Who is a teacher?

[hallenrm]

Basically you are saying that there are those hired to be teachers/tutors and those who freely give of their knowledge, wisdom, experience.

Frankly, I don't see the difference between the actions, and thus don't see a difference between them in the English language.

 

No, I am not saying that!!! What I am hinting at is the decline in the institution of good teachers who are always held in high esteem by their students. In the instant culture that the west has propagated across the world, an instant teacher is not differentiated from a true teacher. Frankly I hold Richard Feynman as a really good true teacher or a Guru!!!

 

:)

[cwes99_03]

Have you ever seen the program 20/20.

 

If so, did you see their two separate "Stupid in America" reports. These are the two most glaring representations of what you speak.

 

I don't know that you fully understand the American school system being from Australia (right?). I know I don't fully understand it, and I have participated in many different aspects of it, I have been a substitute teacher, and my sister is also a teacher.

I have many friends (not necessarily the closest friends in the world) who are all certified teachers. I have to say that I don't believe some of them to be qualified (by my standards) to teach any kids I may have in the future.

 

Part of the problem you may note, is that each state has their own school programming, funding, and jurisdiction. Their isn't a whole lot of Federal oversight of the school system. Thus any child that moves from one state to another may not have the necessary knowledge or skills to be placed into the same grade level.

There is also huge amounts of apathy in the American school system. There are also hundreds of philosophies on funding, curriculum, etc. etc. etc. It just boggles the mind.

While other countries have much greater success, they also have much fewer problems to deal with in planning. For instance, when you look at the dutch schools, they outperform American schools, but the Netherlands is a country of population 16.5 million not 296.5 million and a much smaller area over which schools are spread out.

 

You may be looking to define some of these things about education and teachers but if this is what you want to talk about, then talk about it. I don't think it is too hard to identify these things in the context you are seeking to discuss.

[hallenrm]

I don't know that you fully understand the American school system being from Australia (right?).

 

Wrong, Indian!

 

There is also huge amounts of apathy in the American school system. There are also hundreds of philosophies on funding, curriculum, etc. etc. etc. It just boggles the mind.

 

Perils of prosperity through plundering and exploiting! I would say ;)

 

You may be looking to define some of these things about education and teachers but if this is what you want to talk about, then talk about it. I don't think it is too hard to identify these things in the context you are seeking to discuss.

 

Finally you are coming closer to understanding me :lol:

[IDMclean]

I was careful in my first definition to make clear that I ment the authoritative teacher, or what I like to call the Production guide. The intention is to create a work force, that is capable of following instructions and to perform rote functions. That is to produce a large volume of low capacity people. This is good for assembly line, but not good for creative endevours. As Charlie says "instant culture".

 

The non-authoritarian model is my preference, and what I think is the future of education of any suffienciently advanced culture. It should be noted that each belongs to a certain set of interdependent models of living.

 

I will outline the theoretical marks of a Anarchial (in the capacity of approaching flat power-responsibility topology) Teacher.

 

Arete is a greek word, meaning excellence. It implies a life long practice of an art. This concept is one that goes hand in hand with the Guru, or Anarchial Teacher (anyone got some other name suggestions for this distiction?). Knowledge and art are not meaningfully distict, and to me can not be distigiushed individually.

 

Gnosis, another greek word, which means enlightenment. I find enlightenment to be meaningful here in the capacity to indicate someone who has gone beyond knowledge (information by rote) and entered into the realm of wisdom (information by understanding and/or experience). A person can not truely teach what they do not truely understand. To enlighten others, you must first be enlightened.

 

Doctrine, A latin based word, meaning a set of beliefs, principle or positions. I mean it in capacity of observation, or awareness of. Often enough teachers are not even aware of the model that they teach. So I guess I am saying awareness of one's relative position, or point of view.

 

To me there is a radical difference between someone who understands and someone who knows. Many teachers I have met did not understand what it is that they teach. College is better than High school, and Grade school better than High school. In my experience.

 

Interesting article on the subject of Education and Teaching.

MIT Dean Takes Aim at Admissions Anxiety

 

This is by no means a complete definition, and I would like to add to it after some one who is not me contributes to zeroing in on a concise definition.

