to the teachers.

teachers that teach the curriculum with no entertainment involved and which the students think is "boring" are doing what they are paid to do - teach the curriculum to pass the exams. They don't need to add flourishes or flowers. They don't need to pamper or coax - its up to the students to cop on and realise they must pay attention or fail. Thats reality.

Why go to school at all then? If it's just memorising information from books and slides, what's the point?

dark crystal

Kadence Warm Wing wrote: »

Why go to school at all then? If it's just memorising information from books and slides, what's the point?

The best teachers I had would impart extra information to us, other than just what was lying in front of us in print.

For instance, I had the same teacher for English and History and she would tell us the stories behind the facts.
She would enthusiastically talk about plays she'd seen in the theatre, about the romances and tragedies of great authors and playwrights and how it affected their lives and their work.
She told us stories of the holocaust and brought in a book containing real letters from soldiers in WW1.

Anyone can rattle off dates, notes and bulletpoints, but actually making a student interested in the subject they're learning is invaluable.

fishy fishy

elefant wrote: »

I did quite well during my studies in second and third level and was perfectly aware that, as you said, school is about learning. Your attempts to dismiss peoples' desire for actual education in lieu of just fact-dumping as being merely a smokescreen for laziness on students' part are nonsense.

To be honest, your conviction that teachers should do nothing but disseminate information without actually trying to engage students is bemusing to me. If that was the case then why bother having schools at all now? Google may as well replace secondary schools.

Lots of people did quite well in second and third level - and I'm sure they dealt with no-nonsense teachers, dramatic teachers - every kind of teachers The students did well because the students put the work in.

The fact of the matter is - you can yearn for interactive education and entertaining ways of teaching - but there is a curriculum to get through as put down by the state to pass exams as put down by the state - the teachers are obliged to get through this curriculum - because they don't entertain while doing it does not make them a bad teacher - they tell/show you what to do (yes believe it or not some subjects are more than just reading from a book) - its up to you to learn and practice it. They are not obliged to entertain to keep the student interested - its up to the student to pay attention and get through the syllabus to pass exams - if thats what they want to do. No use blaming the teacher when they are too dis-interested to learn.

People really do think its up to others to keep them interested - what a world we live in. Gawd help ye in real life. I'd hate to see when work gets boring for you - will you ask your boss to liven things up. :o

fishy fishy

sup_dude wrote: »

Oh yes, the parents too, no doubt but take my earlier example when it comes to parents and these teachers.

They don't pass though... or they just scrape a pass and no more. Any high achievers coming out of those classes is merely because they have a good memory. I don't think you quite understand what it is to go that extra step. Read my last post, it's not about spoon feeding the students.
Here's another example (of which you have plenty at this stage), I did well in english, I had a fanastic teacher who really put in the effort. I would consider myself a hard worker anyway but when it came to one subject, we had a teacher who really did not care anymore. I found it really difficult to focus in her class, and even harder to get motivated. I did okay in that subject, but it was a struggle and now, I don't like the subject.
A teacher who cares gets results, one that is just there for a paycheck, does not. That's reality.

trained yourself to focus more if you want higher marks - your choice. Make it interesting for yourself and stop depending on others to make things interesting for you. Bad for you too if it is so easy for you to turn off a "subject" because the teacher didn't motivate you in the way you wanted - your loss. Motivate yourself. Stop making excuses.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

trained yourself to focus more if you want higher marks - your choice. Make it interesting for yourself and stop depending on others to make things interesting for you. Bad for you too if it is so easy for you to turn off a "subject" because the teacher didn't motivate you in the way you wanted - your loss. Motivate yourself. Stop making excuses.

So again, what's the point in going to school? Why not just sit at home and read all your textbooks?

bren50c

fishy fishy wrote: »

trained yourself to focus more if you want higher marks - your choice. Make it interesting for yourself and stop depending on others to make things interesting for you. Bad for you too if it is so easy for you to turn off a "subject" because the teacher didn't motivate you in the way you wanted - your loss. Motivate yourself. Stop making excuses.

We understand that your under no obligation to be 'interesting' or make the class 'fun' but I think its amazing that you can't accept that a quality that differentiates your average joe trying to teach something from a good teacher is their ability to take a mundane topic like english grammar and make it interesting.

Surely keeping people engaged is a skill every teacher should have.

I don't see how you can keep denying that this is an element of teaching?

And to your point that students must be lazy or unmotivated - sure there are some who really don't want to be in school but I would guarantee that an interesting teacher will help a motivated student get better results vs an ' i'm here for my paycheck ' teacher.