Re: Teachers being made liable for equipment.


"Palindrome" <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LzJji.494990$dg3.136086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim Rogers wrote:
"Palindrome" <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xHIji.20882$G_4.19890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tim Rogers wrote:
<snip>

Possibly?!! But I am a full time teacher in a school. I have
responsibility in my department (Science) to train students to teach
that subject.

You mean,"Get them to forget all the rubbish that they have been taught
on PGCE and learn how to really teach"?


Er possibly!!!!!


How many of your science-teacher students have 2.1, or better, degrees in
the subject, from a half-way decent university? How many are professional
chartered members of the appropriate institute? How many have published
papers? How many can tie their own shoe-laces?


You'd be surprised the range of people we get coming to train.

You have absolutely no idea of what may, or may not, surprise me.

Not sure what you mean by that but this (despite being way off topic) is
turning into an interesting debate so I shall, for the time being, stick
with it and try and point out where you are going wrong here.



We get the full range from Thirds to PhDs. If I am to be honest (and this
may sound like a generalised comment!) those with PhDs tend to be quite
'nerdy' and fail to relate to young people. They have found it very tough
going. The better the qualification doesn't make you necessarily a better
teacher. You have to be able to communicate your subject well and deal
with many issues other than just your subject.

Someone with a third has failed to understand more than 50% of the
material presented to him at university. No institute would have him. No
employer would take him as a professional in his chosen discipline.

Those you dismiss as "nerds" generally love their subject area and have
real expertise in it. Have you considered it might be better to adjust the
system so that it allows them to teach effectively? Or do teacher-trainers
totally lack the imagination and vision to realise that other ways of
teaching are possible than those they use themselves?


Indeed they PhDs do have genuine love and real expertise in their subject
but that doesn't make them good teachers. The problem often is with the
person concerned being able to adapt themselves so as to be able to teach a
lesson of highly motivated, bright pupils and then next lesson needing to
teach a lesson to a bottom set of somewhat 'less' motivated, less
intelligent pupils. Flexibility is the key here. Some student we have had
have had real difficulty bring their subject down to the level of a 12 year
old. It's no good trying to talk 'quantum Physics to a 12 year old, they
need the basics so as to develop knowledge in say Physics so that one day
they will be able to understand the 'harder' stuff.

I remember one very unsuitable student who said to me after he'd tried his
best to teach a class; "I never realised that some kids wouldn't want to
learn Physics". I tried to get him to be more dynamic and enthusiastic about
his subject when teaching the pupils but in the end he just couldn't hack
it. The guy knew his stuff, he just couldn't communicate it.



There was a time when if you had a pulse they'd let you in front of a
class(!!). Things are little more competitive now and many applicants are
rejected before they get in front of a class.

Apparently those that know their subject and have real expertise in it,
for a start..

I have sat on the interview panels at the university for prospective PGCE
students ('real' teachers are often asked to help out in this way) and
although an applicants paper credentials may be excellent, if they can't
communicate then they've got no chance and are rejected.

Have you thought it might be better to take the "non-communicating nerds"
and train them to communicate, rather than take the "communicators" - who
have nothing to communicate?

Now that is easier said than done. Look around at people you come into
contact with on a daily basis. Do you really think that if they are poor
communicators then you are going to magically turn them into good ones. Some
people have a predisposition to be able to communicate and some don't.
Someone with a 'third' like it or not should be quite capable of
communicating their subject up to 'A' level standard.

Now this may also come as a shock to some but schools are not just about
turning out young people that have an raft of GCSEs or A levels. It is about
turning out rounded individuals who are polite, know the difference between
right and wrong and other attributes of a civilised human being. There are a
number of low set pupils who despite having few qualifications are people
who I would quite happily employ and trust. The good commutating teacher
will be able to enthuse these students.

I am not saying that I am the best teacher in the world but I do seem to
understand what education is all about more than some here.



I can see from your reactions why some do think that teachers are little
more than child minders. There to amuse the children during the day,
letting them play with toys, rather than interact with the teacher.
Letting them question the internet - where the answers may be found,
rather than expose the lack of knowledge and lack of intellect of the
teacher.

That does not happen in any school (secondary or primary) that I know. My
wife is a primary school teacher and would find the above insulting. My son
(aged 5) is at a local primary school and does not spend all day playing
with toys.



Schools *need* nerds on the staff. Nerds are the people that move science
and technology. medicine and philosophy - almost everything bar
entertainment - forward. Future nerds need to be encouraged, not put off.

But nerds need to communicate well. Education is about communication. If you
cannot communicate your knowledge then you're no good in a classroom!!

Of course many schools do go for nerds instead of 3rd class minds. They
are called "public schools". I suggest that you visit a few and see how
those schools make it possible for nerds to flourish and be highly
successful teachers. The only 3rds you will find there are cleaning the
loos.

A very arrogant view of things; I didn't know that you needed a degree to
clean loos???!!!! ;-))

As someone who went to a 'public school' I can honestly say that I wish I
had been educated in the state sector. It seems that the state sector
'generally' turns out more rounded individuals.

I am not saying that there are not problems in some schools in this country,
there are but the vast majority of them are flourishing and do their job
VERY well.

Tim



--
Sue





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earth to Obama
    ... for themselves...and the govt choices are better. ... students have trather than forcing poor students to attend schools ... and thaus are schools that suck. ... is no reason for keeping a teacher or an administrator. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Earth to Obama
    ... for themselves...and the govt choices are better. ... students have trather than forcing poor students to attend schools ... and thaus are schools that suck. ... is no reason for keeping a teacher or an administrator. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Earth to Obama
    ... students have trather than forcing poor students to attend schools ... and thaus are schools that suck. ... is no reason for keeping a teacher or an administrator. ... as private schools do now. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Whiff of McCarthy as pupils out teachers
    ... You don't need advocacy to achieve that. ... Students don't open that book just because it's "homework". ... That's for the students; NOT the teacher. ... That's the parent's fault; not the schools. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: first lesson
    ... WE (the students) don't steer the learning. ... If a student can honestly assess and communicate his ... whatever) the teacher has a better ability to honestly ... I had a few lessons with a well qualified teacher but it ...
    (alt.guitar.beginner)
Loading