• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Public school and the A's

TBRS1

TBRS1

Transparent turnip
V.I.P Member
I retired a couple years ago after 30 years of teaching high school.

Yes, I am high functioning, but working with 150 new faces twice a year (80% of whom hated me before meeting me because the label on my door said "teacher") was rough. Vomiting rough. A lot.

But I wanted to do something decent with my otherwise frivolous life, so I did that.

Unfortunately, I may have failed almost every child I wanted to help.

This is sad.

I think most of us have school issues. Want to talk?

I won't attempt to justify anything educators do, but I can (possibly) explain why they happen.

Things need to change. But to make effective change, one needs to identify symptoms, THEN find the cause, and fix the cause.

That's what I want to try to do here, if possible.

Wanna help? Tell me a school problem and let's see if we can figure out a cause and a cure.
 
Are you asking for young people with troubles, or adults who had problems way back in school?

And you failed nobody. Your job was to teach. It was in your heart to help, but if they don’t ask then how could possibly help? You can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
 
@TBRS1, I am teaching at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Kalamazoo, MI. Have been for the better part of 25-30 years. In some ways the same, in some ways different when it comes to teaching adults. Smaller class sizes and I can follow them into the field as a mentor. Many of my students will do their clinical instruction, and then later hired at the hospital I work at in Grand Rapids, MI.

Your experience seems quite a bit more challenging on several levels.
 
I mean both. And also adults with children in school.

Noting things that seemed to work well or effectively is also good.

(darn it. Trying to figure out how to quote)
 
Kalamazoo! I used to go the Grand Valley for the Shakespeare performances.
 
I worked at a teacher for a brief period in a high school, but ran into a lot of problems, I couldn't cope with the environment and had multiple problems that ended in my contract not being renewed (being fired, basically), I had a crisis/burn out and that's what lead to my diagnosis. Now I teach online one to one, much better though not without problems.
 
I only taught a few classes, but they generally went quite well. I wouldn't have had the strength to push past regular vomiting to do it. BTW, Ed Sullivan used to puke into a bucket just before going on stage.
My problems in school came from overcrowding and tight budgets. I was rushed through to starting Gr. 9 at age 12, on shifts, even though it is now recommended for boys to be held back a year to match the girls' emotional maturity. I was not very confident in a school board that had not seen the need for another high school coming, after my dad's land had been expropriated for my elementary school. I was also wary of the classics in literature and much else, as it had led to the atomic bomb, and it was up to our generation to learn how to avoid total war.
The staff lost almost all of my respect on the gr.9 Christmas exams. Mother had warned me about trick questions, so when I saw one asking for the distance to a stroke of lightning if the flash was seen 12 seconds after the thunder, I answered that no solution was possible; the observation was faulty. It was actually a typo, and I "should have known" I could have asked the proctor about that. I should have gotten double marks, but I got a zero on that, although my 1st yr teacher looked pretty sick about having to tell me.
I'd never had to study, and after that, I never tried, so my marks went down until I began failing years. I still don't know how to study things I'm not actively investigating for myself. For my 2nd trip through gr 11, the board had not been able to find enough "B" grade teachers, and had to hire a more expensive "A" grad for physics. That guy was very by-the-book. He would spend five minutes telling us what he was going to tell us, thirty minutes telling us, and five minutes telling us what he had told us. I had enough of an attention span for the first and last five, and spent the rest of the time fooling around with my partner at the back of the room at the double lab table-desks. Christmas rolls around, and he collects our notebooks. We each had a couple of pages, not organized. He just warned us to do well on the exam. I came first in the grade, my partner was 2nd, and the next was ten points down. He made us "lab assistants," but it was just a privilege to let us wait for the bus out of the halls.
I was also learning nothing at home, so I didn't mind getting kicked out for flunking gr. 12 and keeping the summer job. My general knowledge scores were over college grad averages. I'd had one math teacher/counselor who I hung out with that year, and he said he'd talk cars with me if I'd get my algebra marks up. All he had to do was ask me math questions about car modifications, but it never occurred to him. Such questions would have galvanized about a quarter of the class as well. When I did study engineering, I was amazed at how simple the equations were.
I knocked around for a few years learning to socialize with other eccentric types, and then went to the library. I was next seen in school lecturing to graduating engineers. However, winning prizes is not as convincing to most people as a standard PhD, and I had missed all the university learning about how to work in teams and promote ideas. I doubt that much of this is relevant in the crazy soup kids inhabit now.
 