[hallenrm]

Here's some help KAS!

 

A teacher is different from an instructor, guide or trainer. S/he is much above either of them, although s/he may be preforming similar functions. :confused:

[IDMclean]

I generally like to avoid proclaimations of "above" or "below", as it leads to messiness. As a rule, infact, in my experience such claims are near impossible to prove emperically.

 

Different however is a better supported statement of fact, I think. Each piece of the puzzle is valuable. You do need your trainers, Instructors and guides. The error is when you place the core focus on non-core functions.

 

That is teachers, particularly of the public school, are ment, more or less, to help students to form core doctrines regarding their desired profession and/or area of expertise. With these core doctrines they should be more capable of then seeking out the sources of information, and the Instructors for the more specialized aspects of their progress.

 

Just how I feel though.

[cwes99_03]

To me there is a radical difference between someone who understands and someone who knows. Many teachers I have met did not understand what it is that they teach. College is better than High school, and Grade school better than High school. In my experience.

Definitely. One who is understanding, has the ability to compile data and come up with conclusions. One who has knowledge, (just a pile of facts), but does not have understanding, cannot draw conclusions outside the strict confines of the facts they know.

Now everyone seems to have a bit of understanding in them, possibly because of having a huge depth of knowledge on a certain subject. Having a wealth of knowledge on just one particular subject they only have to make small connections to draw conclusions (baby steps).

I have always been praised by teachers for having an ability to understand new things rather quickly. This allowed me to excel at just about any academic endeavor I entered upon.

Others simply tried to learn the facts and pass the test, not understand the underlying implications or the how and why. Thus when it came to physics, only a few of us did well in the class while the rest did miserable, and hated it. Physics requires understanding, otherwise you become an engineer, and only then if you have a good understanding (grasp) on math and a great ability to memorize many different things concerned with your particular field. (I wouldn't trust a EE to do a CE's job, but I would trust a good physicist to do either.)

 

One (of many) problem with the American school system is that it does not strive to teach understanding, unless the student asks for it. Regardless of the teacher (for the most part), students are not asked to gain understanding, but to find answers from a source and regurgitate it a short time later. They are also encouraged to mask their inabilities by learning to write in some styles that do not convey messages but instead confuse and muddle the issue so that a person gives up and just accepts that you know what you are talking about.

 

The biggest problem with "teaching" in America, are unions, NYC's being probably the best example of why they are bad. I don't think the tenure system is in itself bad, as long as their are tenure reviews every 2-4 years.

[IDMclean]

Slightly off subject. Why do you people keep calling me KAS and what does it mean?

[cwes99_03]

It is an initialization of your name. Kick Ass Clown.

 

I just typed poorly. It should have been KAC.

[hallenrm]

One (of many) problem with the American school system is that it does not strive to teach understanding, unless the student asks for it. Regardless of the teacher (for the most part), students are not asked to gain understanding, but to find answers from a source and regurgitate it a short time later. They are also encouraged to mask their inabilities by learning to write in some styles that do not convey messages but instead confuse and muddle the issue so that a person gives up and just accepts that you know what you are talking about.

 

I would beg to differ from your point of view cwes, I think it is a gross generalization, which like any generalization has its pitfalls.

 

I have never been to US, so I lack first hand experience of its educational system, but most of my science education is courtsey the books authored by American professors and I must say they reflect a very different reality. Most of them are highly knowledgeable and wise. They were/are the products of American education system!!! :lol:

[IDMclean]

True, but they are the exception, and not the rule.

 

It is my opinion and experience that the people who write those books do not represent the vast majority of americans. In general my experience, and this is being an american myself, is that we are an idiot people. Red necks in the majority. George W. Bush, as much as I dislike him is more or less representive of your average american. He's illiterate, can't do math, does not understand in any real way scientific method... the list goes on.

 

The fine people here at Hypography would be in my estimation cream of the crop. Relative to the american average.

 

As much as we talk about technology and intellegence, america is a strongly anti-intellectual place. It's sad, but to me it would seem to be the truth of the situation. I am hoping we get better but at this rate we aren't going to beat the curve.

