Do you think most people just aren't that smart?

[capella]

And I sort of mean academically, but even a little in the "street smart" way.

I am pondering this because of my job. That much I can admit. I wouldn't be thinking about this if I had any other line of work (well, probably not). But I look around at the 130 or so 14-year-old to 15-year-old kids in my classes and I'm just amazed at how lazy some of them are. Many of them just are not that smart and most of those just don't care. I mean.... they really don't care. Are most people really that lazy on a daily basis? I can't even imagine not working on something, but I didn't think I was that abnormal.

I try to picture what their lives will be like one day, since I'm near positive most of the ones I'm thinking of are NOT college-bound kids, and I wonder if they'd be real good at fixing my brakes one day or something. Nothing at all wrong with that, it's just that they aren't really getting much out of reading Hiroshima or To Kill a Mockingbird or learning about sentence structure then are they? They are the majority.

I have so few who are bright. So very few. And I'm in a "good" school in a community that's on Money Magazine's top ten list for "best places to live." This is my fourth year and my fourth set of secondary school kids. It's about the same rough percentage every year. About 20% of my kids are pretty sharp and will likely go to college. The other 80% are just not cut out for that. About 60% of that 80% do want to improve, but they are just not that good at academic stuff.

Is my classroom really a reflection of what society is? Are we really just that dumb? And, if so, we are most DEFINITELY doing a disservice to today's students by pushing them toward college when most will not make it there... or if they go to college, then certainly not all the way through to a degree. We have no economy to absorb those who don't make it. Why are we pushing for that? It is not attainable.

Just my moment of thought for today. Discuss.

[wordsmith]

My experience has been that while most people aren't extraordinarily intellectual (the type of smarts I personally find most appealing and gratifying), all but the most developmentally challenged folks have arenas in which they are smart.

I would agree that a TON of people are incredibly lazy and disinterested, not to mention unimaginative and dull. Plenty of smart people, even. And, unfortunately, they go through life that way, reproduce, and instill those same traits in their kids.


And in my book, being intelligent, yet lazy/disinterested/unimaginative/dull is FAR worse than being not very intelligent.

[capella]

Yes, I suppose these people have an area in which they excel, but it's not English. I don't get to see their kind of "smart." So many jobs want "good communication skills" but when the majority of students (who then go on to apply for said jobs) don't even recognize a complete sentence when they hear/see one.... well, all is lost! LOL! I mean I try my best, but damn. Some of them aren't ever going to "get it"..... not ever. I wish that didn't bother me. I always want to find SOME way SOME how to get them to understand, but then they are annoyed at extra "work" when they were content to fail and move on. Ho hum.

[wordsmith]

On the other hand, I work with people with JDs who I can write circles around.

[ugarachel82]

Good topic. Two things stuck out of your original post for me.

#1. No, I don't believe the classroom (ANY classroom in ANY school in ANY neighborhood, whether "good" or "bad" whatever that means) is an appropriate or even accurate representation of society as a whole. There just really is too damn much to generalize all of society into any given classroom, if that makes any sense at all.

Yes, children can be lazy and unmotivated, but part of that teacher's job is to train them not to be that way. I used to not think like this. I'm working with a couple of fabulous teachers right now who have convinced me otherwise. Not saying that this is an easy task at all. As you know, this (among many other reasons) is why teaching is so d*&^ hard to do and do well.

#2. Pushing all kids to college may not be the answer. That's also why teaching is so hard. Teachers, I think, must make it part of their job to determine how much to push and where to push. Part of this determination comes from knowing the kid. What he/she is into and wants to do. Particularly at the upper high school levels. I think working with elementary levels (as I tend to do) you can instill a general love of school and interest in school without becoming to specific to higher education. Of course my answer is going to be biased a little in that direction. Feel free to edit out what you don't agree with.

Just my thoughts on the subject, as I'm back to working in an elementary school (tutoring and providing general classroom assistance) without actually teaching. Love it, by the way. :)

[Krishna]

I try to picture what their lives will be like one day, since I'm near positive most of the ones I'm thinking of are NOT college-bound kids, and I wonder if they'd be real good at fixing my brakes one day or something. Nothing at all wrong with that, it's just that they aren't really getting much out of reading Hiroshima or To Kill a Mockingbird or learning about sentence structure then are they? They are the majority.

I have so few who are bright. So very few. And I'm in a "good" school in a community that's on Money Magazine's top ten list for "best places to live." This is my fourth year and my fourth set of secondary school kids. It's about the same rough percentage every year. About 20% of my kids are pretty sharp and will likely go to college. The other 80% are just not cut out for that. About 60% of that 80% do want to improve, but they are just not that good at academic stuff.

Is my classroom really a reflection of what society is? Are we really just that dumb? And, if so, we are most DEFINITELY doing a disservice to today's students by pushing them toward college when most will not make it there... or if they go to college, then certainly not all the way through to a degree. We have no economy to absorb those who don't make it. Why are we pushing for that? It is not attainable.


