 |
 |
Gary Probst wrote: Maslow's hierarchy tells us why students are not successful. Amy Puffer wrote: > > Thank you for not denying that poor socioeconomic conditions have a > large impact on a students' ability to learn. How can we expect a > child to learn multiplication tables if he is starving with hunger? How > can we expect a student to perform well on a test when her daddy went > to jail the night before? I agree that poverty should not be an > excuse that students use to explain poor grades and skills, however > educators cannot deny the fact that these students require special > attention and accommodations in order to succeed. It is our job to > help these students as well as our job to help the parents become > involved in their child's education. > > Amy Puffer > Keuka College > [log in to unmask] > > John Flanigan wrote: > > This has been an interesting, but frustrating, thread. But why do we avoid > discussing the primary reason that students do poorly in school--home > environments that are antagonistic to education? > > Of course poverty has something to do with it. Of course having a > sufficiency of materials in school has something to do with it. Of course > having teachers who are not frustrated and hardened by years of > misbehaving students and unsupportive parents, has something to do with > it. But it can't be fixed by the schools alone. If the parents don't > become involved in a positive and supportive way--instead of pitting > themselves against the teachers, as I've seen much too often--their > children have little chance to receive an optimal learning environment. > > Until we develop a means to encourage parents become more supportive and > to allow the classroom teacher to keep order, I fear that we will not make > much headway. > > John M. Flanigan <[log in to unmask]> The equation is the final arbiter. > Math Resource Instructor --Werner Heisenberg > Kapi'olani Community College The scoreboard is the final arbiter. > Honolulu, Hawaii --Bill Walton