 

To surmize: Americans, as a people, are ignorant. Americans as individuals have the capability of showing amazing potentials.

 

Just my humble opinion of personal experience and observation from a demophobic hermit.

[cwes99_03]

While not agreeing with all parts of the synopsis above, Clown has made some strong and valid points.

Americans are largely an idiot people. I like to compare them to the serfs of midieval times. They are told lies and given jobs to do, and don't often question them. By the time they do begin to question things, it is too late. This has proven itself time and time again with the political system and other things.

I also agree that those professors are likely the cream of the crop. I would also like to point out that you say "books authored by American professors." These books are not text books, but books dealing with certain subjects in depth. While great for grad work or maybe use in a undergrad course, they simply cannot be used by elementary or secondary school teachers. These teachers are charged with giving an introduction to the topics, not teaching classes that prep students to go into white-coat jobs at a lab.

 

The first 9 years of American schooling are spent building layers of knowledge of core subjects into students. The next 4 are spent preparing students for 1) college or 2) a vocation. This part, however, isn't done well as no average student is well prepared to step into college without some remedial review, nor is a student in a vocation secondary track really given much preparation for real life in the working world, without the need for additional job training. 13 years of education spent biding time until one graduates and then gets thrown into a mess looking for work or trying to get into a good school that may make something of them.

 

Then the collegiate system is really screwed up. If you are in the sciences, well that is better than other majors for at least giving you real knowledge and maybe understanding. Many biology majors are just forced into long hours of memorization and some lab work, until they are weeded out or prove they are capable.

 

Then those who can prove themselves are given great amounts of knowledge and hopefully experience by working with some professor on real lab experimentation in their field ( at least this happens at a good school.)

 

However, most college students don't realize the great need for this type of learning before they reach grad school. Those who do go on to grad school in the sciences finally receive the education needed to truly excel in their particular niche, but rarely by this time do those people have an ability to understand anything set before them, whether it is in business, technology, or any other facet of life. They fall back to the "ummmmm..... let's ask someone who is an 'expert' to do it" when any truly understanding person should be able to figure it out. Many times the 'expert' they turn to is one of those secondary vocation school grads, which really isn't an expert at all.

Sorry rant over, go to go do some work.

[hallenrm]

Reflecting on the posts of KAC and Cwes, i found that the problem is not limited to any particular country, in fact it is a disease that is spreading across the globe rather fast.

 

Before prescribing a cure, let us reflect on its genesis first.

 

The genesis of the disease is the ever increasing demand for education, because people are realizing that it often leads to far more opportunities to prosper. Thus, even people who were traditionally 'uneducated' are sending their progeny for education to schools and colleges. This has led to a spurt in demand for 'teachers'. The quality teachers are in short supply, because they are the products of production lines similar to those introduced by Henry Ford for the manufacture of cars. Most often these teachers do not have a tradition in education, they are the first generation teachers who get into the profession only because it provides them easy livelihood. Another factor is the low social prestige attached to the profession. Most often teachers are much lower in the social ladder and have little social esteem (partly due to the factors stated above). In India, in the ancient times a Guru, who was most often a Brahmin was held in a high esteem because he gave education to the society, not anymore. Today a teachers job is amongst the lowest paid job in many Indian schools, sometimes the salary is less than that of a peon in a Government office. Obviously there are very few reasons for a teacher to be dedicated in the modern times.

 

What then is a possible cure?

 

The cure would come from the society and educational institutions. A teacher cannot be produced in any college or university, through a curriculum in education or through a Doctorate degree. A Masters or a Doctorate degree does not really imply that someone is fit to be a teacher.

 

Once good teachers are in place, the society also need to bestow on them adequate respect and social status. :)

[Turtle]

Before prescribing a cure, let us reflect on its genesis first.

:D

 

I don't recall anyone yet pointing out that there is actually more knowledge now than at any other time on Earth. Hard to blame teachers or students for that.

I don't buy into all this 'going to hell in a handbasket' meme as such a view is extant throughout recorded history. I seem to remember someone named Socrates was executed on the charge of corrupting the youth.:)

[cwes99_03]

Turtle's comment aside, I believe a deeper study of statistics and trends is in order.

