Emotional needs of our students

[Anonymous]

Unreasonable expectations by schools AND parents, is what leads to extreme stress and depression. It's obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher and I have been trying to figure this out this year. Something has changed. I've been in teaching for ten years and I've noticed the change on several levels. They are stressed out. Part of that stress comes from a fundamental lie they are being told: they won't be successful if they don't get into the top school. I pointed out that they could go to NOVA, save money, be in smaller classes, and then go on to the four-year schools and they'd have the same degree - and they were shocked! They are over scheduled, which leads me to another point: as a whole, they are not better students as the kids ten years ago. Of course I have very good students that are the exceptions, but most of the students in my honors level class procrastinate, make excuses, etc...There were always some students like this, but they understood that they didn't earn an A, and there was no argument. Now, they try to pressure you into grades they didn't earn, and when that doesn't work, they get their parents involved with pleas that usually involve getting in to colleges.
Where does that pressure come from? Probably society, but I think it is a parent's job to let them know that they love them unconditionally and help their kid overcome that pressure - not add to it. I had a kid tell me at the beginning of the year that he must earn A's because when he didn't get into TJ, his father didn't speak to him for a month.

I tuink you said it best of all the posters, yet it doesn't seem as if this is the message the posters want to hear.

No, they don't! Did anyone notice that this very sensible, informative, helpful comment was followed by parents bickering over whether UVa is a safety school?

Teacher, I don't know how you dea
l with these people. I really don't. Thank you for at least trying to instill some real-world wisdom into their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the kid from Buchanan County have AP courses, SAT study class, private tutors and multiple opportunities to take the SAT and ACTs? Did the same kid have the time and opportunity to play club volleyball, train with professional coaches and play tournaments all over the world? Has the kid seen in person the Taj Mahal, the Himeji Castle and attend the Pope's Easter Mass? I could go on and on and on.
So, yeah, if that kid gets an advantage in college admissions, I won't cry foul.

Apparently, yes http://www.wyzant.com/Buchanan_County_VA_ap_economics_tutors.aspx

So wealthy kids should be penalized. Got it. By the way? My kids have done none of those things. My husband helps with math and science. They are not world-traveled and do not train with coaches or play tournaments all over the world. Matter of fact, none of my friends kids have, though some have gone on service trips.

I'm beginning to see the animosity towards kids from schools like Langley, from some in Northern VA and from some teachers. No wonder these kids feel it!

Your kid had not SAT prep at all? No opportunity to take the test more than once? No AP classes? Interesting.
Some consider it "leveling the playing field" to give an advantage (not a penalty for those more fortunate). But I see you disagree but why?
What's your point about animosity? Where did that come from?

No prep. None. Nada. They study on their own. No AP classes to date. My daughter might take some senior year. Buchanan County offers them too, by the way, AND tutoring if you choose. That's just not how we roll in our household. Sorry to disappoint.

And poorer kids can get fee waivers from the SAT board:

http://sat.collegeboard.org/register/sat-fee-waivers

So you sound very calm about the whole college thing. What then is the problem? Why are you simultaneously so calm that you take a completely nada approach to prep, etc, and yet so stressed out that your kid might not get into a top college? Why are you here worrying about your kids' emotional needs?

I'm not stressed my kid won't get into a top college. I don't know where you got that. I'm concerned because so many kids from Langley have come to me to express their stress, their unhappiness, and so many local professionals have expressed how stressful the environment is.

I see the issue here. You can't fathom that it's not just about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking from experience as someone who has taught in California and also had my own children as students in that state, tenured teachers coasting to retirement are the very last people in a school that you need to worry about putting undo pressure on or destroying the fragile self esteem of students.

You who keeps blaming them is barking up the wrong tree without a doubt.

