From Mike: A Solid Discussion

[Muadib]

Fortes In Fide Et Opere.

Careful how yuh a disparage di Intellectual Ghetto...

[Karl]

So you would like me to spell out our world class achievements in sports to compare with the failures in education?

Surely you jest.

Let's just agree to disagree.... ok?

Firstly - it cannot be about achievements in one field vs failures in another. It must be achievements vs achievements and failures vs failures? ...and the context must be within the stated "more emphasis on sports than on academics".

So do not run and hide? ...I beg you?

Secondly - Surely laying the bare facts before us would not hurt? Surely it would either support your conclusions and disprove mine or the reverse?

If I may paraphrase you as you point out to Maudib and many others as discussions rage here - It is lack of facts and being unable to support the argument made that has the poster turning to emotional and inane responses. Your "surely you jest" would fit comfortably in your opinion of those who "run and hide" without presenting supporting facts!

[Don1]

Karl;220628]Firstly - it cannot be about achievements in one field vs failures in another. It must be achievements vs achievements and failures vs failures? ...and the context must be within the stated "more emphasis on sports than on academics".

I see no need to be philosophical or pedantic.... one merely has to look at overall output & performance over time of the two subject areas to come to a conclusion

So do not run and hide? ...I beg you?

I might run ....but mi nah hide.

Secondly - Surely laying the bare facts before us would not hurt? Surely it would either support your conclusions and disprove mine or the reverse?

I have laid facts...I don't need to go beyond the 40%-50% rate or so of illiterate/semi-literate & innumerate Jamaicans. Reggaemike in his usual thorough manner has also cited stats.

If I may paraphrase you as you point out to Maudib and many others as discussions rage here - It is lack of facts and being unable to support the argument made that has the poster turning to emotional and inane responses. Your "surely you jest" would fit comfortably in your opinion of those who "run and hide" without presenting supporting facts![

LoL! Hoist by my own petard?


I think not. The facts are clear and the jury is in...in my book at least.

[Karl]

How do you explain the sporting and academic achievements of Jamaica compared to Singapore if not by the fact that sports holds more importance in our society than it does in Singapore and probably holds slightly more importance than academics overall?

Could it be we are currently better at sports and they are currently better at creating and managing their education system? ...and has nothing to do with emphasis but current competence in the various fields?

Could it be our education policy makers and the practitioners in the field are just not as competent as their counter-parts in Singapore? We are working hard but not in as sensible a manner as we should?

You do now I think we just are not working smart! The results show me the 'delivery of education' services is poor.

[Muadib]

The answer to your questions can be found in the Mona area.. there is a ghetto located there that is the source of much of what ails us..

[Don1]

The answer to your questions can be found in the Mona area.. there is a ghetto located there that is the source of much of what ails us..

Campion to ****************!!

Sarry...dats ongly the source of what ails the forum. LOL!!!!

[Muadib]

look like seh yuh did fail Geography tuh..

lol

[ReggaeMike]

ReggaeMike, There was a time whenever I had a teacher speak words similar to yours immediately above I would get so mad I was left shaking. Lost it totally.

If you believe as I do that - "If the child has did not learnt, it was the fault of the teacher", then you could understand where I am coming from.

I don't believe that.

Any form of human interaction is a two-way street. The teachers need to use the appropriate methods but children also need to show the necessary drive.

Let me put forward my outlook in a simplistic manner. Children are like sponges. They are inquisitive to a fault. They also learn best when that introduction to something new is associated with 'fun' and that inquisitiveness is 'satisfied' and a 'new challenge' is presented.

This is overly simplistic I think. Children are inquisitive but they are also people and can have the attention span of a goldfish if the topic does not interest them or if they are distracted. They also don't need everything to be fun in order to learn. I have young relatives who are aged 5-9 and they don't require everything that is taught to them to be packaged as "fun". Being beaten for misbehaving is certainly not fun and neither is being spoken in to in a sombre or serious tone. Sure they have fun and I try to make everything for them as fun as possible, but they do recognize what seriousness means and they do remember.