Last edited:
Progster, what happened to you is so horrible and emotionally devastating. But you probably know that it is very, very common. Most people have no idea how horrendously stressful the whole teaching thing is.

I spent 30 years expecting every year that what happened to you would happen to me.

I'm pretty sure that when parents talk to teachers they are unaware that about 80% of high school teachers take antidepressant or anti anxiety drugs.

I'm glad you found internet education to work for you!

Shevek, I didn't know about Ed Sullivan, But I knew a Catholic priest who did that before each mass. I've heard of well known actors who also do this.

The point you made about learning math related to your car is important - their is an enormous percentage of people who learn BEST when the subject is taught through application in a subject of interest.

I've been told that people who go into teaching tend to be good at learning through books, and they tend to teach the way they learn. One of the big things going on in a lot of places is an attempt to integrate learning and doing - learn through practice application.

Neonatal RRT, GVSU is such a fine school. I love the campus, and the academics are outstanding!

When done right, this often works well for a lot of people.

Also, it is such a strange crazy soup world these days. Seems like everybody is confused, bemused, and accused all at once. Things were so much easier when all we had to play with were rocks and sticks.

Well, nobody is going back, standing still is boring, so I think we're stuck with it.
 
I grew up in the public school system in Los Angeles in the 1980’s, and helped my wife raise her two children (previous marriage) in the 2000’s in public school near Los Angeles. I have stories upon stories about how broken it is. Good teachers are grossly outnumbered by bad. Administration cares less and less about the children’s health and well-being every year, and cares more and more about money every year. It’s why we homeschool our child now.

I have been in a union for 32 years. I believe in unions. They protect workers and are a necessary evil. But I have witnessed the teacher’s union be responsible for countless educators keeping their jobs when they were unable or unwilling to teach. And the good teachers get burned out or give up. Public school is just a business now. And a high school diploma is just a box to check on a job application.

I’m bitter, for sure. But how in the world did you make it through all of those years as a teacher on the spectrum???? I see a few new faces per year. And mostly it’s for a few minutes. My guess is that you cared about each and every student you ever had. It would have absolutely killed me to see those children who were being bullied at lunch or abused at home. Do you have nightmares from students 30 years ago?
 
AspieChris, Yes. Oh so very much yes.

I could rant for hours about utterly horrible educators, but I won't...

And I get what you say about the union. I'm a big believer in unions also, but agree that protecting bad workers is counterproductive to the point of being self destructive.

The union's pick for "teacher of the year" will inevitably be someone who spends more time at union events and conferences shmoozing than in the classroom teaching.

Gotta have a union to negotiate a group contract (I'm aspie. I literally can not negotiate a fait contract for myself), and to ensure that the contract is followed.

Some teachers are clunky at their job. They can learn to do better. Ideally, the union would encourage additional training in such a case.

Some people ought not be teaching because they lack patience, can't negotiate the fine line between being too rigid and too flexible, don't actually know their subject, and on and on and on.

These people need to find other work. They have a negative effect on everything from public perceptions of public education to student engagement. None of that is good for anybody. Unions should not prevent letting these people go.


How did I do it? Well, I barfed a lot. But you know from experience that anybody with an emotional, mental, or physical issue has to work far harder to to achieve what others seem to just waltz into. I just did that as much as I could for as long as I could, then stopped doing it :) .
 
Last edited:
I once had to go the school principal because our 5th grade son turned in homework that was grammatically correct, but his teacher (who barely spoke English) crossed out a word with red ink and wrote it in INCORRECTLY. The solution was that whenever the class did English or grammar, they sent my son to a different classroom for that hour.

Such crap!
 
People make dumb mistakes. That happens.

But, if a person makes a mistake, and it is pointed out, that person has an obligation to: correct the mistake, apologize, not hold a grudge that the mistake was pointed out.

I don't know the circumstances in your case, but from what I have seen... Well, some people need to tame their ego and learn to roll with the punches.

Teachers have egos (like everyone else), but on the job?

On the job the kid matters, and egos need to get tiny. If a teacher is unable to do that, perhaps a boss style job where they can be crappy to people who are paid to take it, rather than a student who needs something completely different, would be more appropriate.