My friend, who has taught in CA for 20 years, begs to differ. She has sat on teams where they want to bring back ebonics and/or is told that she must grade improper English as correct because the bar must be lowered for these students. She refuses. She gets kids pushed through the system (she teaches 6th grade), thrown at her, with a 'good luck with this one'. As she put it, she's just narcissistic enough to want to prove those teachers wrong. And she does EVERY time. By the time those kids leave her classroom, they are prepared for 7th grade - she has brought some up multiple grade levels simply by changing how she teaches those children. And she has large classes - no excuse, she says. I have personally sent her iPads and other tools when she can't get them from the district. She does a lot of tactile projects. She had one kid who thought he was a failure, was always in detention, etc. Within two weeks she had pinpointed a suspected learning disability, set up testing, and had it confirmed. Kid went from failing to straight As. He was plenty smart - why didn't the other teachers notice or care? Did the parents care? Yes. They were Asian and spoke very little English and had no idea what was going on. They were at a loss. The administration didn't reach out to them. The guidance counselor did not reach out to them. The school board did not reach out to them. My friend did.

And THAT'S how you fix a school. By keeping teachers like my friend and getting RID of those that aren't.

This year, she happens to have the student of a parent who is a very famous businessman. She had no idea until he contacted her after her 'welcome to my classroom, this is how I teach' letter. She caught his attention in very positive ways. This should get good.

That's all very interesting, but what do teachers like this have to do with stressful educational environments in schools like Langley? Are you saying that kids at Langley are stressed out because some of their teachers are trying to teach Ebonics? Are you saying that they are stressed out because Langley teacher expectations are too low? Or...?

I'm saying that the administration doesn't handle difficult parents well, and allows them to bulldoze through the door, changing the climate of the school. In contrast, Cooper does a much better job with the same parents.

Teachers like my friend change lives. When they see a failing kid, they look for reasons why. They don't expect less from a kid because of his race or socioeconomic background.

It's not about high or low expectations in the way you are phrasing it. It's about demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking from experience as someone who has taught in California and also had my own children as students in that state, tenured teachers coasting to retirement are the very last people in a school that you need to worry about putting undo pressure on or destroying the fragile self esteem of students.

You who keeps blaming them is barking up the wrong tree without a doubt.

My friend, who has taught in CA for 20 years, begs to differ. She has sat on teams where they want to bring back ebonics and/or is told that she must grade improper English as correct because the bar must be lowered for these students. She refuses. She gets kids pushed through the system (she teaches 6th grade), thrown at her, with a 'good luck with this one'. As she put it, she's just narcissistic enough to want to prove those teachers wrong. And she does EVERY time. By the time those kids leave her classroom, they are prepared for 7th grade - she has brought some up multiple grade levels simply by changing how she teaches those children. And she has large classes - no excuse, she says. I have personally sent her iPads and other tools when she can't get them from the district. She does a lot of tactile projects. She had one kid who thought he was a failure, was always in detention, etc. Within two weeks she had pinpointed a suspected learning disability, set up testing, and had it confirmed. Kid went from failing to straight As. He was plenty smart - why didn't the other teachers notice or care? Did the parents care? Yes. They were Asian and spoke very little English and had no idea what was going on. They were at a loss. The administration didn't reach out to them. The guidance counselor did not reach out to them. The school board did not reach out to them. My friend did.

And THAT'S how you fix a school. By keeping teachers like my friend and getting RID of those that aren't.

This year, she happens to have the student of a parent who is a very famous businessman. She had no idea until he contacted her after her 'welcome to my classroom, this is how I teach' letter. She caught his attention in very positive ways. This should get good.

Well, then your friend is not a tenured teacher skating to retirement.

Ask her about those. I am sure she has many stories of this kind of teacher.

I have seen those teachers come to school, get their coffee, read their paper, take naps during class, and not give a single bit of classwork for the entire year. I have seen the president of the teachers union come to school, pop in a movie (rated R in some cases, such as the movie Seven), every single day and call it a high school psychology class. Both of those teachers were untouchable. One got paid off by the district to take early retirement; the district looked the other way with the president of the teachers union, in spite of constant parent complaints. I could go on and on.

There are many teachers in that state who are wonderful, dedicated professionals, but there are just as many tenured teachers who know they can't be fired, short of getting caught molesting a child.

Your friend is not the standard, she is the exception.

And if dcum parents are bitching about tenured teachers putting too much pressure on the kids, they really don't know what the hell they are talking about.

And of course the irony is that these kinds of teachers are far more likely to be found in failing schools than in schools like Langley.

It is positively hilarious that this is even a topic of discussion. Teacher tenure is what leads to student stress? LMAO.

That's an odd conclusion to draw. Logic please, not emotion. Will serve you well.

