Re: "Education" System, was Re: [SG] HAMR

OK, I realize that I'm replying to several people here, but bear with me
as I just caught this thread.

> > > >But at any rate, I soon discovered that "gifted" is
> > > >generally teacher-speak for "I don't know what the
> > > >hell to do with him!"

Dunno what teachers you're dealing with.  Speaking for the ones that I
work with, "gifted" means that you simply need to challenge that student
more.  Of course, some of the most gifted students I've seen have also
been some of the laziest.

>
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's the core of it.  Which is why some of
> > > us should become teachers
> > > ourselves.

Hmm, what about those of us who *are* teachers?  I would strongly
encourage you to put your money where your mouth is.  See how much fun
it
is to jump through the hoops to become a teacher.  See what a blast it
is
when you realize that the kiddies are *not* going to all just sit at
your
feet and drink in your every word just because you're giving it to them.

> > Try and reform the system from inside?  I say burn the
> > system to the ground and start all over again--this
> > time with initial premises other than "Children are a
> > nuisance and should be locked up during daytime
> > hours." and "The function of the education system is
> > to provide free childcare."  As it exists, it's past
> > reform.

Whew!  Sure glad that someone has all the answers!  In all seriousness,
how did you form this opinion?	What evidence have you examined that led
you to believe that led you to believe that "burning down the system"
was
necessary and proper?  I've had ten years of teaching experience in the
public school system to help me formulate my opinions; do you have
similar experience, or are you reacting to all of that crap that you
hear
on the news and being spewed out of the mouths of politicians? 
Precisely
which aspects of the school system are the most horrendous to you, and
whom do you see as being responsible for all of the screwups?  While I
don't necessarily disagree with the statement about ed.
system=childcare,
I can't agree that the school system is "past reform".	The problem is
that there's been *too* damned much reform.  Get off my back, let me
teach, and let me discipline without having the ACLU and courts
breathing
down my neck, and I'll do just fine, thanks.

>
> The initial premise needs to have a "You get what you
> pay for" somewhere in the credo.  I get so tired of
> hearing people bitch about "They just want to throw
> money at it" when we aren't paying enough to allow our
> brightest to teach.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I should take offense at the above or not, since
your statement seems to suggest that those of us who are teaching right
now are not worth more than we are currently paid.  However, I'll err on
the side of caution and assume that's not what you meant.  I would like
to point out that intelligence alone does not make a teacher.  I'll
continue that comment below.  As for the money aspect, I'd certainly
like
to make more, and I think I'm worth more.  But I also believe in what
I'm
doing, and I think it does make a difference.  Money is nice, but
there's
also "emotional income", or satisfaction in what you're doing.	For most
teachers (the top ones at least) that is at least as important as the
money, if not moreso.

> Look at Los Alamos, the people there believe in education
> ,many are scientists.  Yes, this gives their kids a leg
> up, but in addition they hire PhDs for the local high
> school.  Those kids come out of public high school with
> a better education than you get from most universities.
> It isn't cheap.

Certainly not.	However, as I said above, intelligence alone (or
educational level) doesn't necessarily guarantee a good teacher.  I've
known plenty of PhDs who weren't worth a damn in the classroom, just as
I've known plenty of people with only a h.s. education (or less) who
could teach what they know to anyone.  As for your anecdote about Los
Alamos, you've hit on something else there.  Given the high educational
level of the parents of those students, it stands to reason that the
students will be more motivated to learn (there are, of course,
exceptions, but there is a *very* strong correlation between parental
ed.
level and student achievement).  I would hazard a(n) (educated :) guess
that has more to do with the level of education in Los Alamos than the
fact that they hire PhDs to teach at the high school.  I suppose I could
go on in this message, but I'm afraid it would turn into a ramble (if it
has not done so already).  My intent here is not to flame, so if the
message came off that way I do apologize, but should any of you wish to
take issue with anything I've said, please feel free to do so (as I'm
sure you will), but I'd appreciate it if you'd preface it by sharing
what
(if any) experience and background you've had from the *inside* of the
educational establishment other than as a student.  In all of the time
I've been on this list, I've been more than willing to defer to experts
in other fields and at least assume that they know what they're talking
about, and would appreciate the same consideration for my chosen field.