|
|
Post by sarahaubreyr on Feb 17, 2016 18:48:06 GMT -5
So today in class we read about the Florida Statues. One of them stated that teachers should "provide parents with information and strategies for assisting their children in reading in the content area." I honestly do not agree with this because how are we exactly supposed to do this? And when are we supposed to do this? To me, this is saying that it is not only our job to teach the children, but to also teach their parents as well. I feel this adds an extreme responsibility that should not be put upon our shoulders. This statue is also not inclusive. What about the students who do not have supportive parents, guardians, etc. or the students who do not have parents at all? How do you all feel about this? Do you feel that we should take on this responsibility or should this be reworded to shine a different light on this statue? Maybe this is just my misunderstanding of what is written. I would love to hear what you all have to say on this!
|
|
mju13
New Member
Posts: 13 
|
Post by mju13 on Feb 21, 2016 16:58:15 GMT -5
The way I interpreted the statute was that we, as teachers, should provide resources for the parents so that they can then use at home. Teaching and learning doesn't stop once the students walk out of the school and go home and I think it's important that parents should be prepared or at least have a platform off of which they can nurture learning in the home. As to when to do this, one could send resources home with students or tell parents during open house. I agree with your concern about the lack of inclusiveness. The word parents could easily be substituted for guardian and in the case of parents or guardians who aren't involved in the child's life, there's honestly no way we can implement these strategies at home. In that case, it's our job to do the best we can during school hours. We can only do so much and I think the statute is trying to make sure that students aren't just leaving the day's learning at school but taking it home and practicing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaylawebb on Feb 22, 2016 8:57:03 GMT -5
I hated that statement about the parents where it said, "provide parents with information and strategies for assisting their children in reading in the content area," too. I did not like how it was not inclusive to students without parents or students who live with another guardian. I also do not get how teachers are supposed to teach the kids as well as the parents. None of our pre-service classes tells us how to teach parents. This adds a lot of pressure to us, teaching kids is hard enough. It is our responsibility, however, to do our best to provide parents with information about what is happening in the classroom and things that might assist guardians at home in helping their kid succeed. Open houses and class blogs or websites is a great way to keep the parents included in the teaching of their child.
|
|
|
|
Post by loganc on Feb 22, 2016 22:08:27 GMT -5
I agree with both sides of this argument; I feel as though, yes we should provide parents with information and strategies for assisting their children, but I also get very frustrated when I feel as though my job will be to raise 20+ students. When I originally read this statute I completely agreed with it and I understood it as basically giving parents "homework"(in a sense?!) so that they are better prepared to assist in the furthering of their child's education. I also understood it the same as Kayla in that this is something that teachers are already doing through open houses, blogs, websites, class newsletters, whatever, but I think that the statute made it seem a bit extreme in that it would have to be a completely separate ordeal!
|
|
|
|
Post by andryahr on Feb 24, 2016 10:53:40 GMT -5
When I first read this statue I also had that "excuse me, what?" moment but after discussing it with George and thinking about it, I understand it. I just think it's worded incorrectly, as are the other statues. When you were in school and you took an assignment home and needed help, did your parents ever kind of just look at it and say something along the lines of "it's been so long since I did this.." or have you had that experience with your TSL student? That's what I think of when I read this statue, it's helping the parents (or guardians or tutors) get past that stage. Like maybe sending home a newsletter at the beginning of the week with the lessons for the week and websites they can go to to have it better explained to them. I don't see it as actually having to teach the parents the lesson as well but giving them the opportunity to assist their student. Our role as teachers don't end as the bell rings and this is a way to expand our teaching. Using parents as a resource can only be helpful and we should use them correctly and to our advantage - we wouldn't want them to teach their child the wrong thing/way and backtrack the students.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahaubreyr on Feb 25, 2016 19:45:57 GMT -5
Mju13 (I couldn't find your actual name) I completely see where you are coming from in the sense that students do not stop learning once they walk out of the classroom. I just felt as though maybe this statute was worded in a wrong way. It made it seem as though it was the teachers responsibility to teach the parents how to help their child outside of school. Now don't get me wrong, I do think that we should give parents the tools to help their children at home. However, I do not think the responsibility solely relies on us. I do, however completely agree that we need to always do our best to make sure students are living up the their fullest potential. Thank you for replying with a compelling argument!
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrajohnson on Feb 27, 2016 17:09:41 GMT -5
I believe that the statue means to have good intentions. Furthermore, it wants us as teachers to make sure that we aren't sending the students home with things they will not be able to accomplish. But. on the other hand, what about students that are going home to families whom are not supportive of education or are even there to help the children with needs like this. It could be a situation where the child is not going home to an intellectually supportive home, and in this scenario, which we are aware is bound to happen eventually. So as teachers we need to be prepared for these situations and acknowledge that every child has a different home environment and one set of directions is not going to cut it.
|
|
|
|
Post by angelawithee on Mar 13, 2016 14:41:40 GMT -5
The way that I interpret this statute is that the teacher should try to incorporate the parent in their child's schooling at home as best as they possibly can. Of course there's many outlying factors that can play in, for example the parent not understanding the material themselves and not being able to help because of this. I feel like this stature is incredibly interpretive, and as teachers the best that we can do is just try to assist parents by keeping them updated on what their child is doing and giving them suggestions like what books to read, or words to go over, to improve their child's comprehension at home.
|
|
mju13
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by mju13 on Mar 14, 2016 14:12:00 GMT -5
Mju13 (I couldn't find your actual name) I completely see where you are coming from in the sense that students do not stop learning once they walk out of the classroom. I just felt as though maybe this statute was worded in a wrong way. It made it seem as though it was the teachers responsibility to teach the parents how to help their child outside of school. Now don't get me wrong, I do think that we should give parents the tools to help their children at home. However, I do not think the responsibility solely relies on us. I do, however completely agree that we need to always do our best to make sure students are living up the their fullest potential. Thank you for replying with a compelling argument! What I've seen from reading everyone's responses is that the statute itself seems to be poorly worded in that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. I think it was written in such a way so that it could encompass a broader range of aspects but has failed in some of them. I agree that the responsibility doesn't just rely on us. Although I wish the statute was written better, it has given us reason to question and argue its intentions! |
|
|
|
Post by lexxy95 on Apr 6, 2016 10:29:04 GMT -5
I think that a great number of students are so behind behind because their parents are not highly educated, and therefore do not know how to work with them at home. A lot of parents care a whole lot, but don't know where to start... I mean, have you seen 4th grade homework assignments these days? I think providing parents with proper resources to better assist their children at home is something that would literally change the game in education. When children aren't at school, they're at home and parents are a child's first teacher. I personally would feel like I' wasting my time dedicating my life to educating students, when I know that they're going to go home and all of what I taught will be wasted... If I could, I would go door to door simply telling parents to read books to their children. I think this statute is awesome... It's worded a bit weirdly, but the concept is great, and very necessary:)
|
|
|
|
Post by kaylynj on Apr 19, 2016 15:42:30 GMT -5
I agree that parents should be involved in their children education, but these statutes were worded very weird which did throw me off a little bit. I can see the good intentions behind these statutes, but they are to broad to o anybody any good. I know that as a student I would come home with work that I would need help on, but my parents wouldn't know how to help me. Hopefully in this situations a student would have notes or a textbook to help them figure it out. A teacher could even send a simplified version of the notes to possibly help the parents, in order to help the students. In the end we all have the same goal of helping these students learn to the best of our ability.
|
|
