Here at our school, the budget is so tight, we are literally not able to pay for new d-hall slips (carbon paper). And, they are cutting back on having people stay after to watch the d-hall kids. So, we are having to not give d-halls for minor offenses. Which, leaves us teachers, with no way to control kids behavior.
Paddling, of course, didn’t cost a thing. But that is long gone. Of course, gov. schools should go away and be replaced with nothing, but still…it sucks if you’re a teacher right now.
“If the only way you can control kids is to use force or threats, then what sort of educator are you? Get creative.”
Yes, that is correct. You can only control bad kids using force or threats. Of course, the school itself is flawed. Bad kids who do not want to be here, should not be required to be here. But, I live in reality. And they are required to be here.
Nice to see, though, that just because I forget to activate my links on occasion, you have taken it personally.
Do you know which teachers have the hardest time controlling the students? Are the students acting up more during free periods or during class? Are there particular subjects that they are acting up in?
If you can find any trends in behavior, it may point you in the right direction as to why they are acting up. If they are just causing trouble anywhere and everywhere, then all the teachers may have to rethink their teaching style and how to make the subject matter relevant to the students.
Ultimately, the students are causing trouble because they want to, and you cannot resort to violence in order to make them prefer not acting up. You’ll have to make them prefer not acting up through nonviolent methods (I know this sounds obvious, but I think it’s worth stating). The best way to solve this would be to make the students interested in learning, but that may not be possible for all students. Shame is another method. I’m sure there are plenty of other methods.
Honestly, I sympathize with the education budget (only at the expense of other budgets, like the military budget) because I’m a hypocrit and my dad’s a high school teacher and his wellbeing is currently my wellbeing, but Liberty Student is right. If you need force to ‘teach’ somebody then you’re not teachign that person.
I had an amazing experience today. I was a horrible high school student. I was such a bad student that I started college at the age of 21 technically. I remember pre-calculus in high school and how much trouble I had with randiants. I’m taking the same class right now in college to get into a different branch of calculus (I wasted my time with ‘business calculus’) and I figured out the randiants and the circle before the professor even started. It’s just self-intuitive.
That goes to show how little a student will learn if you turn him off.
The best teacher I’ve ever had was my high-school math teacher. From the very first class he announced that anyone was free to leave if they wanted and never attend even one of his lectures, if they so desired. He guaranteed them a passing grade and no problems with their attendance records. No one left, ever – even the worst students – and the atmosphere in the classroom was a joy for the whole four year duration. He was also the oldest and the most respected teacher in the school.
Do you think that giving them detention makes them want to be there more?
My point is that if you want the kids to respond in a better way, think about the incentives you are offering them. Instead of making a bad situation worse, try to make a bad situation better.
A similar anecdote from me - I left high school without any usable knowledge of languages, despite being taught English for 8 years, Latvian for 11, and German for 2. After just one year in university (which at the time was exceptionally liberal, so I spent most of my time in computer room, instead of listening to lectures), I knew English enough to read scientific literature and Latvian enough to understand lectures (those I thought were worthy to attend). The bottom line - no amount of teaching can do what a modicum of studying does.
You’ve pointed out that compulsory attendence and lack of ability to punish students are the source of your woes. Don’t you think that under a free market in education parents might still make kids attend school even when the don’t want to? And don’t you think that under a free market the school might not allow you to punish students as harsh as you would like to? My point is, there is a very real chance that government is not the source of your problems, or that under a free market in schooling you might still have to heed liberty student’s advice and get creative.
“You’ve pointed out that compulsory attendence and lack of ability to punish students are the source of your woes. Don’t you think that under a free market in education parents might still make kids attend school even when the don’t want to? And don’t you think that under a free market the school might not allow you to punish students as harsh as you would like to? My point is, there is a very real chance that government is not the source of your problems, or that under a free market in schooling you might still have to heed liberty student’s advice and get creative.”
At first, yes, I believe private schools would model themselves much like government schools. Although, pretty quickly, people would start to utilize the internet for learning and education would rapidly evolve. You would learn what you want when you want, how you wanted in much much less time.
Right now, school is more of a prison, baby sitting institution. If we had freedom, we would realize we wouldn’t have to devote NEARLY as much time trying to learn something. It would evolve into something much more different.
Like, I was pretty good student at school, and even loved it when I got 40/40 in a maths test while most got 20-25/40, but as far as reading - for personal knowledge and leisure - real, hard economics books, I have pretty little academic vigour compared to other Mises.Org posters. Although I have finished several economics books that I read for leisure, I have only done so with what turned out to be elementary level stuff.
So coming here, and realizing that one of the most dedicated scholarly enthusiasts here was once a self-professed bad student is revealing.
It’s a reverse world here on the internet. The tables are always turned on me, where in class I’d think I knew my history pretty well, but then on an internet message board, I knew one kid from Chicago younger than me who could kill me at history. And yet, he was so bad at academics, he admitted he nearly failed an important standardized test for college in US.
There is a big difference learning what you are told, and learning how to reason. I was a mediocre student. I could learn what they wanted me to know when I applied myself (which was infrequent), but I read 10x as many books outside of school as I did within. And that was when I was 8.
I was also a terrible student who barely did any work (which they set, that is). The assignments that I did do were ones that I could spin into something that I thought was interesting or humourous. Now I’m doing my PhD.
