Received an email that DS teacher quit Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

NP and just a parent here, but you sound like a mean person and a bully. No wonder your students aren't learning anything!!! PP clearly stated that she has a job and she kindly volunteers to help a teacher once a week. I cannot believe the rudeness towards someone who is taking time away from their own job to volunteer. How TF is she supposed to be a sub if she volunteers one hour once a week? PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SINCE YOU ARE A MATH TEACHER???? Should I make it sound like a story problem?

Kathleen volunteers at school for 1 hour once a week, but Mrs. Buttface wants her to sub for one day. How many more hours a day does Mrs. Buttface want Kathleen to spend doing Mrs. Buttface's job because she doesn't know how to do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

NP and just a parent here, but you sound like a mean person and a bully. No wonder your students aren't learning anything!!! PP clearly stated that she has a job and she kindly volunteers to help a teacher once a week. I cannot believe the rudeness towards someone who is taking time away from their own job to volunteer. How TF is she supposed to be a sub if she volunteers one hour once a week? PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SINCE YOU ARE A MATH TEACHER???? Should I make it sound like a story problem?

Kathleen volunteers at school for 1 hour once a week, but Mrs. Buttface wants her to sub for one day. How many more hours a day does Mrs. Buttface want Kathleen to spend doing Mrs. Buttface's job because she doesn't know how to do it?

Continue reading, NP. Before attacking.

[Anonymous]

Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

[Anonymous]

So what did the classroom look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

HS math teacher you should be ashamed for jumping on a school volunteer who is teaching kids without any compensation. The person is making a difference by donating time to work one on one with kids which frees up people like you to teach other kids in smaller groups. If you took the time to read the person’s post he said he/she said he had a full time job. Presumably one with more career potential than being a sub.

+1 someone with a PhD in cognitive psych and a BS degree in math would be someone schools would be dying to have, particularly since there is such a shortage of teachers with STEM qualifications. This HS teacher sounds dim and mean.

DP. The workshop model is entirely inappropriate for high school. The HS math teacher sounds rightfully fed up.

I assume the parent volunteer is volunteering at an elementary school. Personally, I'm glad our elementary school dropped the workshop model after 2nd grade.

Yes, I apologize to the volunteer. I jumped on you and I was wrong. I’m not ashamed, but an example of a teacher who has reached her max and possibly breaking point. This thread is about teachers quitting mid year and hearing the words math coach and workshop model prompted a strong and misplaced reaction. It’s being pushed at my high school and we are constantly in meetings now with math coaches. I hope it’s working out better if you are volunteering with little kids.

No, I am not planning on quitting mid year. Sorry I joined in the off topic discussion.

Thank you for the apology--and sorry I got a little testy too. Believe me the reason I'm making time to volunteer is that I see how hard it is for schools right now. I honestly would scrub some floors for 3 hours if that was what was needed most from me. I do feel for you all.
In the ES (4-6) classes I'm volunteer in I think the workshop model is working well, but the teachers have enlisted parent volunteers so the kids who can't really work independently have someone who then work with them. Because I have a math/research/psych background, and have some (limited) math teaching experience, I can also quickly scan the assessments, do some instruction and plan out the work different kids need to do, so I help in that more specialized way too when needed.

But I have to admit, I think the workshop model is a good fit for ES. The variation in ability/knowledge/skills in a gen ed class is really wide (even more so after the pandemic) so I honestly don't know how teachers would teach without it. So many kids would be lost or excruciatingly bored if she just taught the whole group the same thing. I just think there needs to be either volunteers or a teacher's assistant to keep the kids not currently in small group focused and answer questions as needed.

HS is different--you're already in a leveled course tied to your prior knowledge--some 9th graders are in remedial math, some in algebra, some in geometry, some in precalc etc. Off the cuff it seems kind of unnecessary to have the workshop model there, and I haven't seen data that suggests it's a good fit for HS. Maybe in remedial courses to find gaps. I *just* started running over to the middle school (I avoided volunteering there bc my daughter is now there and I don't want to embarrass her to do a kind of workshop style approach to fill in gaps before the SOL with students who are struggling in math during their study hall time.

