<p>
</p>
<p>…hasn’t it occurred to you that it was your parents & the parents they chose to interact with that tainted your view? I can almost guarantee that these same people also discussed (and of course were experts at): 1) Politics 2) The economy 3) Various sports teams 4) Their superiors at work…people just love to profess to know how to do something better, even though they themselves have never done it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I fully expected a reaction that, in a way, demonizes the current denominator, namely my parents and their chosen circles. Of course, that position would be more in tune with the reality if my parents and their friends all lived in a rather confined world populated by Stepford families. All I can say is that the circle of friends from a select soccer (non school) team has little semblance to the lacrosse team. The parents of my friends were not necessarily the same as the parents of my sister’s friends. Different schools! </p>
<p>You do not have to believe me, but rest assured that the circle of friends of my parents was as diverse as it could be in terms of politics, economics, sports teams, and inasmuch as you did not mention it … ethnicity.</p>
<p>Obviously, my own views are tainted (or better said, influenced) by my own environment and experiences. But isn’t that pretty universal for … everyone? Don’t we learn from what we hear, see, or read?</p>
<p>And, lastly, perhaps, just perhaps, the common denominator might be … the school systems! ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…people love to complain…& they complain the most about things that directly effect them or their children. I too remember my father (a factory worker) and my friends fathers (blue collar workers) complaining about coaches & teachers…Perhaps the difference is that my friends & I realized that this was part of who they were…they complained, criticized, & had thoughts on a better way. We attended a small rural school where the expectation was to work in the mines when you graduated. Five of us became the only ones in our families to attend college, have all received advanced degrees, & generally exceeded all expectations of where we came from. We feel fortunate to have had the education we received…I guess our experiences were different than yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CSdad, aren’t you reaching for a conclusion that might, again, not be close to the reality. Why do you assume that my experience was subpar and that my parents might have been perennial malcontents? I mentioned that many conversations were about things that “were wrong in schools” but I did not say that my parents were leading the crusade. </p>
<p>Actually, if they were leading a crusade, it was often to make “our schools” better, and mostly for the benefits of the later generations. They did that and … still do, although our direct family is very much done. Without going into details, certain things that my parents did challenge had profound positive results at the schools my sister and I attended, including a drive for continuing excellence and an expansion of the horizon for the high school graduates. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, that is exactly what my sister and I are also doing without much fanfare or ado. But then, we are hardly unique in that regard, as trying to make our former schools better is very much in the nature of Americans. Or so it seems to this naive person! </p>
<p>Lastly, there is one element that is far more negative than criticizing a system that deserves it, namely showing a profound lack of interest in trying to improve it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…I can assure you that in our school district, my colleagues & myself are daily examining & discussing better ways to serve our students.</p>
<p>Great! And let’s hope that the positive changes are recognized by the parents and students in your district, and perhaps are aligned to their own expectations.</p>
<p>When I was in public elementary school and middle school in PA, we always had 29-31 kids in our classes. Back then, there were no teachers’ aids or paraprofessionals to help out. Yet my teachers had few problems controlling the students (granted, a few had spanking paddles in their desks as a reminder to behave lol). Also, our tests and assignments were almost always graded in a timely manner. This is no longer the case and yet class size is smaller and even middle school teachers have floating aids. So what has changed?</p>
<p>One thing is the intelligence and academic preparation of the people who are becoming teachers. Another is the partial disappearance of the stay-at-home mother who had much more time to supervise homework. A third is the number of electronic distractions available to children and teachers (gotta love the teachers who text all day). All the same, we’ve seen that the good teachers can still get the job done. Truly absymal urban districts are a different issue…</p>
<p>why does the title of this thread read like it is surprising that teachers get stressed out about their jobs? I mean… don’t lots of other people get stressed out about their jobs also?</p>
<p>One of the most sweeping changes in the past generation has been the inclusion of children with disabilities in the classroom. When I was growing up, my class of (generally) 30 had no children who were blind, deaf, physically handicapped, or “■■■■■■■■” (and many children who are now diagnosed with autism and learning disabilities were called by this term). Those children were in special schools, at home, or in institutions. Also, there were no non-English speaking children then, because it was before large numbers of Spanish-speaking children were in the public school systems.</p>
<p>Contrast that with today. Things are very different for teachers. As an example, my son’s first grade classroom of around twenty (although I could pick out just about any of my children’s elementary school classes) included five children who spoke no English, three more who spoke little English, one who was in a wheelchair and incontinent, one who was hearing-impaired, one with autism, and several who would later be diagnosed as LD. In addition to the teacher’s daily challenges of teaching, there were the challenges of IEP paperwork and the massive standard testing paperwork that now has to be done for all students. It’s easy to see how that teacher with twenty students and an aide had far more challenges teaching than my first grade teacher with thirty students and no aide.</p>
<p>I’m a strong supporter of inclusion, but it does bring far more work and stress to the teachers.</p>
<p>Thank you for making an excellent point, Marsian.</p>
