Are teachers necessary?

this is a discussion i had with a professor of mine recently. he and i both say no, at least not in the physical sense. if it was 30 years ago, i would say yes they are absolutely necessary, but we live in a time now that is ruled by technology, and everyday kids are getting online and learning about things that they have a genuine interest in. this is a growing trend in not only the youth but nearly everyone who wishes to learn about some topic. it used to be that if we want to find the answer to a 'how do i do this?' question or a 'what happens if..?' question (or whatever question, you get my drift) we would have to read a book, or ask someone who knew, but if nobody could answer it and you couldn't find the answer yourself then what? well i'll tell you what, you just wouldn't know. but today if you want to know the answer to nearly any question, it can probably be found on the internet, and its pretty likely to be on youtube as well. so why read a book, or even an article, when you can just watch a video? a lot of studies have shown that people learn the best when they are interested in the topic, and that's what is happening now kids (and adults as well), are teaching themselves about things that they are interested in. so it would seem that we could, in the future, be our own teachers. i feel like this is where things are going.

i realize kids still have to learn their abc's and what not, i'm thinking about it more along the lines of middle school and high school.

sorry this is like a big fat paragraph with lots of run-on sentences i'm sure, its late

What about social development and making friends? There are more dimensions to school and just books.

And what about teachers teaching topics they love to people who love the same thing? It would work like a matching system.

I have a close friend who was terrible in high school, but graduated...barely...and went on to a professional culinary program and was top of his class. He owns his own business and is doing very well.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just offering a perspective.

One on One... videos cannot break down subjects in a way each kid/person would require...

Videos are a great tool for teachers to utilize, but that's all they are, tools.
I personally think he need to reevaluate our teachers, I've had my fair share of "duds"
...but i've also had several who instructed me and lead me to find understanding and knowledge a text book,
or video just couldn't do.

A good teacher is priceless

No, I don't think a paid person is necessary in the teaching of subject manner our society deems necessary to say learning in History, Reading or Social Studies. Think about it...what we learn is what we read and how we get tested on it is typically multiple choice questions. As a matter of fact, I've said this before and I'll say it again, online school is the way of the future. Schools right now are set up to "test" the kids. My kids just completed their "tests" that are required by federal law. I'm sure they did good and passed. Teachers now teach to the tests, you know? Why couldn't I teach that to my child at home to take a multiple choice test in which they use a number 2 pencil to fill in the oval? Of course I can. Heck, my sixteen year old should be taking college courses right now, he's that far a head.

Star and flag OP, I wish this topic would get more MSM attention.

What about children/people with learning disabilities?
Who need guidance and instruction on a level that requires, extra care/instruction?

I'm pretty smart, but you can show me a 1000 books, a 1000 videos on math, and I still wont get it...
In High School, I had a very kind teacher who sat down with me, guided me in a nice way, like I was a 5 year old and showed me how to do math problems... something that I would never been able to do on my own

Originally posted by BioStatistic
What about social development and making friends? There are more dimensions to school and just books.

And what about teachers teaching topics they love to people who love the same thing? It would work like a matching system.

I have a close friend who was terrible in high school, but graduated...barely...and went on to a professional culinary program and was top of his class. He owns his own business and is doing very well.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just offering a perspective.

I'm glad you brought this up...what about social development? Really, all those kids you have to figure out a way to get along with...and because why? You know what kinds of homes they come from? What kinds of values and morals their parents instill in them or don't? Is that really so important in the grand scheme of things? What a waste of my kids' time... sorry, that's the way it is. Why, were you some kind of homecoming queen or king or princess? Again, a huge waste of time. Oh, let me just say that yeah, those idiot jerks you meet in school and have to learn how to deal with them are typically the same jerk and idiots you gotta learn to deal with in the so called "real world." Fortunately, the "real world" is a changin'.

reply to post by BioStatistic


Even if schools began utilizing technology to it's potential, I think you would always be able to find some sort of human taught, traditional analogue classroom. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, I can learn a lot from a highly experienced scholar/professor, in some cases even more than if I had read the material instead.

I have to partially agree with the OP. The traditional analogue classroom has to go. I definitely am in favor for utilizing technology in new ways as well. I think it is inevitable at this point, it's just so obvious.*

*particularly when you consider what neuroscience has accomplished in the last twenty years...

reply to post by EvolEric


If you have not noticed technology has become extremely interactive in the last few years.

My old highschool has touch sensitive LED chalk boards in every classroom capable of displaying anything from photos to the internet. It is an incredible tool for teaching math.

reply to post by EvolEric


That's a good point.

Obviously, the entire teacher population would not be fired over night. There would be chaos. Technology has to be integrated slowly, while the workforce is slowly phased out. As for the fired teachers, I think there will still be institutions where they could work. If they all can't, then I think it is the best for the long run to disregard it because we are talking about the future generations education (Besides they can find other work in another "field").

I think there is always going to be a need for disabled teachers. For obvious reasons. But even they can utilized technology to improve their overall experience.