I often wonder whether these kids are just lazy, or haven't been reached yet. Not everyone responds well to traditional classroom environments. I'd say that most of the people in question aren't dumb- they just don't care, which is fine, but then we need to figure out what DOES grab them. I've found that if you can reach them in one aspect of their lives, they perk up substantially elsewhere. (Case in point the 5th grader I was working with today, who didn't do a single piece of work, and fought me on everything, until I figured out what interested him...and then he was golden.) As for pushing kids towards college? I am not saying that it is an end-all, be-all solution for everything. But given the chance, if I see a child with even an ounce of talent, I will do everything in my power to make sure that door remains open for them if they wish to pursue it.

[capella]

I often wonder whether these kids are just lazy, or haven't been reached yet. Not everyone responds well to traditional classroom environments. I'd say that most of the people in question aren't dumb- they just don't care, which is fine, but then we need to figure out what DOES grab them. I've found that if you can reach them in one aspect of their lives, they perk up substantially elsewhere. (Case in point the 5th grader I was working with today, who didn't do a single piece of work, and fought me on everything, until I figured out what interested him...and then he was golden.) As for pushing kids towards college? I am not saying that it is an end-all, be-all solution for everything. But given the chance, if I see a child with even an ounce of talent, I will do everything in my power to make sure that door remains open for them if they wish to pursue it.
I agree. The classroom doesn't "reach" all kids. But what's an individual teacher to do? You can vary lessons all the live long day, but we still operate under many, many constraints. There have been many students I've had that I could figure out what makes 'em tick and they would respond, but there are those who just don't. Ever. What do you do with the ones who don't respond? It makes me think of that Lincoln quote about not being able to please all of the people all of the time. I can't reach all of them all of the time. I want all my students to go as far as they can go, but I think we often delude ourselves into thinking everyone is going to be college-material and that's just not true. I don't want to be the one to decide that for them, but many of the kids I'm talking about have already made that decision and aren't veering off the not-gonna-finish-HS/college track.



Yes, children can be lazy and unmotivated, but part of that teacher's job is to train them not to be that way. I used to not think like this. I'm working with a couple of fabulous teachers right now who have convinced me otherwise. Not saying that this is an easy task at all. As you know, this (among many other reasons) is why teaching is so d*&^ hard to do and do well.

Hmmm, see I don't think this is always true. I think there are just kids who aren't going to respond no matter what you do. I could do a song and dance and still have kids who don't give a damn. I don't think the teachers can train them not to be lazy. At best I can assign a consequence (such as a poor grade or more work, or baby work, or no fun activity, or even the reverse... handing out rewards for work completed, etc.), but if they do not care about the consequence, (or potential rewards) they will not stop being lazy. The consequence is not enough to motivate them and they are not intrinsically motivated. I don't think teachers can reach ALL students. I wish I believed that still, but I don't. I will try (and try my hardest all year), but I have to be able to accept defeat at times. It's the only way to stay sane.


#2. Pushing all kids to college may not be the answer. That's also why teaching is so hard. Teachers, I think, must make it part of their job to determine how much to push and where to push. Part of this determination comes from knowing the kid. What he/she is into and wants to do. Particularly at the upper high school levels. I think working with elementary levels (as I tend to do) you can instill a general love of school and interest in school without becoming to specific to higher education. Of course my answer is going to be biased a little in that direction. Feel free to edit out what you don't agree with.

I agree with this part. I try to see who just needs a little push and a little pull. A bit of encouragement here and there. But there are always a handful out of over a hundred who will not be interested in being educated.

Congrats on the job BTW!

[redav]

When we say, "smart," to what is it being compared or measured?

People perform to the level they perceive to be expected.

What reason do they have to be 'smart?' If it not perceived by them to be a big deal, they won't do it. Hardly anyone even comes close to living up to their potential, so it isn't like we ever see what people are actually capable of.

If you look at it like natural selection, then those behaviors that are rewarding will be reinforced & developed while those that are not atrophy. For the most part, what perceived reward/reinforcement does our society give to kids who are smart?

[dacrunkest]

Honestly, I find it rather troubling that a teacher would refer to most of his/her students as "lazy and not smart". It's somewhat "Nurse Ratchedy" and defeatest. Teachers should have confidence in their students and inspire them to do well, regardless of their academic abilities.

I know you may be calling it like you see it, and I have no teaching experience. However, that's what I think.

[capella]

Honestly, I find it rather troubling that a teacher would refer to most of his/her students as "lazy and not smart". It's somewhat "Nurse Ratchedy" and defeatest. Teachers should have confidence in their students and inspire them to do well, regardless of their academic abilities.

I know you may be calling it like you see it, and I have no teaching experience. However, that's what I think.
Well, that's ALWAYS what people say when they hear anything remotely close to frankness from a teacher. I teach, but I am not blind. I am supposed to be super cheery and you can do everything because I'm a teacher. I'm supposed to believe everyone has such great potential because I'm a teacher. Well, that's just not always true.