Children want to understand all to which they are introduced. When the math or science teach cannot make the subject 'fun' and presents 'new challenges' as 'fun' to satisfy that inquisitiveness the child becomes bored and 'turned off'. It is not that the child cannot learn it is The educators who move heaven and earth ruining the child.

Except this applies to very young children. CXC-CSEC is taken by teenagers. Why must teenagers be treated like 5 year olds? The entire process of growing up involves ceding more responsibility to the child/teenager/person in question. If teenagers aren't going to show some amount of responsibility and initiative then they will fail as adults.

It is the educator, particularly when the children are young, who must move heaven and earth imparting the knowledge in a manner that is 'fun'...that encourages learning! ...any method used that 'turns off' the child is not teaching...it is the marring of the child.

Then how do we account for the fact that over hundreds of years people learnt to read, write and know subjects in environments that were far from fun? How do we account for the high levels of literacy in places as diverse as Britain, America, Singapore and Germany? And this over centuries? Were children being taught language, math, physics, business, and chemistry to the tune of the latest religious hymn or popular song during this time? Were they not being taught in classrooms for hours? Are to we to assume that 18th Century German high schools were all about fun?

That 60% in Math, 50% in English Language and 47% English Lit. results that cause dissatisfaction is a reflection of the work - teaching or should I more accurately say, marring that goes on in our classrooms being touted as teaching.

I would disagree. First recall that it is 40% in Math (meaning 60% couldn't even get Grade III) and 50% in Language and 53% in Literature. Certainly some of the work of the teachers is substandard but from my own memories I can honestly recall classmates who I know had the potential to learn but responded to absolutely no teachers no matter what style was used (and they were exposed to practically all styles, from loving and fun to stern and strict). The fact is that some people are just lazy and others have been influenced by their home environment (or lack thereof) to view life in a certain way. Since the individual teacher isn't with the child 24/7 then what they may teach them for 1-3 hours for the day will pale in comparison to the what the child may pick up from the parent (or other frequent adults in the absence of parents) over the course of a weekend and in the crucial stages of childhood before the child even enters the school system.

The 96% acceptable pass rate in Phy. Ed....Yes, those results show the Phy. Ed teachers pass on the knowledge in a 'fun' way. They satisfy the children hunger for learning. They are good teachers.

PE it is hardly about passing on knowledge in a fun way. If they taught PE by using pen and paper then nobody would really learn PE. Math and English however requires pen and paper (that is if the child is to learn how to communicate without actually speaking). With PE the method used is the ONLY way to pass on the knowledge (since the knowledge is about physical activity) and that way just happens to be:

1. A way which mirrors what Jamaican society really loves

2. Involves children being left up to their own devices for the better part of 30 minutes or more within certain rules, rules which the children will normally observe anyway because the games themselves are fun.

If we take this theory to it's logical conclusion then what we are saying is that the best way to teach our children Math, English, Art, Science is by having them run around, get sweaty and some how incorporate the principles of those subjects in their activity. However, whilst this might work for simple concepts (e.g. count how many steps you take in running the hundred-metre dash) I can't see how it would work for more complex concepts (e.g. subject-verb-object order, the nitrogen cycle and techniques for painting and drawing).

Are we really going to say that all the PE teachers in Jamaica are good teachers but that the other teachers are rubbish? Yet these other teachers are the same types of teachers that will be drawn away by recruitment agencies and drives to teach in the US?

Aside: ReggaeMike your above answer points to where the problem lies, blaming the students for reflecting the poor work being done by the teachers.

When you have those high failure rates as reflected in Math, English Language and English Literature in the CSEC...it says, teachers you have failed. Policy makers you have failed. Please...Please...Please...do not blame the students for turning out 'not fun' Math, English Language or English Literature results.