 

Times change, standards change, needs change. It is this changing nature which you rightly hit on the head. However a society of change, often is behind the curve. This is because most people do not want to plan for the future, they want to plan for the here and now, having the Greek philosophy of "let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die." While I call it a Greek philosophy it is neither only Greek, nor new to the time of the ancient Greeks. It has been prevalent in human society for a very long time.

 

Therefore, we are just behind the curve if you can view it that way. Eventually (usually a generation later) 20 years from now there will be new standards for teachers to meet the needs of those children today. Of course by that time, those future children (those who would be our generation's grandchildren if you are in your 20s) will have a whole new set of demands and we will still be behind the curve.

Where I work, we are always trying to stay ahead of the curve. This does mean that some of what we do is a bit more expensive, but it means that business runs at a better pace.

Budgeting for a new position for next fiscal year, even though currently there isn't a need for that position, means when their is a need next year we will already have the funds to hire that person. We do the same with servers, computers, etc.

How do you fix the curve problem in less than 20 years? Since it takes about 4 years for a graduating secondary school senior to become a licensed teacher, you have to start training that student for 6 years down the line when they take on that job as a teacher. Then they won't be behind the curve when they start.

This is of course saying that you can anticipate the needs of the kids being born at this very moment, and the funding and technology status of every school that your college students might get hired at.

Truth is it isn't possible. So instead they teach these kids the most basic building blocks and hope they can figure out what to do when they actually get into the classroom.

 

College preparation of future teachers aside. We still have a problem with standards for teachers to meet. What kind of standards can we set? The best teachers are often the ones who really enjoy working with kids. If you only enjoy working with kids who are excited about the subject, then you aren't a good teacher. A good teacher has an indomnible spirit. Regardless of how bad the class is, they will teach and find a way to get the interest up.

You can't create a standard for that. You can't measure that before the teacher begins teaching. This is something that it takes time to measure.

 

By the time this is measured, which may take a couple of years (since you allow time for the teacher to learn the ropes and improve) the teacher will likely be a member of a teachers union which will not allow the administration to fire a bad teacher, because of stupid antiquated union ideas. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying unions aren't necessary in some cases, but I believe many have overstepped their bounds and are now monopolizing juggernauts that need to be put down.

 

 

So restating the four big problems:

 

1) no national (global?) consensus on curriculum and/or standards for grade to grade graduation.

2) inability to accurately plan 6-10 years down the road for students/teachers needs.

3) inability to phase out bad teachers

4) lack of teachers in general

[Ananke]

I don't recall anyone yet pointing out that there is actually more knowledge now than at any other time on Earth. Hard to blame teachers or students for that.

I don't buy into all this 'going to hell in a handbasket' meme as such a view is extant throughout recorded history. I seem to remember someone named Socrates was executed on the charge of corrupting the youth.:hihi:

 

There is also more falsehood on earth than at any other time. It has been said we live in an age of information overload, reminiscent of the situation in Brave New World. What is true? What is false? There is no way to read everything, and even if you did, there is no way to verify everything you read. The days when one person could know all there was to know are long past. In the face of such a wall of information, what can a person do but accept what it is told, and leave the investigation of truth to other, more driven, or more insightful individuals? Thusly, I am not surprised that the great majority of people everywhere are mindless drones. With the limited capacity they posses, it is really the best you could hope for from them.

[InfiniteNow]

There is also more falsehood on earth than at any other time.

Please support this, or qualify it as merely your personal opinion.

 

The days when one person could know all there was to know are long past.

When were those days? Please, do tell.

 

In the face of such a wall of information, what can a person do but accept what it is told, and leave the investigation of truth to other, more driven, or more insightful individuals?

Uhmm... hmmm.... maybe be more driven and insightful themselves? Question everything, and remain open, trying to be aware and responsible for the knowledge they acquire and motivated when seeking more...

 

Thusly, I am not surprised that the great majority of people everywhere are mindless drones. With the limited capacity they posses, it is really the best you could hope for from them.

This again is your personal opinion, and really does more to speak of your own insecurities and need to mentally elevate yourself above others than it does to express the current median state of human society in an aggregate manner. Oh, and it's hateful too.