I like to believe one day they will turn it around, but it may not be when I see them. I like to believe that they will get it eventually and find a path. But I fear many, many do not. They go on with their lives and stumble through exerting the least amount of effort into whatever it is they end up doing. It's so like that Office Space mentality. Most people only do enough to keep from being fired. It's not that much different in schools.

I find it more troubling that people expect such unrealistic notions from a teacher. Why is it such a bad thing to look around and be realistic about what the students will do? About what to expect from society? I will not lower my expectations of the level of work they need to meet to master the material in my class and I will not dumb it down. But I will drive myself up a wall if I constantly expect them to change behaviors that I have no control over... to make choices that I can't make them choose.

When 5 kids out of 25 turn in a simple homework assignment on a consistent basis.... when you assign 2 pages of reading at home and no one has done it... when you have an assignment to complete IN CLASS and there are those who just mess around and don't get anything done unless you stand over them the entire time... when it doesn't matter to some of them, even a little, how you present the material or what activities you do with it because there will always be those who just won't be bothered with it... well, I have to have a realistic expectation of the behavior of those kids.

If I keep expecting them to magically turn around and be motivated, I will be consistently disappointed. I can keep the standard to my level, but I can't keep feeling disappointed when they don't meet it because I can't make them. That's the truth. Sorry if it makes me seem like such a bad person, such a bad teacher, to say that. I think the teachers who feed people the lines of bullshit about how every student is soooo great, and how everyone can make it, and oh, if I just give a little more, we can reach them all, are full of crap. No, we can't save them all and I'm trying not to make myself crazy over it. Been there and done that.

But my question was more about how this extends to the greater population. If kids are this lazy and unmotivated, they had to learn that somewhere. Does this attitude bleed out into society?

[capella]

When we say, "smart," to what is it being compared or measured?

People perform to the level they perceive to be expected.

What reason do they have to be 'smart?' If it not perceived by them to be a big deal, they won't do it. Hardly anyone even comes close to living up to their potential, so it isn't like we ever see what people are actually capable of.

If you look at it like natural selection, then those behaviors that are rewarding will be reinforced & developed while those that are not atrophy. For the most part, what perceived reward/reinforcement does our society give to kids who are smart?
I was meaning more "smart" as in academically. I have some kids who aren't great in English, but they are awesome in other subjects. But most of the ones I really stress over (and shouldn't be stressing over since I've no control over it) bomb out across the board academically. I realize they are probably smart in other areas and that's fine.

But I also mean "smart" as in know how to get stuff done, motivated to complete something. Common sense kind of smart, too. I fear that is lacking in society and I wish it weren't so.

I don't think all people perform to the level that is expected. They perform enough to either avoid a consequence they don't desire, or enough to get a reward that they do desire. I think it really depends on who is holding the expectation and if they care about meeting it. If they don't care about school, they won't care what the teacher's expectation is. If they care about their job, then they will care what the boss expects, etc.

Honestly, I think our society rewards the mediocre, not the smart.

[nikorock28]

I think you are being too judgemental and trying to compare your kids with how you were at that age. You obviously ended up being an English teacher, so this is not a fair comparison at all. I think it is impossible to judge a person's ability on one lone English class as a teenager. The truth is you can be "successful" (which is relative in and of itself... what do you mean by successful?) without having perfect (or even decent) sentence construction or any knowledge of famous novels. The director of engineering for a company I worked for couldn't spell or write a functional sentence. The principal of my current office thought the Pilgrims and Columbus were the same era in American history.

[capella]

I think you are being too judgemental and trying to compare your kids with how you were at that age. You obviously ended up being an English teacher, so this is not a fair comparison at all. I think it is impossible to judge a person's ability on one lone English class as a teenager. The truth is you can be "successful" (which is relative in and of itself... what do you mean by successful?) without having perfect (or even decent) sentence construction or any knowledge of famous novels. The director of engineering for a company I worked for couldn't spell or write a functional sentence. The principal of my current office thought the Pilgrims and Columbus were the same era in American history.
It's probably true that I am expecting all of my students to be motivated to do well because I am that way in whatever it is that I take on. I agree with that. But I totally did not do well in HS so I am not comparing them to how I was. I had such a fucked up family life that I barely graduated. I had a 2.14 and went to a community college my first year. But it was not because I was lazy or didn't care about doing well. I did care. It's also true that some of them have the same issues. But not all. I just want 100% from them and I know that I'm not going to get it for whatever reason. It made me think and I think that I need to not expect 100% (if that makes me a bad teacher then so be it).

I'm just concerned for those who don't care about it at all. Or at least that's how they come off. And I wonder if they ever start to care. Are there those who just never, ever care? And is that a problem? Why are we pushing all these kids to meet the standards if it's not what they want to do and, what's more, if they will be fine eventually anyway? What about those people who never become successful and never try? Should I be worried about that? I used to be worried about that a lot, but I don't think it's helpful.

