And frankly, no. It is a classic case of treating the symptom rather than the disease. When what you need is stronger parenting and better social structure and safety nets, substituting that with additional responsibilities and workloads for teachers who are arguably often already burdened outside of what could reasonably be expected of them is not going to be a recipe for success.
And frankly, I've no idea what ought to be done about it.
What I do know is this much: in broad strokes, the US went from a household with a pop at work mum at home 50 years ago, to a pop and mum at work or single parent at work nowadays. In other words, it turned into a society where parents don't have the material time to parent their own children. Who should do so in their place?
I grew up in a rural area. Farmland. I now live in NYC. This place breeds a hardened tougher person and in the impoverished areas education and schooling are often second fiddle to money that is here, now, that will keep food on the table.
No, I would not agree that children are parented by teachers. A child has multiple teachers each year and many, if not all of them, change year-to-year. What more could we ask for such a transient figure to do beyond being a good role model?
> not being good role models
Where has anyone every said educators shouldn't (or aren't) be role models?
> keeping kids protected from that mess?
Yes, my petite, 110# dripping wet friend will protect her kids from gang violence. By the time school security responds, the damage is done.
Additionally, how does a teach protect their kids when they're not in school? How do they protect them from gang violence in their neighborhoods?
These are big issues. Seriously, huge issues that cities and our society face. Expecting teachers to be able to build a bubble is ludicrous when children are selling drugs or worse on the streets to stay fed, when they're being shot and beat in and out of school over gang affiliations.
Who should step in to fill the gap? Gangs? Militarized cops? Someone else?
It seems to me that teachers and educators spend the most time with kids apart from parents (or one would hope), and are the least bad candidates to second parents in parenting kids.
You mean the hour, maybe two they see a child during the day?
> are the least bad candidates to second parents in parenting kids.
No, they're not even a candidate.
On the other hand, my sister makes it seem like there are just a lot of bad parents out there. Even the ones that mean well, will often act in a way destructive to their child's education. Many of them are rude and self-righteous. Honestly I no idea what to do about that.
Parents are important; if you see your parents acting bad, neglecting you, are even encouraging you to act in these manners, then what can someone who spends 1/2 of 3/4 of a year with you really change that?
Agree wholeheartedly. But that's the sorry reality today.
> Parents are important; if you see your parents acting bad, neglecting you, are even encouraging you to act in these manners, then what can someone who spends 1/2 of 3/4 of a year with you really change that?
But you're missing my entire point here: parents nowadays spend very little time with their children compared to a half century ago. Where they used to get half a day of parenting (typically from house moms), kids are now only getting a few hours per day -- and that's provided whichever parent comes back from work first don't sit them in front of a TV while making dinner.
Blaming bad society or whatever is akin to sticking one's head in the sand. The kids need to be parented somehow, and it's pointless to blame the parents considering they both need to work in both households to make the mortgage, tax burden, and various other fixed cost work out; but nobody has stepped in to fill the gap left by societal changes. Who should?
My understanding, from this article and other reports, is that the percentage of teachers drawn from the top tier of graduates is dropping (top tier measured by GRE scores, grades, and rigor of the undergraduate program). The top 10% of math majors, for instance, rarely become teachers.
I think the US is putting so much emphasis on a plan. My take on it is if you draw your math teachers from the top echelons of math students, and provide support for learning to teach in a classroom, you really won't need to micromanage the curriculum. Sure, a general plan is a good thing, but at that point you can give the teachers pretty broad autonomy in the classroom.
Still, the problems you've described are extremely serious and could completely derail an education and life regardless of the talent and devotion of the teacher. Strong teachers and a stable social environment are both pretty critical for a kid trying to excel in school.
* One or more of her students will be shot to death each year
* Many of her kids get pulled out of class and beaten by rival gangs each year
* Many of her kids will go to jail for a portion of the school year for drug charges each year
* Many of her girls will be out due to pregnancy each year
How is any of that the fault of the teachers? We need to fix our society before kids will have any chance of learning.