3 ms·
A major problem is testing new teaching methods in classrooms is risky and oftentimes extremely expensive, and much more so if the method doesn't quite worked o
by fiblye 16y ago
A major problem is testing new teaching methods in classrooms is risky and oftentimes extremely expensive, and much more so if the method doesn't quite worked out as planned. Instead of taking such a risk, school districts would more than likely pick up inexperienced teachers and have them do nothing but follow textbooks to the word, which is pretty much what's been happening the past few years.
Not having teachers at all simply doesn't work since many schools do more babysitting than teaching (or at least that was my experience with high school). For teacher-less teaching to work, you'd have to assume at least 9/10 students are self-motivated and are willing to do work without someone breathing down their back and, really, it's not going to happen.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>For teacher-less teaching to work, you'd have to assume at least 9/10 students are self-motivated and are willing to do work without someone breathing down their back and, really, it's not going to happen. Do you have any thoughts about why 90% of kids (by your statement, if I read it right) aren't able to motivate themselves to even behave in class never mind push themselves? To my mind this is a shortfall of the welfare system. I'd have no problem with cutting child focussed family allowances if a child is constantly absent, bullies, is persistently disruptive or is violent or abusive in school (without a doctors note pre-warning teachers of a mental condition, say). This needs a correspondingly strict youth offending policy and willingness to allow prisons to get very full in the short term in case there is a corresponding upturn in crime rates as unruly elements of society adjust to having less money because of their unsocial actions. I'd also cut compulsory education back to about 14years and offer more practical courses in place.