I don't have control over what the country/state/whoever expects with NCLB, but I do wonder if it's extremely wrong for these kids. I wonder if they should even be in my class because they will be lazy about it, not do well, and eventually go on to do whatever else. Shouldn't we be teaching those kids how to read a car manual or something instead of Romeo and Juliet? Who should be making that decision? The kid? The parent? The teachers? The school? Is it not just as bad to expect them all to be college material and make them all perform to that level as it is to "track" them? It's a total catch-22. I do get annoyed with the lazy ones, but I do think they just shouldn't be in the situation to not meet the expectation in the first place. It's frustrating for both of us.

[Krishna]

Well, that's ALWAYS what people say when they hear anything remotely close to frankness from a teacher. I teach, but I am not blind. I am supposed to be super cheery and you can do everything because I'm a teacher. I'm supposed to believe everyone has such great potential because I'm a teacher. Well, that's just not always true.

I like to believe one day they will turn it around, but it may not be when I see them. I like to believe that they will get it eventually and find a path. But I fear many, many do not. They go on with their lives and stumble through exerting the least amount of effort into whatever it is they end up doing. It's so like that Office Space mentality. Most people only do enough to keep from being fired. It's not that much different in schools.

I find it more troubling that people expect such unrealistic notions from a teacher. Why is it such a bad thing to look around and be realistic about what the students will do? About what to expect from society? I will not lower my expectations of the level of work they need to meet to master the material in my class and I will not dumb it down. But I will drive myself up a wall if I constantly expect them to change behaviors that I have no control over... to make choices that I can't make them choose.

When 5 kids out of 25 turn in a simple homework assignment on a consistent basis.... when you assign 2 pages of reading at home and no one has done it... when you have an assignment to complete IN CLASS and there are those who just mess around and don't get anything done unless you stand over them the entire time... when it doesn't matter to some of them, even a little, how you present the material or what activities you do with it because there will always be those who just won't be bothered with it... well, I have to have a realistic expectation of the behavior of those kids.

If I keep expecting them to magically turn around and be motivated, I will be consistently disappointed. I can keep the standard to my level, but I can't keep feeling disappointed when they don't meet it because I can't make them. That's the truth. Sorry if it makes me seem like such a bad person, such a bad teacher, to say that. I think the teachers who feed people the lines of bullshit about how every student is soooo great, and how everyone can make it, and oh, if I just give a little more, we can reach them all, are full of crap. No, we can't save them all and I'm trying not to make myself crazy over it. Been there and done that.

I am a trained teacher, though currently I am just substituting in local districts. I can say this: sometimes the turnaround is dramatic in some students from one year to the next, or from month to month. I don't necessarily feel that failing to do your homework makes you lazy. I've come across many kids where doing homework for my class just isnt their highest priority, for whatever reason. I've had:
-the kid that works 30 hours a week to help pay the family's bills
-the kid that's stuck babysitting their baby siblings because mom is working 2 jobs, and isn't around in the evening
-the latchkey kid who has nobody at home to model "achievement behaviors" for them.

I also have to acknowledge that to a certain extent, that not handing in assignments is typical teenager behavior. I did it myself several times. Was I unmotivated? No. But being a teenager is rough, and sometimes I had to prioritize between obligations.

As a teacher, I agree that everyone may not be college bound, M.D. material. But honestly, it bothers me a bit that you seem a little too accepting of the fact that you'll lose kids. Change has to start somewhere, and I've bent over backwards in the past to help students find their way. You can tell me I have rose colored glasses on- you wouldn't be the first, nor would you be the last- but each student I fail to reach is a dissapointment for me. Yes, it hurts, but for each student I can't reach, I know there's one I made a difference for, no matter how small.

[Krishna]

I don't have control over what the country/state/whoever expects with NCLB, but I do wonder if it's extremely wrong for these kids. I wonder if they should even be in my class because they will be lazy about it, not do well, and eventually go on to do whatever else. Shouldn't we be teaching those kids how to read a car manual or something instead of Romeo and Juliet? Who should be making that decision? The kid? The parent? The teachers? The school? Is it not just as bad to expect them all to be college material and make them all perform to that level as it is to "track" them? It's a total catch-22. I do get annoyed with the lazy ones, but I do think they just shouldn't be in the situation to not meet the expectation in the first place. It's frustrating for both of us.