<p>It is a “double-whammy”. Today’s students are significantly more challenging to teach today than they were a generation ago. In addition the quality of teachers is lower than two generations ago. When I was in school (age 53 now), women had little opportunities for professional jobs outside of teaching. As a result, you had women who today may become doctors & lawyers, teaching. This struck home recently when looking through an old year book that listed the teacher’s colleges. A number went to Ivy league and comparable schools. Unions have also hurt. In many schools the union attitude is “how can we get the most, by doing the least”. Many “union leaders” have gotten this power because good teachers are so focused on actually teaching, that they do not have the time, nor the energy, nor the interest in “Union matters”, thus the unions are dominated by poorer teachers. They really limit administrators to do what is right…and this is coming from someone who belongs to the union.</p>
<p>Another difference that I think matters is the curricular content. When I was in elementary school (ages ago), reading instruction started with Dick and Jane in first grade. Now students are expected to read in kindergarten. The books they read in first grade contain no sentences comparable to “Look, look, oh, look!”</p>
<p>Science coverage now, locally anyway, is in some ways deeper and in some ways less deep than what I had. For example, magnetic domains were covered in 3rd grade. But the introduction to atoms and the structure of matter occupied about 2 minutes before they plunged into magnetic domains (thanks, state standards). At my university, we have second- or third-year undergraduate majors in the physical sciences who could not give you an accurate account of the nature of magnetic domains–I just hope they can by the time they graduate. I don’t fault the third-grade teachers for not being able to answer student questions on this topic.</p>
<p>Math–I think I will skip this topic, because we are still recovering from “Math Wars.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, just wow! I could have written that paragraph --actually I am pretty sure I wrote similar lines more than I should have on this forum. </p>
<p>I am impressed, and happy someone else might the usual wrath of the people who find such comments to be offensive.</p>
<p>If there is one point to add, here it is. The teaching profession also attracted (very capable) women because it was the perfect complement to a husband’s career. It also offered (still does) a lesser disruption to a family as the mother could juggle a career with still attending to most family demands durind evenings, weekends, and vacations. Many other careers such as nursing would come with greater time constraints and unforgiving hours. </p>
<p>The bargain, of course, that the career was not a well-paid one, and this despite the better than average benefits. Over the years, this has changed as the ratio between private sector and public jobs has been inverted in most cases.</p>
<p>
My goodness, what did you learn about magnetic domains in the third grade?
I remember playing with a compass, bar magnets and metal filings, but I think that was about it. It was pretty rudimentary.</p>
<p>I didn’t learn anything about magnetic domains in the third grade! I think we got to them in freshman chemistry–where they made some sense. But it was part of QMP’s normal third grade science curriculum.</p>
<p>This topic and others like it are where I think that Bay’s suggestion that the students should ask the teacher if they are confused does not work, at least in a large class. Someone is bound to be confused by the cursory coverage of the topic, and want to know more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Marisian,</p>
<p>While children with learning disabilities can be challenging, they aren’t the biggest source of stress for most teachers from what I’ve seen as a public junior high/high school student. </p>
<p>One source of great stress for most teachers from what I’ve seen as a student and from friends who teach K-12 are students who are so disruptive/violent that they turn the classroom/school into an effective warzone. </p>
<p>Not only do they tie up the teacher’s attention to the point of impeding good teaching, teachers/admins are also so fearful of lawsuits from the often “not my angel” type parents who often give cover to these types of students that there’s few effective measures that could be taken. </p>
<p>Saw this firsthand with some bullies at my junior high and lost count of how many teachers/admins complained of their legal constraints and such types of students/parents. </p>
<p>This is further underscored by a client whose granddaughter was assaulted and violently threatened by a stalker in an upper-middle class Midwest high school a few years ago. Despite being convicted of those crimes and revealed to have had an extensive rap sheet, the idiotic school district admins/board are effectively siding with the stalker despite 2 court rulings banning him from being part of the regular student population because of the serious risks he poses to the safety of students/school. </p>
<p>Despite two rulings against the convicted stalker, the school admins/board are still wasting taxpayer money appealing those rulings so he could be allowed back into the high school. </p>
<p>While their point that there’s no alternative high school he could be sent to is valid, the judges did consider that and found the risk he poses to public safety plus the fact there are high school educational programs in prison means that the safety of the other students/school comes first.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought my 3d grade science teacher had a magnetic personality to match her devastating looks. Unfortunately, I also had to realize she was hardly in the domain of a brace-wearing five feet tall midget. Still heartbroken about that failed attraction!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…it is little bit like your family…you can point out of all their bad qualities, but you don’t want anyone outside of the family to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t make sense! No school wants troubled/violent students. My guess is that the school has to provide an education for the student no matter what. If they can’t do it at their own school they have to pay for it somewhere else. There are special schools for kids like this that can cost school districts well over $100,000 per year. The schools are kind of like psychiatric hospitals that the kids live in 24-7. I know there is one in Utah and that students get sent there from other states.</p>
<p>My parents told me about a kid that came home from that place and returned to the regular high school. He had been very violent but was not in juvenile hall. He was like a ticking time bomb. The district paid for a full time aid that went everywhere with him (even the bathroom!). $ before safety.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, it left me, my client, his granddaughter/family, their lawyer, several teachers, and 2 judges extremely puzzled as well. </p>
<p>Only thing my client and I could think of was that either the school admins/board hold an extreme view about educational mainstreaming…or the family of that stalker knows/connected to someone senior in that school district/school board or local bigwig in that area.</p>