Tenure leads to job security for the teacher, which means that bad teachers become very hard to fire. Children do suffer when teachers can't teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quotes got messed up - this was my reply:

I never said that. You know it. You are twisting it because you or someone else like yourself admitted that you feel the bar should be lowered because these kids can't be expected to get in on their own merit. I, on the other hand believe they can.

When you have people like yourself legislating on this belief, the net result is one group has to work much harder than another for the same benefit. And you think that's not stressful? How do you feel when one or two people on your team don't do their share of the work and you have to work overtime and weekends to make up for it. Pretty damn stressed, right?

I absolutely do not think the bar should be lower for black and Hispanic kids. I think they should be held to the same standards as whites and Asians. I also don't think that white kids with lower scores than Asian kids should get in over the more qualified Asian kid, which is happening more frequently now. The kids in this area are more stressed about competing with their white and Asian peers, and about fulfilling their parents' expectations , than about whether a Hispanic kid from Jeb Stuart will take their spot at their school of choice. This victim mentality you are espousing is just as detrimental as the lower threshold that you are arguing against. I most certainly will not be teaching my kids anything of that nature, and they will be better off for it.

They don't see that. Those biases towards them are 'under the hood'. They don't understand why they are competing with each other for those coveted spots, that the reason is, is because of the politics of fairness.

There is no victim mentality. It's simply the truth. When kids find out that there are other factors at play, they are actually relieved because they realize that some of it is not in their control, and never was. They then begin to accept that these schools aren't 'all that' and that there are plenty of other schools out there for them that are wonderful. THAT is what relieves their stress.

I hope you are as passionate about fairness for Asian students and as outspoken against legacies with lower scores. I doubt either is true.

Indeed I am. I don't like the idea of legacies at all. AT ALL. Get in on your own merit. Regarding Asian students, I thought they were considered white on college apps and not given minority status?

Asian kids are not considered white on college apps, they are considered Asian. Because so many of them do so well academically, they generally have to do better than white kids to get in because they are in effect treated as their own subpool. Because of the Asian penalty, some Asian kids choose not to put their ethnicity on college apps. Also, if you don't like legacies at all, and the schools many of the kids you are talking about want to go to have significant numbers of legacies, why didn't your rant include just as extensive condemnation of legacies as lower thresholds for minorities? If you are all about fairness, I suggest next time you spend equal time on (1) condemning the fact that Asian kids are being passed over for less qualified white kids and therefore are stressed out and those white kids need to get in on their own merit; (2) Legacies, who are mainly white, should not be given any advantage over other kids, they need to get in on their on; and (3) Minorities should not have lower thresholds and should get in on their own merit. You might also want to call any college your kid gets into and ask if any more qualified Asian kids was passed over and reject the spot if there is.

[Anonymous]

3 24 The oddness is the poster who repearedly said that tenured teachers are causing all the undo pressure on Fairfax County high school students.

That is the most laughable thing I have heard in a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3 24 The oddness is the poster who repearedly said that tenured teachers are causing all the undo pressure on Fairfax County high school students.

That is the most laughable thing I have heard in a long time.

NP. No need to be extreme, so let's be accurate. Tenured teachers can cause unique chalenges, aka problems.

[Anonymous]

So the last 3 pages or so are from the same tired poster who pulled her kid out of Langley and into private school and life seemed rosey. Until she learned that underprivileged kids and URMs have an edge over her kid in college admissions? Now she advocates those kids not be given an advantage and her kid penalized? And also brags that there's zero SAT prep in her house cause that's now how they roll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quotes got messed up - this was my reply:

I never said that. You know it. You are twisting it because you or someone else like yourself admitted that you feel the bar should be lowered because these kids can't be expected to get in on their own merit. I, on the other hand believe they can.

When you have people like yourself legislating on this belief, the net result is one group has to work much harder than another for the same benefit. And you think that's not stressful? How do you feel when one or two people on your team don't do their share of the work and you have to work overtime and weekends to make up for it. Pretty damn stressed, right?