(but I don't want to work for them :) ).
 
A good friend of mine is a very good teacher, but he only got to work full-time for about five years before retirement age.. For over ten, he had been stuck as a substitute because he had about a month less Union membership than a terrible teacher. At one point, he was living in a van with his wife and daughter for years, and then in a bus for many more.
 
I guess I had two smallish issues in school- both in high school.

The first was algebra. I was not very good at it, and my homework / tests were in the 'D' range. The instructor of that class removed me and sent me to a very basic algebra class. I started getting 'D's in the tests / homework of that class.
I tended to get drowsy in that hot afternoon's class, but one day I followed the instructors' chalkboard details of the previous day's homework. I suddenly realized that I'd been going 3 or 4 steps past the intended results! After that I pretty much got 'B's in the tests and homework.
If the instructors had looked at my homework closer, they could have collared me and told me I was solving them 3 steps too far!

The other one was a bit more concerning. My english teacher was newly hired into the teaching profession. One time after class I noticed she was tearing up. I asked what the problem was, and she replied that she did not want to teach but be a school librarian. Apparently she'd have to teach quite a while and get a certain level of seniority before bidding on a librarian opening. I understood and supported her desire. A few months later, she disappeared and we had a new teacher. After that point, things started disappearing: homework I had turned in, long term detailed projects including some of my personal property, some vandalism. The vandalism could have been anyone, but the stuff I turned in could only have been the other teachers/ union.
Later on I had a job for 32 years, and was in the union there. That union's behavior could not be faulted.
 
Shevek, the thing you've observed is an extremely important issue. This kind of thing happens any time there is a legal document, like a contact. But it applies to all contacts, laws, laws proposed in congress (and how, specifically, those laws will be applied).

I do not know "the" solution. I don't even think there is one, but understanding the problem has, at least, some explanatory value.

Here's the problem: the laws requires legal language the "absolute." That is - a laws must be written in such a ways that, in ANY circumstance, the law does the same thing for everybody, no matter who they are (a law applied to poor people MUST also applied to rich people).

Unfortunately, life is NOT absolute. Life is way mushy, and people have a wide assortment of needs, skills, and abilities. So, generally, laws have lists of specific exemptions, and need a professional (a judge) to determine how the law applies.

Double unfortunately, the way this is done is for the judge to look at the EXACT wording of the law, but not quite the intent of the law.

The mushiness of life is dealt with by becoming more rigid.

This is abstract. Here's how it works in the situation you've described:

The contract was written to protect the teacher from indiscriminately being fired. For a teacher to be fired there is a series of steps - each one acts as a notification that there is a problem, and gives the teacher an opportunity to properly modify their work and continue employment.

This is a very good thing. For example: a teacher's boss is the principle. Imagine that my current boss values the work I do. All is cool, I have a job.

Suddenly, the principle is replaced by a new person. This person has a theory that all the teachers will do an insane amount if group work. The guy meets ME, the weirdo who frequently fails to wave and say "howdy" on cue, and decides I don't fit into the big master plan, so he decides that, despite the quality of my overall work, I need to go.

The law protects me from that because I can only be fired for things detailed in my contract. Failure to wave isn't listed, so I don't end up economically destroyed because "the boss" doesn't value the way I do my thing.

But that creates a problem - the rules describe specific things a person really should be fired for (example: showing up for work at 7:30am drunk as a skunk). But some people are able to be repeatedly and/or continuously be "almost bad enough" (arriving at work incapacitated by a hangover is bad, but not listed). This person may be a horrible teacher without meeting the legal criteria for firing. A judge, looking at the written contract and the data regarding the teachers failings would say "illegal. You can not fire that person.

To summer this up, laws written to protect the innocent also protect those who may be pretty close to guilty, but are not quite there.

Loosening the legal interpretation (being legally flexible) seems like it ought to solve problem - and does, But but but - the downside is that it would also make it possible to fire a guy like ME, who may be very effective, but has, uhm... shall we say " personality traits unrelated to effective teaching" but are "not in accord with management's vision."

I don't know what the solution is - rigid laws create loopholes. Mushy laws allow unethical actions.

If anybody knows how to solve this kind of thing, please apply for the job of president next November. America needs you - :) .
 