I hate tracking in most forms, because it smacks of elitism. Also, I know how hard it can be to break out of a track- I was tracked into one level in middle school, and had to jump through a circus full of hoops to get out of it. As for teaching the kids to read a car manual instead of Romeo and Juliet...that is not a swap I'll ever advocate. Schools like the ones I'm working in succeed because they have a variety of options- shop classes, building/welding classes, family & consumer ed, and a whole slew of math/science choices. A school's job is to present options so that students have as much base knowledge as they can. It is not the school's job to decide that a kid needs a car manual instead of classic literature. But it IS the schools job to provide variety and alternatives- say, a modern lit class or a local lit class- in addition to the standard options. Or, maybe they just need to rethink what it critical to read in the schools. Does it matter if they read the complete works of Shakespear? Or does it just matter that they become proficient at reading- be that from Tom Clancy, John Grisham, or Tennessee Williams?

[capella]

I am a trained teacher, though currently I am just substituting in local districts. I can say this: sometimes the turnaround is dramatic in some students from one year to the next, or from month to month. I don't necessarily feel that failing to do your homework makes you lazy. I've come across many kids where doing homework for my class just isnt their highest priority, for whatever reason. I've had:
-the kid that works 30 hours a week to help pay the family's bills
-the kid that's stuck babysitting their baby siblings because mom is working 2 jobs, and isn't around in the evening
-the latchkey kid who has nobody at home to model "achievement behaviors" for them.

I also have to acknowledge that to a certain extent, that not handing in assignments is typical teenager behavior. I did it myself several times. Was I unmotivated? No. But being a teenager is rough, and sometimes I had to prioritize between obligations.

As a teacher, I agree that everyone may not be college bound, M.D. material. But honestly, it bothers me a bit that you seem a little too accepting of the fact that you'll lose kids. Change has to start somewhere, and I've bent over backwards in the past to help students find their way. You can tell me I have rose colored glasses on- you wouldn't be the first, nor would you be the last- but each student I fail to reach is a dissapointment for me. Yes, it hurts, but for each student I can't reach, I know there's one I made a difference for, no matter how small.

There has to be a line you draw eventually because if you are always disappointed at the ones you can't reach and you never accept that you are not superwoman (or superman) then you can easily get frustrated and burned out. Do it for several years and you'll see how much you can take. You have to be a bit numb to it at times because we are teachers, but we are human. I have to accept that they won't all meet the expectation in my class.

I do wonder if they need another expectation and the schools are not fulfilling that. I refuse to take responsibility for that, though. I did not make that mess and I will not feel about about it. I am not the one losing kids. The school is not set up to meet the needs of those kids so why is that my fault? It isn't and I refuse to take on the guilt of that.

And you're right. Change does have to start somewhere, but I don't think the change always has to be with the teacher. Sometimes they need to change or the school needs to change. You can't reach them all and you can't continue to feel bad about that or to delude yourself into thinking you can. I celebrate each and every one that makes a change and I try to expect them to come in and meet the expectation each day. But I cannot feel disappointed if they don't do so because it will kill me. (I know this from personal experience).

But this is about more than just the school room. All of it makes me think about how this translates into our society as a whole. That is where I am questioning the effect of all of this.

[capella]

A school's job is to present options so that students have as much base knowledge as they can. It is not the school's job to decide that a kid needs a car manual instead of classic literature. But it IS the schools job to provide variety and alternatives- say, a modern lit class or a local lit class- in addition to the standard options. Or, maybe they just need to rethink what it critical to read in the schools. Does it matter if they read the complete works of Shakespear? Or does it just matter that they become proficient at reading- be that from Tom Clancy, John Grisham, or Tennessee Williams?
I agree with you here, but the schools aren't always able to offer the choices. My school needs to add another period each day because of all the intensive classes some kids have to take to try to pass the state test. The kids in all intensive classes won't be able to get the credits to graduate if we don't change the schedule. How sad is that? The truth is that schools can't or don't always offer all of the options because there are so many external pressures. This does sort of tie in with the testing issue. Where do we balance it though? As a teacher, I can only do so much with the systemic constraints. I wonder about it as any good teacher would, but I do refuse to take on the burden personally (as I've done in the past and it burned me out).

[wordsmith]

Teachers don't like to hear this (and I didn't when I was teaching, either), but the truth of the matter is that your ability to "reach" the students who are hardest to reach (something most idealistic bleeding hearts strive for, and most lackluster and/or embittered teachers don't bother to try) has EXTREMELY little to do with the amount of effort you put in as an educator. If anything, it has to do with what you can do as a mentor/example/inspiration. And if your students have other factors in their lives, particularly their homelives, that are undoing any influence you have, or even just not backing it up, any "getting through," is going to be fluke and in small doses, and you have to be happy for what does manage to trickle through that barrier.

You have kids who are not motivated, and if they have significant factors in their lives that are influencing this more than the few hours a week they're in your class, you're fighting a losing battle 99 percent of the time. You may have a small percentage that you are able to influence against the odds, but it's not going to be every kid that you can work miracles with. A classroom teacher is, inspirational movies from "To Sir, With Love," to "Mr. Holland's Opus" be damned, MOST of the time NOT ABLE to counterbalance crappy parenting, shitty home influences, and a long-ingrained family or social ethic of just not giving a shit. Not all the time. Not even most of the time. Once in a while that happens. And that's the reason for doing the job.