What are you talking about? Everyone has failed. The teachers, policy makers AND the students. The teachers and policy makers do not take the tests for the students. Worse still, English should be amongst the easiest subjects out there because it is a subject which should be practiced by the students daily, indeed hourly or by the second. However, if said student only accesses reading material in the 1-3 hours of English language class each day (so maybe 5-15 hours per week) and then for the rest of the day and the week they only watch TV shows with poor English and hear their parents speaking poor English (or just patois instead of English) and if they aren't taught by their parents that reading is fun or essential and if the students don't have any drive or will to succeed then all that will happen is the student will fail. Are teachers then expected to give the students reading material outside of the classroom and the book list? What are the parents for in that instance? Why not just give the teachers custody of the child if they are going to be accorded all the responsibility? Then what of the child or teenager himself? At 14 there is no way any person should be not reading outside of their classroom and homework. If as teenager, a person isn't even going to show a modicum of self-awareness and self-responsibility then that person is not ready for society and will be dysfunctional (which is probably being reflected in our society today) and it is sheer fiction to maintain that they are somehow responsible adults and should be treated as such.

Why do you think the kids learn the latest song and the Phy Ed? It is fun and satisfies the hunger to learn "it"!!!

In addition it being fun, children will learn the latest songs because they are bombarded by them. It is quite possible that they spend more time listening to their favourite latest songs than they do actually reading.

[ReggaeMike]

Could it be we are currently better at sports and they are currently better at creating and managing their education system? ...and has nothing to do with emphasis but current competence in the various fields?

Could it be our education policy makers and the practitioners in the field are just not as competent as their counter-parts in Singapore? We are working hard but not in as sensible a manner as we should?

You do now I think we just are not working smart! The results show me the 'delivery of education' services is poor.

Or it could it be that the culture in Singapore emphasizes academic success whilst in Jamaica it latently gives a wink to mediocrity?

[Exile]

You were going good until that cellphone/book comparison...common Peter-R....
Just for your experimental design - why use 2 cars? Are the two cars the same model, age, colour? Why not put both items together on the same seat? Why use a car? How many people pass your gate? How many pass your gate that represent the population you are surveying.
My conclusions: pure illiterate cellphone tief and car-breakers pass your gate!!!

You could see I'm on holiday....wha happ'n to yu Thursday nite? A good time was had by all....

[Exile]

And your survey was????

[Karl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl
ReggaeMike, There was a time whenever I had a teacher speak words similar to yours immediately above I would get so mad I was left shaking. Lost it totally.

If you believe as I do that - "If the child has did not learnt, it was the fault of the teacher", then you could understand where I am coming from.

I don't believe that.

Any form of human interaction is a two-way street. The teachers need to use the appropriate methods but children also need to show the necessary drive.


Quote:
Let me put forward my outlook in a simplistic manner. Children are like sponges. They are inquisitive to a fault. They also learn best when that introduction to something new is associated with 'fun' and that inquisitiveness is 'satisfied' and a 'new challenge' is presented.
This is overly simplistic I think. Children are inquisitive but they are also people and can have the attention span of a goldfish if the topic does not interest them or if they are distracted. They also don't need everything to be fun in order to learn. I have young relatives who are aged 5-9 and they don't require everything that is taught to them to be packaged as "fun". Being beaten for misbehaving is certainly not fun and neither is being spoken in to in a sombre or serious tone. Sure they have fun and I try to make everything for them as fun as possible, but they do recognize what seriousness means and they do remember.

Quote:
Children want to understand all to which they are introduced. When the math or science teach cannot make the subject 'fun' and presents 'new challenges' as 'fun' to satisfy that inquisitiveness the child becomes bored and 'turned off'. It is not that the child cannot learn it is The educators who move heaven and earth ruining the child.
Except this applies to very young children. CXC-CSEC is taken by teenagers. Why must teenagers be treated like 5 year olds? The entire process of growing up involves ceding more responsibility to the child/teenager/person in question. If teenagers aren't going to show some amount of responsibility and initiative then they will fail as adults.