Teachers still are the best available tool for learning and that will never go away. Technology can't notice when your not quite grasping something and take the time to explain it better to you.

Technology can't impress a passion upon the student about a particular subject and turn a simple lesson plan into an experience rather than a chore.

Teachers are invaluable when it comes to learning. It's as much about teaching social interaction as it is math and science. How would you ever learn about arts or music without a teacher to guide you. You may learn the facts about history but you may miss out on the feelings of the time without a teacher putting the period into a humanistic view for his students.

Teachers bring their own points of view into the classroom on occasions and that itself projects feelings within the students in one way or another that they need to debate for themselves and makes them think on subjects and helps them form their own opinions and how to critically analyze so taking that away would be a horrendous blow to the education system.

Originally posted by Marulo
reply to post by EvolEric

 

If you have not noticed technology has become extremely interactive in the last few years.

My old highschool has touch sensitive LED chalk boards in every classroom capable of displaying anything from photos to the internet. It is an incredible tool for teaching math.

Yes, thank you

I do know that the technology in school is growing immensely!

the new chalk boards are "Far out"
The ones in use at our local schools are networked, and you can transfer information from one board to another, or have multiple boards show the same thing. Really handy when it comes to school announcements, not only is it heard on the intercom, it is displayed throughout the school.

Videos from youtube or any video site can be played on it.. They also contain built in DVD and bluray players. Pretty much the chalk boards are a big screen computer. They have the ability to store multiple "boards" of information.... and whatever the teacher has displayed can be printed out, to give as hand outs.

also with the software that comes with each board... the Teachers can create programs/lessons that are highly interactive that multiple students can interact with at the same time, but still someone has to create the lessons.
Teachers who know the students, and their learning needs is required...

I'm anxious to see how tech the schools will get in 10 years!!!

Sorry, I have to disagree. To start with the premise is flawed. Children are inherently lazy. They will not learn what they need without structure. Trust me. My kids are 21-15 and none have their HS diploma yet. That doesn't even take into account what an excellent teacher can do for a student. Reach them in ways that make them want to learn and achieve. For me that was Don Cowan in grade 6. I tracked him down a few years ago(yes I used the internet) and thanked him for the interest he took in me. Almost 40 years later he remembered me. You can't get that from a computer.

You are really talking about a centralized versus a distributed teaching system. The problem with a centralized system of school buildings with classrooms and teachers is that it is extremely expensive. In our area a proposed new elementary school may cost hundreds of millions of dollars (It's got to be green, you know.) It takes a lot of land and there's no real guarantee the population of students and oparents will stay stable long enough to support that building. the districts have multiple layers of administrators where everyone has to make above $100K per year. It's extremely expensive to maintain and is the largest single expense at the state level.

A year ago I would have said the distributed system has all the problems people are and will be citing here, but my grandson is being home schooled this year and I'm amazed at how well he is doing and how good the system is. He's not thrown out there with zero resources. The state school system provides a complete on-line curriculum for him that is every bit as challenging as one in a classroom with thirty other kids. I had no idea the system was as advanced as it is.

When you add all this up, it's a whole lot cheaper. Do you still need teachers? Sure, but not as many of them. They become supervisors of the process rather than being the process themselves. The physical plant is no longer necessary.

OK. Let's talk about some of the so-called negatives.

Disabilities? My grandson needs speech therapy. He was sick as a young kid and nearly died. His temp went up and, IMO, burned out some brain cells related to speech, so he talks like Elmer Fudd. He gets one-on-one speech therapy every week online from a speech therapist half way across the country. They use some sort of online web cam Skypish system that appears to work just fine. For many disabled a distributed system would work better because of transportation issues. Will it work for everyone? Of course not, but you can't tell me mainstreaming a severely disabled child is doing anyone any good either. many times, it's a sham. You and I have both seen it.

Social interaction? My grandson has neighbors and friends. He's on a Lacrosse team. His social interaction is focused rather than distracting. I would say he is as well socialized as anyone in a classroom and gets plenty of hours interacting with kids of all ages. This really is not an issue. It's made up of fears.

Now you already see how people come up with the "What about this?" scenarios that they want answered. I really think this is the wrong way to approach this. We need to take a big step backwards and act as if we are designing an educational system from scratch given what we can do today. We need to look at what we are doing from every angle. For example, why do we have summer vacation at all (in the US)? The reason was because we used to be an agricultural nation and needed the kids to work in the fields. Is there any good reason save inertia why we need to keep that going?

So start out from the very beginning and design the ideal system, including the costs involved, and see if you can't give the distributed version a chance here. I think you will be very surprised at the results. I know I was.

reply to post by intrepid


Prove to me that children are inherently lazy.

Your are going to need some pretty incredible references.

Just because you children failed in an analogue classroom does not mean children are inherently lazy.

Edit:

Second of all, seriously?