But I really do think it is FAR more a matter of being unmotivated and disinterested, and having those attitudes strongly taught by example and reinforced at home, than it is anything involving actual intellect or ability, MOST of the time.

[capella]

Teachers don't like to hear this (and I didn't when I was teaching, either), but the truth of the matter is that your ability to "reach" the students who are hardest to reach (something most idealistic bleeding hearts strive for, and most lackluster and/or embittered teachers don't bother to try) has EXTREMELY little to do with the amount of effort you put in as an educator. If anything, it has to do with what you can do as a mentor/example/inspiration. And if your students have other factors in their lives, particularly their homelives, that are undoing any influence you have, or even just not backing it up, any "getting through," is going to be fluke and in small doses, and you have to be happy for what does manage to trickle through that barrier.

You have kids who are not motivated, and if they have significant factors in their lives that are influencing this more than the few hours a week they're in your class, you're fighting a losing battle 99 percent of the time. You may have a small percentage that you are able to influence against the odds, but it's not going to be every kid that you can work miracles with. A classroom teacher is, inspirational movies from "To Sir, With Love," to "Mr. Holland's Opus" be damned, MOST of the time NOT ABLE to counterbalance crappy parenting, shitty home influences, and a long-ingrained family or social ethic of just not giving a shit. Not all the time. Not even most of the time. Once in a while that happens. And that's the reason for doing the job.
Thank you for saying this. :-) That is exactly what I am talking about. Most people don't like to hear teachers saying anything remotely close to this because then you're labeled a "bad teacher" and people get nasty with you. I am doing my best to be more realistic this year. I am trying to be more content with the ones I do reach and not be so upset about the ones I don't. I am still trying to get to that point. I'm not there yet, obviously, as I'm sitting here on Saturday morning pondering the effect of all of this on society as a whole when I should be enjoying my coffee and going for a bike ride. ;)

[PenforPrez]

This is one of the biggest reasons I DON'T want to teach (which everybody seems to think I should). I don't see the value in trying to reach one or two potentially brilliant minds when you have SO MANY people you have to teach. It doesn't seem worth it to me. I cannot get people to understand that.

Paul

[and1grad]

cap, some people ARE just stupid; some are just lazy. Some both. I completely agree with just about everything you said, especially the part about society rewarding the mediocre. I think expectations are placed low so that meeting them is easier and rewards are easier to get. Besides, kids that dont care about going to college really dont have any incentive to do well. What do you think about some kind of cash incentives for good grades? Hasnt that been done in some cases? Did/does it work?

[capella]

cap, some people ARE just stupid; some are just lazy. Some both. I completely agree with just about everything you said, especially the part about society rewarding the mediocre. I think expectations are placed low so that meeting them is easier and rewards are easier to get. Besides, kids that dont care about going to college really dont have any incentive to do well. What do you think about some kind of cash incentives for good grades? Hasnt that been done in some cases? Did/does it work?
Ha! I think there isn't enough money in education as it is... to pay the kids to do what they're there to do? Hmmm. I am certain it would motivate many of the unmotivated, but it's not practical. I don't know if it's been tried, but I doubt it would last long if it had been tried. Thank you for not insinuating (or outright stating) that I'm a no-good for trying to have realistic expectations for what my efforts will bring forth. :) If I were really a no-good, then I wouldn't even be worrying/thinking/talking about any of it. ;)

[and1grad]

Honestly, the best teachers I ever had didnt blow smoke up kids' asses and they didnt put up with allowing students to bullshit their way through class. My cousin is a middle school teacher. She told me that one of her students was trying to be a hardass and refused to do the homework, so she made sure that the kid wasnt allowed to participate in their prom, or whatever. They also didnt let her get tickets to graduation. When the student's parents found out about that....let's just say her homework was never a problem again. Sometimes being tough and creative are the best ways to go.

[ebruening]

Honestly, the best teachers I ever had didnt blow smoke up kids' asses and they didnt put up with allowing students to bullshit their way through class. My cousin is a middle school teacher. She told me that one of her students was trying to be a hardass and refused to do the homework, so she made sure that the kid wasnt allowed to participate in their prom, or whatever. They also didnt let her get tickets to graduation. When the student's parents found out about that....let's just say her homework was never a problem again. Sometimes being tough and creative are the best ways to go.

I sponsor a club at the school where I work. It's a fun club - we go to conventions, and do lots of fun activities throughout the year. However, you can't have anything less than a D to be able to participate in any of the activities. To go to convention, you can't have anything less than a C for any of your final quarter grades. Kids who I never would have expected to join my club tell me that it's the only thing keeping them in school, and out of the 36 kids in my club, all of them currently have high enough grades to attend convention.