Quote:
It is the educator, particularly when the children are young, who must move heaven and earth imparting the knowledge in a manner that is 'fun'...that encourages learning! ...any method used that 'turns off' the child is not teaching...it is the marring of the child.
Then how do we account for the fact that over hundreds of years people learnt to read, write and know subjects in environments that were far from fun? How do we account for the high levels of literacy in places as diverse as Britain, America, Singapore and Germany? And this over centuries? Were children being taught language, math, physics, business, and chemistry to the tune of the latest religious hymn or popular song during this time? Were they not being taught in classrooms for hours? Are to we to assume that 18th Century German high schools were all about fun?

Quote:
That 60% in Math, 50% in English Language and 47% English Lit. results that cause dissatisfaction is a reflection of the work - teaching or should I more accurately say, marring that goes on in our classrooms being touted as teaching.
I would disagree. First recall that it is 40% in Math (meaning 60% couldn't even get Grade III) and 50% in Language and 53% in Literature. Certainly some of the work of the teachers is substandard but from my own memories I can honestly recall classmates who I know had the potential to learn but responded to absolutely no teachers no matter what style was used (and they were exposed to practically all styles, from loving and fun to stern and strict). The fact is that some people are just lazy and others have been influenced by their home environment (or lack thereof) to view life in a certain way. Since the individual teacher isn't with the child 24/7 then what they may teach them for 1-3 hours for the day will pale in comparison to the what the child may pick up from the parent (or other frequent adults in the absence of parents) over the course of a weekend and in the crucial stages of childhood before the child even enters the school system.

Quote:
The 96% acceptable pass rate in Phy. Ed....Yes, those results show the Phy. Ed teachers pass on the knowledge in a 'fun' way. They satisfy the children hunger for learning. They are good teachers.
PE it is hardly about passing on knowledge in a fun way. If they taught PE by using pen and paper then nobody would really learn PE. Math and English however requires pen and paper (that is if the child is to learn how to communicate without actually speaking). With PE the method used is the ONLY way to pass on the knowledge (since the knowledge is about physical activity) and that way just happens to be:

1. A way which mirrors what Jamaican society really loves

2. Involves children being left up to their own devices for the better part of 30 minutes or more within certain rules, rules which the children will normally observe anyway because the games themselves are fun.

If we take this theory to it's logical conclusion then what we are saying is that the best way to teach our children Math, English, Art, Science is by having them run around, get sweaty and some how incorporate the principles of those subjects in their activity. However, whilst this might work for simple concepts (e.g. count how many steps you take in running the hundred-metre dash) I can't see how it would work for more complex concepts (e.g. subject-verb-object order, the nitrogen cycle and techniques for painting and drawing).

Are we really going to say that all the PE teachers in Jamaica are good teachers but that the other teachers are rubbish? Yet these other teachers are the same types of teachers that will be drawn away by recruitment agencies and drives to teach in the US?


Quote:
Aside: ReggaeMike your above answer points to where the problem lies, blaming the students for reflecting the poor work being done by the teachers.

When you have those high failure rates as reflected in Math, English Language and English Literature in the CSEC...it says, teachers you have failed. Policy makers you have failed. Please...Please...Please...do not blame the students for turning out 'not fun' Math, English Language or English Literature results.
What are you talking about? Everyone has failed. The teachers, policy makers AND the students. The teachers and policy makers do not take the tests for the students. Worse still, English should be amongst the easiest subjects out there because it is a subject which should be practiced by the students daily, indeed hourly or by the second. However, if said student only accesses reading material in the 1-3 hours of English language class each day (so maybe 5-15 hours per week) and then for the rest of the day and the week they only watch TV shows with poor English and hear their parents speaking poor English (or just patois instead of English) and if they aren't taught by their parents that reading is fun or essential and if the students don't have any drive or will to succeed then all that will happen is the student will fail. Are teachers then expected to give the students reading material outside of the classroom and the book list? What are the parents for in that instance? Why not just give the teachers custody of the child if they are going to be accorded all the responsibility? Then what of the child or teenager himself? At 14 there is no way any person should be not reading outside of their classroom and homework. If as teenager, a person isn't even going to show a modicum of self-awareness and self-responsibility then that person is not ready for society and will be dysfunctional (which is probably being reflected in our society today) and it is sheer fiction to maintain that they are somehow responsible adults and should be treated as such.