Of course a computer could remeber you in fourty years. Explain to me how it is impossible for a computer to not retain some sort of digitized documents of birth, history, etc. in fourty years? Are you saying that at some point we are going to lose all of the information we have stored on the internet suddenly one night because the computers couldn't remember one day?

reply to post by Marulo


Dude, you just proved my point. Go back and read my post and try not to embarrass yourself to those that can think.

reply to post by intrepid


No I don't think so. I want you to elaborate on the "structure" that you think children need, and why they need it.

I believe humans can provide extremely valuable education, I think we both get that. I don't see how children are inherently lazy.

If you think of schools as being like an "open prison" I believe you start to get some idea of their true purpose. We have set up systems in the world that are obviously insane, the masses are controlled by debt and statute to fit in with the systems that exist. Schools are primarily a conditioning institution that teaches conformity and acceptance. We need a certain level of intelligence in the masses so we educate to that level and no more. This is why in the UK our elites are virtually all educated privately in schools charging £30,000 per year. The elite need special training to ensure they have the knowledge to perpetuate the system.

The system isn't perfect, sometimes people crossover but usually it's some of the sheeple who have overcome the system to move up into the elite strata. In the UK our top universities still overwhelmingly recruit from the bastions of the establishment.

Have you never wondered why education is so shambolic? Why after all this time there is still debate about the best teaching methods? Why the governments constantly alter the curriculum and allow the system to perpetuate. It's because it serves their purpose to have an under educated, complacent, disposable population to fight their wars, run their factories whilst asking for no more than cheap alcohol and the x-factor.

The Government knows what works, they prove that when they send their children to Eton and Rugby. They could easily emulate those institutions and educate everyone to the same standard but they don't want to. Teachers are just like the rest of us. They accept the status quo because that is all they have ever known and all they can imagine. The governments keep them so busy with new rules and new criteria every few years that most teachers spend their time coping rather than considering how different things could be.

Huge schools with 1000 plus pupils are the norm. Bullying and terror are used to grind people down. It is tragic to see the children from junior schools, keen, enquiring, expecting something great after 2 years in High School most have realised they're just fodder and they give up.

Some countries do much better. The scandinavian models are much more successful. We could copy them. But we don't because we know what we need. To answer your question yes we do need teachers they are key to the conditioning process. Their tyranny and petty rules are the rocks on which hope is dashed.

Originally posted by EvolEric
What about children/people with learning disabilities?
Who need guidance and instruction on a level that requires, extra care/instruction?

I'm pretty smart, but you can show me a 1000 books, a 1000 videos on math, and I still wont get it...
In High School, I had a very kind teacher who sat down with me, guided me in a nice way, like I was a 5 year old and showed me how to do math problems... something that I would never been able to do on my own

i agree with you totally, children with learning disabilities would require extra care and attention for sure.

but more about learning online, i will use the khan academy as an example, it started because this guys cousin needed him to tutor him in calculus i think it was. and so they lived kinda far away, and the founder of the khan academy didnt have a video camera at that time, so he used screen capture software to record himself writing out the problems and solutions and recorded his voice explaining each step. so when you watch the video its like someone is doing all the work right in front of you and explaining each step in your ear (basically its like someone sitting down and showing you how to do everything one on one). its a super effective way to learn and khan academy has more views combined than any other channel (i think its channel) on youtube. there is a speech from the ted conference where he talks about it, here's the link:



needless to say, his videos helped his cousin (who didn't have any math skills) to get high marks and khan academy videos are helping millions of others learn various other subjects, so this is a pretty good example of the effects of online learning. i'm not saying its perfect right now, people brought up some good points, especially about the social implications of something like this (but thats another story, personally i think social gaps are already being made wider everyday by sites facebook, myspace and others b/c they encourage online interaction over actual real life interaction, and even if you think they don't.. conversations had online are conversations that would have otherwise taken place in real life.. so thats a real life interaction taken away. in high doses this can lead to introversion, and social isolation. but as i said, thats another story.. sorry for the rant : P)..

as i said, it's not perfect, but i think it is the future

Originally posted by intrepid
Sorry, I have to disagree. To start with the premise is flawed. Children are inherently lazy. They will not learn what they need without structure. Trust me. My kids are 21-15 and none have their HS diploma yet. That doesn't even take into account what an excellent teacher can do for a student. Reach them in ways that make them want to learn and achieve. For me that was Don Cowan in grade 6. I tracked him down a few years ago(yes I used the internet) and thanked him for the interest he took in me. Almost 40 years later he remembered me. You can't get that from a computer.

well, teachers would still create the material, and would still interact with the students i think. there would still be structure also, it would just be a different environment. it would also encourage kids to have more responsibility (at an early age)

reply to post by schuyler


As a follow-up to my previous post, I did not know at the time that my grandson has jumped three years in English & Reading and two years in math in the last few months of being home schooled. Where he was floundering before, he is now above grade level in all subjects. Of course, yiour mileage may vary, but this is testimony to a distributed model.