Most of my students are good kids. They might not be the brightest crayons in the box, but the vast majority of them really do try. I set my standards very high. Since I teach a core class - ninth grade English - my students know that they must pass my class in order to graduate. Instead of focusing on those kids (and their parents) who obviously don't care one way or another if they graduate from high school, I turn my focus toward those kids who struggle, but who also have the motivation to succeed. For those kids, a D might seem like the Congressional Medal of Honor, and I'll applaud those kids if they have tried to the best of their abilities, and still end up with a D in my class.

[AshleyJordan]

On the other hand, I work with people with JDs who I can write circles around.
Likewise. I work with some very highly educated senior staffers (who regularly misuse apostrophes ("apostrophe's") and misuse their and there, your and you're, and its and it's.

[Krishna]

Likewise. I work with some very highly educated senior staffers (who regularly misuse apostrophes ("apostrophe's") and misuse their and there, your and you're, and its and it's.

A year or so ago our secretary was let go with 24 hours notice, and since I was temp staff anyways, I was asked to fill in until they found a replacement. It took me a full week to retype the training manual she'd written ("their are to sets of document's under the table for you to use"), re-lable the filing system and "office supplie's" and to find and destroy all of the little notes she'd scattered around the building that had incorrect phrasing and punctuation. It drove me nuts.:rolleyes:


As for not burning yourself out over the kids who don't make it, Amy, I struggle. As a teacher I know that it is unreasonable to expect that educators bust their butts, bend over backwards, and feel disappointed when they can't get through to someone. When I have my kids in school though, you can bet that those teachers who DO take student's failures to heart and feel bad when they can't reach someone are the teachers I want for my kids. ;):

[capella]

Instead of focusing on those kids (and their parents) who obviously don't care one way or another if they graduate from high school, I turn my focus toward those kids who struggle, but who also have the motivation to succeed. For those kids, a D might seem like the Congressional Medal of Honor, and I'll applaud those kids if they have tried to the best of their abilities, and still end up with a D in my class.
I am still working on this talent. I think it is one of the hardest things to do as a teacher because I do focus too much on those who are giving me the least amount of effort and attention. I still get too down about those kids when they don't care and I'm trying my best to put my efforts into the kids who do care whether they learn something or not.

[wordsmith]

cap, some people ARE just stupid; some are just lazy. Some both. I completely agree with just about everything you said, especially the part about society rewarding the mediocre. I think expectations are placed low so that meeting them is easier and rewards are easier to get. Besides, kids that dont care about going to college really dont have any incentive to do well. What do you think about some kind of cash incentives for good grades? Hasnt that been done in some cases? Did/does it work?

When you're a kid, "society" rewarding the mediocre is really PARENTS and PEER GROUPS expecting nothing more than the mediocre. Parents are the ones with the expectations (or, in the cases of many, without the expectations) which kids attempt to rise to the challenge to meet. And when you have parents that don't value excelling, that's where you get self-fulfilling prophecies and cycles of unmotivated, lazy, disinterested individuals. You mention kids who don't care about going to college...they don't care about going to college, primarily, in most cases, because their PARENTS don't care about whether or not they go to college. And a teacher or two is going to do little in the face of such generationally-reinforced apathy. If the expectations aren't there at home, there's really no incentive for kids to meet some arbitrary outsider person's expectations.

Low expectations start at home.

Did I excel academically because I was encouraged in school? No. Hell no. I may have had a handful of inspirational teachers, and that's something of value, for sure, and I'm glad they were actually doing their jobs, for the sake of other kids, especially. But inspirational teachers or no, their encouragement didn't matter one whit compared to the messages I was getting IN THE HOME.

For most of my formal schooling, I didn't learn anything new, at least, not from my teachers, who were busy catching most of the others up to speed retreading stuff I already knew on my own. I excelled academically because I was encouraged BY MY PARENTS, taught that learning was fun and important and valuable, that being smart was something to be proud of, and that having a wide knowledge base was something that would benefit me in many ways. They taught me, exposed me to the opportunities to learn, and instilled in me an appreciation for learning new things and and interest in it. This is something, unfortunately, that many parents just don't do, don't have the capacity to do, don't care to do. And it shows.

[yankeeyosh]

Reading this thread reminds me of 'Fifth Grader' the other night, when this person spelled 'vowel' as 'V-O-U-L' (and slapped the button proudly after doing so).

I think a lot of this is perception. The average person in this country...and I mean the 50th percentile, graduated from high school, and maybe had a year or two of community college. A lot of the reason why is financial, but inability to do the work (and laziness) are also factors. Most people on these boards, and in 'professional roles', have bachelor's degrees or higher. Mostly, we worked hard, did whatever we could. We naturally pick our friends to those who have similar backgrounds, so it is generally more common for educated people to flock to other educated people. We don't see the "other half".