Quote:
Why do you think the kids learn the latest song and the Phy Ed? It is fun and satisfies the hunger to learn "it"!!!
In addition it being fun, children will learn the latest songs because they are bombarded by them. It is quite possible that they spend more time listening to their favourite latest songs than they do actually reading.

If you re-read what you have written you will see that in many cases you are proving what I have said about the delivery of 'education' as the root cause of our problems. In many cases I could not have said it any better than you did - It just cannot be the students who are fault.

Let us go slowly -
Questions: Who sets policy? Who creates the environment in which learning best occurs? Who actually decides on methods to pass on knowledge and encourage 'asking of questions', solving problems, introduction to new ideas, critical thinking, repetitive re-enforcement, etc., etc. ...and the life habit of pursuit knowledge?

Answer: Those who must deliver (the services that cause learning - develops the child to become the eternal learner).

btw - English can be tricky. I said - the failure rate in the subjects you named was the result of failure to 'deliver the education' appropriately and in appropriate environment. You then turned around and said (implied?) I something else and restated the exact thing I had said...not verbatim but in your words.

I said

That 60% in Math, 50% in English Language and 47% English Lit. results that cause dissatisfaction is a reflection of the work - teaching or should I more accurately say, marring - that goes on in our classrooms being touted as teaching.

...you then repeated by saying..

I would disagree. First recall that it is 40% in Math (meaning 60% couldn't even get Grade III) and 50% in Language and 53% in Literature.

...ooohhh your Math is off on Literature. That figure in your sentence should be 47%!

...and *"fun" = 'grabs' the students attention!
I will add - Unless the child **"fell on its head", that child has the ability to be TOP OF THE WORLD CLASS in every subject.

*It is the teacher's job to make learning "fun". There is a moral obligation to ensure the child learns...and oooh yes although the students at higher institutions of learning take onto themselves great responsibility to work at understanding --- learning, that does not absolve the 'teacher' of responsibility to create 'best learning environment'....to get the subject matter delivered!

If it were not so...what use 'teacher' (or whatever name that individual is called)?

**physical or mental health anomaly...impediment.

[ReggaeMike]

If you re-read what you have written you will see that in many cases you are proving what I have said about the delivery of 'education' as the root cause of our problems. In many cases I could not have said it any better than you did - It just cannot be the students who are fault.

And this is the fundamental point of disagreement - that students are blameless. Treating them as though they have no responsibility at all for themselves only encourages the kind of society where people believe it is someone else's responsibility to clean up their mess. So they have babies and expect "support". They walk around idle and expect "support". In essence we have a society of adult 2-year olds. There is no way that students cannot be totally blameless by the time they reach their teenage years which is when they sit CXC-CSEC.

Let us go slowly -
Questions: Who sets policy? Who creates the environment in which learning best occurs? Who actually decides on methods to pass on knowledge and encourage 'asking of questions', solving problems, introduction to new ideas, critical thinking, repetitive re-enforcement, etc., etc. ...and the life habit of pursuit knowledge?

Answer: Those who must deliver (the services that cause learning - develops the child to become the eternal learner).

All well and good, but that still doesn't provide a reason as to why people from eras as different as 1900s Singapore and 1800s France (with the Revolutionary and Napoleanic Wars no less) can experience constantly declining illiteracy whilst methods which most certainly would never be categorized as "fun" were employed (after all these are similar methods as generally employed in Jamaica).

btw - English can be tricky. I said - the failure rate in the subjects you named was the result of failure to 'deliver the education' appropriately and in appropriate environment. You then turned around and said (implied?) I something else and restated the exact thing I had said...not verbatim but in your words.

