As a retired teacher of 30 years, I can't tell you how much money I have seen wasted on glitzy learning programs that are just fads and, after 2 or 3 million are spent on the programs and more money on teacher training in the program,
, are gone in just 2 or 3 years or less because (surprise, surprise) they don't work the way the salespeople say they will. The money could be much better spent on good teachers who are allowed to teach without the fancy programs that always include an interactive bulletin board, computer software that is either boring or doesn't work well, and manipulatives that are either used as toys or weapons by the kids or are lost in record time. Continued below
Yes, there are a few good programs, but my experience has been the best programs are those that are the simplest and least expensive. The best math program I ever used (and most effective) was Saxon math, but it was thrown out because it emphasized basic math and really learning the basic instead of all the fancy concepts kids will rarely use. Who cares if they can add, subtract, multiply, divide, and figure out a word problem as long as they know their arrays and transformations, right?
I found when I taught GT that the gifted kids hated the manipulatives and would ask if they "had to use" them. I put them away for the year. My own kids thought they were stupid also. In my experience, after a few minutes kids just play with them and learn nothing. The same is true with much of the group work.
The district where i used to work recently told teacher that only 10% of the day should be direct instruction and the rest group work. Again, the kids who care do the work in the group while the rest talk and play. Yes, the teacher can control this somewhat, but it is difficult to be in 4 or 5 groups at once. Many kids do not like or do well in groups because they are independent workers who don't like to have to wait for others or because they are slow workers or quiet or bossy.
As a retired teacher of 30 years, I can't tell you how much money I have seen wasted on glitzy learning programs that are just fads and, after 2 or 3 million are spent on the programs and more money on teacher training in the program,
Continued below in 2 posts
pjammin00 8 months ago
, are gone in just 2 or 3 years or less because (surprise, surprise) they don't work the way the salespeople say they will. The money could be much better spent on good teachers who are allowed to teach without the fancy programs that always include an interactive bulletin board, computer software that is either boring or doesn't work well, and manipulatives that are either used as toys or weapons by the kids or are lost in record time. Continued below
pjammin00 8 months ago
Yes, there are a few good programs, but my experience has been the best programs are those that are the simplest and least expensive. The best math program I ever used (and most effective) was Saxon math, but it was thrown out because it emphasized basic math and really learning the basic instead of all the fancy concepts kids will rarely use. Who cares if they can add, subtract, multiply, divide, and figure out a word problem as long as they know their arrays and transformations, right?
pjammin00 8 months ago
More people need to read "The Dumbest Generation." That book will blow your hair back. YET another american
pjammin00 8 months ago
I found when I taught GT that the gifted kids hated the manipulatives and would ask if they "had to use" them. I put them away for the year. My own kids thought they were stupid also. In my experience, after a few minutes kids just play with them and learn nothing. The same is true with much of the group work.
Cont. below
pjammin00 8 months ago
Continued -
The district where i used to work recently told teacher that only 10% of the day should be direct instruction and the rest group work. Again, the kids who care do the work in the group while the rest talk and play. Yes, the teacher can control this somewhat, but it is difficult to be in 4 or 5 groups at once. Many kids do not like or do well in groups because they are independent workers who don't like to have to wait for others or because they are slow workers or quiet or bossy.
pjammin00 8 months ago
Outstanding. This should be part of the teacher training curriculum in developing countires.
JBernard44 2 years ago