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread! Don't quit mid-year! We all really do appreciate the work you do even if we get testy because we're at our breaking points too. Anyone who spend any time in a school can see you're all working really hard under really hard conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

Well, join the club. Parents generalize and lump all teachers together, so now you know how it feels,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

26 pages later, they still have no idea why she left but they’ve hung her out to dry.
By the way, I hope you’re doing better now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

Well, join the club. Parents generalize and lump all teachers together, so now you know how it feels,

Please know that plenty of us really don't generalize about teachers. This forum and the bizarre school board/parent meetings etc. don't reflect the majority. I take each of my kid's teachers as a person who has decided to have a profession that helps them learn and I appreciate that. My 3 kids have now had dozens of teachers and they have all been pretty good--and many have really made a difference in my kids' lives. I don't expect any teacher to be perfect and I realize that my kid is one among many. None of the parents I know gripe about teachers. The most common thing I've heard in real life when I mention what teacher one of my kids has for something is 'oh you are going to love them.' So many of us don't know what we could do to help out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what did the classroom look like?

If the classroom is a barren hell zone when the teacher leaves and takes with her all the things SHE purchased for that classroom, don’t be mad at the teacher. Be mad at the system that created a set up where the only way your kid has a decent environment to learn in is when the underpaid teacher hoes out of pocket to create it herself. My students are consistently shocked when I ask them to be gentle with some material because I bought it. Pencils, pencil sharpeners, Manila folders, book sets, decor, markers and art supplies, sticky notes - that’s ALL ME. Really an indictment on the system if the teacher goes and it’s revealed everything that made the room habitable and decent goes with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

Hey, wait up a sec. You were also supposed to stay and explain it to the kids in an age-appropriate manner, keeping on your brave professional face while you answer their questions and help them process it. But don't scare them or break down or anything.

Eff your feelings and your trauma. Those kids and parents deserved answers, Teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

Hey, wait up a sec. You were also supposed to stay and explain it to the kids in an age-appropriate manner, keeping on your brave professional face while you answer their questions and help them process it. But don't scare them or break down or anything.

Eff your feelings and your trauma. Those kids and parents deserved answers, Teach.

No!!!! If she felt up to it, fine; but she didn’t HAVE to do that. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with parents. Teachers do not need to have a session with 25+ students explaining their cancer diagnosis. That is outside the requirements of the job. If a student needed anything afterwards, that is what counselors are for.

PP: do not let this poster make you feel anyway beyond how you felt at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

Hey, wait up a sec. You were also supposed to stay and explain it to the kids in an age-appropriate manner, keeping on your brave professional face while you answer their questions and help them process it. But don't scare them or break down or anything.

Eff your feelings and your trauma. Those kids and parents deserved answers, Teach.

I'm sorry that you woke up too early, PP. Coffee helps.

I hope you're taking care of yourself, PPP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

Hey, wait up a sec. You were also supposed to stay and explain it to the kids in an age-appropriate manner, keeping on your brave professional face while you answer their questions and help them process it. But don't scare them or break down or anything.

Eff your feelings and your trauma. Those kids and parents deserved answers, Teach.

No!!!! If she felt up to it, fine; but she didn’t HAVE to do that. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with parents. Teachers do not need to have a session with 25+ students explaining their cancer diagnosis. That is outside the requirements of the job. If a student needed anything afterwards, that is what counselors are for.

PP: do not let this poster make you feel anyway beyond how you felt at that time.

I’m 99% sure the pp was being sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

Hey, wait up a sec. You were also supposed to stay and explain it to the kids in an age-appropriate manner, keeping on your brave professional face while you answer their questions and help them process it. But don't scare them or break down or anything.

Eff your feelings and your trauma. Those kids and parents deserved answers, Teach.

I'm sorry that you woke up too early, PP. Coffee helps.

I hope you're taking care of yourself, PPP.

You don’t think that was sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess I should have just kept teaching after being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. Sorry to inconvenience the poor parents.

Hey, wait up a sec. You were also supposed to stay and explain it to the kids in an age-appropriate manner, keeping on your brave professional face while you answer their questions and help them process it. But don't scare them or break down or anything.

Eff your feelings and your trauma. Those kids and parents deserved answers, Teach.

No!!!! If she felt up to it, fine; but she didn’t HAVE to do that. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with parents. Teachers do not need to have a session with 25+ students explaining their cancer diagnosis. That is outside the requirements of the job. If a student needed anything afterwards, that is what counselors are for.

PP: do not let this poster make you feel anyway beyond how you felt at that time.

Learn to recognize sarcasm, PP.