Actually for your theory to prove correct we need to show that the English levels have been as poor for GSAT as the corresponding CSEC results. So for 2009 CSEC results we need to see that the 2004 GSAT results were just as poor or not much better to prove that the over-riding problem is the policy and not the society (including what little responsibility students have for themselves). If on the other hand we had say 75% doing well in English for GSAT in 2004 and 50% in CSEC for 2009 then one can hardly blame the teachers since if a 10 year old has a good command of English there is no way they would find English language "tricky" in high school since they've already learned the basic foundations of the language such as grammar, spelling, referring to a dictionary, some parts of speech, etc.

I said ...you then repeated by saying.....ooohhh your Math is off on Literature. That figure in your sentence should be 47%!

Ah, now I see. You were quoting the percentage who failed as the "results". I reiterated the results as actually stated by the CXC press release.

...and *"fun" = 'grabs' the students attention!
I will add - Unless the child **"fell on its head", that child has the ability to be TOP OF THE WORLD CLASS in every subject.

*It is the teacher's job to make learning "fun". There is a moral obligation to ensure the child learns...and oooh yes although the students at higher institutions of learning take onto themselves great responsibility to work at understanding --- learning, that does not absolve the 'teacher' of responsibility to create 'best learning environment'....to get the subject matter delivered!

If it were not so...what use 'teacher' (or whatever name that individual is called)?

Well, why not outline this "best learning environment" for me and tell me what it is that Jamaica is doing differently. The PE results themselves would indicate that the best environment is outdoors, but how is that practical?

Plus how are you going to grab a student's attention for say reading passages if a student NEVER reads a book outside of the classroom and hardly has any exposure to proper English outside of the classroom? How will the teacher grab the student's attention when said students parents don't care about their child's English and frequently attend sports events and shower accolades on sporting success yet never once admonish said child for using improper English?

[Karl]

And this is the fundamental point of disagreement - that students are blameless. Treating them as though they have no responsibility at all for themselves only encourages the kind of society where people believe it is someone else's responsibility to clean up their mess. So they have babies and expect "support". They walk around idle and expect "support". In essence we have a society of adult 2-year olds. There is no way that students cannot be totally blameless by the time they reach their teenage years which is when they sit CXC-CSEC.

If you by your delivery inculcate terrible habits...then your results shall reflect that. ...then you have those who were they recipients of those bad habits becoming the "new 'inclucaters". That puts the country on the 'down escalator'.

It is fact that the very young are always eager to learn ALL things around them. Not so as they get older.

All well and good, but that still doesn't provide a reason as to why people from eras as different as 1900s Singapore and 1800s France (with the Revolutionary and Napoleanic Wars no less) can experience constantly declining illiteracy whilst methods which most certainly would never be categorized as "fun" were employed (after all these are similar methods as generally employed in Jamaica).

I said this already but I shall repeat. Could it be that in the countries you reference that even as it is known that methods were inferior to what holds today those country's were 'miles' ahead of what we enjoyed (employed) in Jamaica? Would they not have had a head start on us...that even to this day puts them 'jumps' ahead in delivery of education and therefore results?

Actually for your theory to prove correct we need to show that the English levels have been as poor for GSAT as the corresponding CSEC results. So for 2009 CSEC results we need to see that the 2004 GSAT results were just as poor or not much better to prove that the over-riding problem is the policy and not the society (including what little responsibility students have for themselves). If on the other hand we had say 75% doing well in English for GSAT in 2004 and 50% in CSEC for 2009 then one can hardly blame the teachers since if a 10 year old has a good command of English there is no way they would find English language "tricky" in high school since they've already learned the basic foundations of the language such as grammar, spelling, referring to a dictionary, some parts of speech, etc.

...and why would they not if the policy makers, teachers and thus society had not improved on quality delivery - (methods awful...they bore the kids and turn them off plus they also were in many cases repeating the deep seated 'inaccurate knowledge' and marring the students with same) - reinforcement was sub-standard?