However, just because you don't have book smarts doesn't mean you are an imbecile. There are plenty of skilled workers out there who are expert electricians, plumbers, etc....and get paid well. They may not have been the cream of the crop in school, but they are good at what they do, and can make a solid living off of that. There's nothing wrong with that. It just frustrates me to no end when people say that college is the end-all-be-all. I also think that for many professional jobs, a degree isn't that important. Frankly, I hope that in the next 20 years or so, the proliferation of colleges ends, and schools scale down their enrollment...and I hope companies start "apprenticeship programs" so you can get trained to work in a professional environment without the prerequisite of this Almighty Degree which 95% of the time, is really meaningless in your day-to-day work. I think there are far too many people in college these days.

Laziness is a problem, granted, but I think this all starts at home. If parents don't motivate their kids to work hard, then more likely than not, the kids are not going to do so. There are exceptions, but they are not very common.

[red]

Laziness is a problem, granted, but I think this all starts at home. If parents don't motivate their kids to work hard, then more likely than not, the kids are not going to do so. There are exceptions, but they are not very common.

What really scares me is that I seem to meet a lot of people who don't have any life skills either. I mean academia isn't for everyone, but even among people who are college education and "book smart" it's like they can't balance a checkbook or cook a simple meal or use google to find information about XYZ. Seriously, by the time I was 10, I had chores to do in addition to being expected to do well in school. But then again my parents were teachers...

[Phoenix212]

When you're a kid, "society" rewarding the mediocre is really PARENTS and PEER GROUPS expecting nothing more than the mediocre.

Bingo.

In fact, if a kid is surrounded by people who expect mediocrity, there's a disincentive to excel. If the kid tries to excel, it's likely to alienate their peer group. It might even alienate the kid's family if the family expects mediocrity. Excelling in school is something that pays off in the future, by and large. So in the short term, excelling causes social disapproval without any payoff in return.

Even in the long term, the problem doesn't necessarily go away. Despite excelling, someone might still not get a very good job. As many people here have pointed out, it's often not what you know but who you know. So excelling without being in the same social circles as other people who excel might fail to pay off. OTOH, if excelling results in succeeding against all odds, this just alienates friends and family who expected mediocrity even more.

[redav]

There's a relevant experience I had when I was a TA.

I was grading lab reports, and what the students turned in was absolute garbage. The language and format was like they didn't speak English, and the technical information was as if they had never even heard of the class. Apparently, that level of work was adequate for their other classes.

The prof and I decided that it wasn't even worthy of being deemed "competent" (which corresponded to a C for me), and if that meant the whole class failed, then they failed. We couldn't justify passing people whom we felt could not do the work.

When the labs were handed back to them, they were understandably upset. I don't even know how many people told me how hard they worked & how much effort they put into their reports. I had to tell them that they were being graded on performance, not effort, and that when they get a job to build a bridge, and it falls down because they couldn't do the work adequately, no one would care how much effort they put into it.

The prof and I did the lab ourselves, I wrote a report and gave it to them for a reference of what was expected/required of them. When they found out that what they were doing wasn't going to cut it, and they knew what would be acceptable, the difference was like night and day. You wouldn't have guessed that the same people wrote those reports. I don't know what their motivations were, whether it was fear of failing or desire for a good grade or something else, but when it was made clear to them how much was required, they got fairly "smart" very quickly.

If society rewards mediocrity or if only the absolute base is required, then I would expect most people would be like those students--they will do the minimum. I don't think people in general are dumb, but I do think they are lazy.

[and1grad]

If society rewards mediocrity or if only the absolute base is required, then I would expect most people would be like those students--they will do the minimum. I don't think people in general are dumb, but I do think they are lazy.
You've got a good point here that I'm gonna piggyback on in reference to what I said earlier. I say that I think people are stupid. But I should preface that with that I think people CHOOSE to be stupid, which is largely b/c they're lazy.

yank, can you explain a little more of what you mean by the "other half?"

[capella]

You've got a good point here that I'm gonna piggyback on in reference to what I said earlier. I say that I think people are stupid. But I should preface that with that I think people CHOOSE to be stupid, which is largely b/c they're lazy.

I agree with this. That's really what I meant by the question that started this thread. I don't think people often are really lacking in ability... just lacking in motivation... which does contribute to a lack of ability eventually.

[yankeeyosh]

yank, can you explain a little more of what you mean by the "other half?"

What I mean is that most educated people aren't too close to those who do not have the same level of education. It might be different in areas of the country where education isn't as "valued", but at least in major cities, the vast majority of people with degrees would associate themselves with others with degrees. And a subset of that would be intelligence. Smart people tend to hang out with other smart people. So our point of view is based on people with a similar educational and intellectual level.

[wordsmith]

I would agree that smart people hang out with other smart people, overall. But "smart" does not necessarily = "degreed."

[yankeeyosh]

I would agree that smart people hang out with other smart people, overall. But "smart" does not necessarily = "degreed."

Exactly. And degreed doesn't necesarily mean smart.

[sondra_finchley]

Exactly. And degreed doesn't necesarily mean smart.

Point made; some of the dumbest people I have ever met/seen have been Harvard grads- without fail!