I absolutely do not think the bar should be lower for black and Hispanic kids. I think they should be held to the same standards as whites and Asians. I also don't think that white kids with lower scores than Asian kids should get in over the more qualified Asian kid, which is happening more frequently now. The kids in this area are more stressed about competing with their white and Asian peers, and about fulfilling their parents' expectations , than about whether a Hispanic kid from Jeb Stuart will take their spot at their school of choice. This victim mentality you are espousing is just as detrimental as the lower threshold that you are arguing against. I most certainly will not be teaching my kids anything of that nature, and they will be better off for it.

They don't see that. Those biases towards them are 'under the hood'. They don't understand why they are competing with each other for those coveted spots, that the reason is, is because of the politics of fairness.

There is no victim mentality. It's simply the truth. When kids find out that there are other factors at play, they are actually relieved because they realize that some of it is not in their control, and never was. They then begin to accept that these schools aren't 'all that' and that there are plenty of other schools out there for them that are wonderful. THAT is what relieves their stress.

I hope you are as passionate about fairness for Asian students and as outspoken against legacies with lower scores. I doubt either is true.

Indeed I am. I don't like the idea of legacies at all. AT ALL. Get in on your own merit. Regarding Asian students, I thought they were considered white on college apps and not given minority status?

Asian kids are not considered white on college apps, they are considered Asian. Because so many of them do so well academically, they generally have to do better than white kids to get in because they are in effect treated as their own subpool. Because of the Asian penalty, some Asian kids choose not to put their ethnicity on college apps. Also, if you don't like legacies at all, and the schools many of the kids you are talking about want to go to have significant numbers of legacies, why didn't your rant include just as extensive condemnation of legacies as lower thresholds for minorities? If you are all about fairness, I suggest next time you spend equal time on (1) condemning the fact that Asian kids are being passed over for less qualified white kids and therefore are stressed out and those white kids need to get in on their own merit; (2) Legacies, who are mainly white, should not be given any advantage over other kids, they need to get in on their on; and (3) Minorities should not have lower thresholds and should get in on their own merit. You might also want to call any college your kid gets into and ask if any more qualified Asian kids was passed over and reject the spot if there is.

My point is about unfair quotas -all of them. If we use a balance scale mentality, then certain ethnicities are on one side and certain ethnicities are on the other. And when government forces balance, you have some being brought down, so others can be brought up. That is inherently wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the last 3 pages or so are from the same tired poster who pulled her kid out of Langley and into private school and life seemed rosey. Until she learned that underprivileged kids and URMs have an edge over her kid in college admissions? Now she advocates those kids not be given an advantage and her kid penalized? And also brags that there's zero SAT prep in her house cause that's now how they roll?

Yes.

And it is all the fault of tenured teachers.

Oh...and brown kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the last 3 pages or so are from the same tired poster who pulled her kid out of Langley and into private school and life seemed rosey. Until she learned that underprivileged kids and URMs have an edge over her kid in college admissions? Now she advocates those kids not be given an advantage and her kid penalized? And also brags that there's zero SAT prep in her house cause that's now how they roll?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the last 3 pages or so are from the same tired poster who pulled her kid out of Langley and into private school and life seemed rosey. Until she learned that underprivileged kids and URMs have an edge over her kid in college admissions? Now she advocates those kids not be given an advantage and her kid penalized? And also brags that there's zero SAT prep in her house cause that's now how they roll?

Yes.

And it is all the fault of tenured teachers.

Oh...and brown kids.

Thanks that saves me a lot of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the last 3 pages or so are from the same tired poster who pulled her kid out of Langley and into private school and life seemed rosey. Until she learned that underprivileged kids and URMs have an edge over her kid in college admissions? Now she advocates those kids not be given an advantage and her kid penalized? And also brags that there's zero SAT prep in her house cause that's now how they roll?

By moving out of publics, you avoid quotas. Quotas are tied to state funding and other forms of politics. Since my kid is going to go to the college she wants, the college she likes best, for us, the admissions issue doesn't really matter. It does, however, on a political whole.

Again, you are assuming this is strictly personal. It's really a political issue to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the last 3 pages or so are from the same tired poster who pulled her kid out of Langley and into private school and life seemed rosey. Until she learned that underprivileged kids and URMs have an edge over her kid in college admissions? Now she advocates those kids not be given an advantage and her kid penalized? And also brags that there's zero SAT prep in her house cause that's now how they roll?

No.

Exactly. But they need to twist things to meet their view so they can attack