I think you are bogged down by thinking you are in an elite group. Your elite group is, in your mind, the can learn very well set. You think there is another group, not of the elite group, and in your mind that group is, the cannot learn very well set. You said it previously and that thread runs throughout your arguments.

We all at birth have the same capacity to learn...unless, as I previously pointed out, "wi drap pan wi ead"!

If you can overcome that bias that leads you to think some of us can learn and some of us cannot and accept we are all equal in ability to learn then and only then will you start questioning the 'delivery of education' as the problem. You will turn to making improvements in delivery - methods and environs.

Ah, now I see. You were quoting the percentage who failed as the "results". I reiterated the results as actually stated by the CXC press release.

Yes!

Well, why not outline this "best learning environment" for me and tell me what it is that Jamaica is doing differently. The PE results themselves would indicate that the best environment is outdoors, but how is that practical?

Best environment - Has teacher in full command of the subject. Has teacher with great powers of observation - Need to be able to see when the student is 'troubled'...all instances when the student is 'troubled'.

Psychological manner.

...and Physical manner! Needs as it relates to nutrition, adequate sleep, and in every which way that has an effect on the student's mind-set ability to learn. Yes...that will also spill over into recognizing that the method which has, say 20% of the class having 'fun' and advancing at warp speed is inappropriate for the other 80% and the teacher then must do something about changing the method used to 'deliver' and move to finding the methods that make it 'fun' for all in his or her 'teaching environ'.

If the child has not learnt, the teacher has not taught.

Plus how are you going to grab a student's attention for say reading passages if a student NEVER reads a book outside of the classroom and hardly has any exposure to proper English outside of the classroom? How will the teacher grab the student's attention when said students parents don't care about their child's English and frequently attend sports events and shower accolades on sporting success yet never once admonish said child for using improper English?

If the child...the student never reads outside of the classroom the teacher is at fault. The reading in the classroom was not as stimulating as it should have been to 'grab' that child and lead the child to reading outside of the classroom.

Aside: Perhaps, the reading material should in many instances be about sports...and perhaps 'sports analogies' need to be more often used in the classroom.


We know the total environment in which our students find themselves. If we do not work to...and in fact provide the solutions that have even the student who lives on the road (homeless)...or the one who lives in an area where guns bark all night...or the other where the parent (or parents) believe vast amounts of time must be used in the fields...or whatever deterrent to learning or the combination of deterrents that are the obstacles to 'delivering education' and encouraging learning...then we - policy makers, teachers, etc. have failed. We are, as fact, marrers!

It is not a matter of 'throwing hands in the air' and saying 'we can do no more than that we have been doing'...it is we must do the right thing. We must delivery quality education.

Blaming the students is a cop out. It is a cop out perhaps rooted in our acceptance of the poor delivery of education we saw all around. Perhaps selfishness that makes for thinking those born into wealth and those born in 'high status' are born with an ability to learn the mass were not born with. Perhaps it is the selfish and silly belief that we were born bright and Tom was born dunce.

There is no compassion for Tom or consideration of the circumstance of his birth and its impediment to his use of his innate gift to learn. There is no realisation of need to find policies, 'methods of delivery'...making best the environs within which he must learn. There is not enough effort being put on creating an environment that is even close to the 'sports classroom'.

Yup! ...just as the delivery of 'sports' by the sports teacher 'grabs' the students...so the the 'delivery of academics' by the teacher of academics must be delivered in a manner that 'grabs' his/her students. If it does not happen - it is the policy maker, the teacher, etc...who has failed, not the child!

Walk into a classroom and see attentive smiling faces and you know teaching and learning is occurring. Walk into another and see pained concern, fright, boredom on faces and you know you have walked into a classroom where 'failure' is thick in the air.

Blaming the student is a cop out!

btw - We have moved from the saying on "more emphasis is placed on sports than on education".We have high-jacked the thread.

[Mosiah]

I will add - Unless the child **"fell on its head", that child has the ability to be TOP OF THE WORLD CLASS in every subject.

woiee!

a lot of kids have fallen on their heads, i guess!