TBRS1 said:
Shevek, the thing you've observed is an extremely important issue. This kind of thing happens any time there is a legal document, like a contact. But it applies to all contacts, laws, laws proposed in congress (and how, specifically, those laws will be applied).

I do not know "the" solution. I don't even think there is one, but understanding the problem has, at least, some explanatory value.

Here's the problem: the laws requires legal language the "absolute." That is - a laws must be written in such a ways that, in ANY circumstance, the law does the same thing for everybody, no matter who they are (a law applied to poor people MUST also applied to rich people).

Unfortunately, life is NOT absolute. Life is way mushy, and people have a wide assortment of needs, skills, and abilities. So, generally, laws have lists of specific exemptions, and need a professional (a judge) to determine how the law applies.

Double unfortunately, the way this is done is for the judge to look at the EXACT wording of the law, but not quite the intent of the law.

The mushiness of life is dealt with by becoming more rigid.

This is abstract. Here's how it works in the situation you've described:

The contract was written to protect the teacher from indiscriminately being fired. For a teacher to be fired there is a series of steps - each one acts as a notification that there is a problem, and gives the teacher an opportunity to properly modify their work and continue employment.

This is a very good thing. For example: a teacher's boss is the principle. Imagine that my current boss values the work I do. All is cool, I have a job.

Suddenly, the principle is replaced by a new person. This person has a theory that all the teachers will do an insane amount if group work. The guy meets ME, the weirdo who frequently fails to wave and say "howdy" on cue, and decides I don't fit into the big master plan, so he decides that, despite the quality of my overall work, I need to go.

The law protects me from that because I can only be fired for things detailed in my contract. Failure to wave isn't listed, so I don't end up economically destroyed because "the boss" doesn't value the way I do my thing.

But that creates a problem - the rules describe specific things a person really should be fired for (example: showing up for work at 7:30am drunk as a skunk). But some people are able to be repeatedly and/or continuously be "almost bad enough" (arriving at work incapacitated by a hangover is bad, but not listed). This person may be a horrible teacher without meeting the legal criteria for firing. A judge, looking at the written contract and the data regarding the teachers failings would say "illegal. You can not fire that person.

To summer this up, laws written to protect the innocent also protect those who may be pretty close to guilty, but are not quite there.

Loosening the legal interpretation (being legally flexible) seems like it ought to solve problem - and does, But but but - the downside is that it would also make it possible to fire a guy like ME, who may be very effective, but has, uhm... shall we say " personality traits unrelated to effective teaching" but are "not in accord with management's vision."

I don't know what the solution is - rigid laws create loopholes. Mushy laws allow unethical actions.

If anybody knows how to solve this kind of thing, please apply for the job of president next November. America needs you - :) .
Click to expand...
It just sucks that laws exist to protect the ‘good’, but often protect the ‘bad’. And when it affects our children….. it destroys our future.
 
Gandhi once walked out of a Congress Party convention saying "You people want a system so perfect that people don't have to be good."
We first get involved in rule bending with "Don't tell mom." As life goes on, we may wind up keeping secrets for cheating students, petty theft on the job, unfaithful spouses, insurance fraud, and many more. Usually, there is an understanding of mutual protection for similar things. When we see someone make a mistake, we become judge and jury to decide if they deserve the full consequences, or have learned any lesson necessary.
Mothers are well known for lying about Santa Claus and anything else that might keep her home happy. This is benign myth creation, but the techniques can also be applied in the world of semi-mature adults, and are. Advertisers are well known for deception, but it still works.
In places like schools, there is also a structural problem in that teaching, counseling, etc. are arts, while the administration requires a different set of skills. The people in charge don't understand the work, but they want to be involved, so they may start micro-managing with extensive reports that don't do any good at all.
 
"In places like schools, there is also a structural problem in that teaching, counseling, etc. are arts, while the administration requires a different set of skills. The people in charge don't understand the work, but they want to be involved, so they may start micro-managing with extensive reports that don't do any good at all."

Oh yeah. Tell me!!!

Administrators are different from teachers. Generally, an administrator will teach a few years, then go into "administration," which allows them to tell people who have been working with kids for twenty years how they should REALLY be doing it.

Education is way bad in this respect - every 3 - 5 years there is the New! Educational! Paradigm! and everybody has to stop, recalibrate, then begin again. This is really annoying.

Also, some administrators seem to dislike kids, don't understand them "in the wild" because they got book learnin', but little "in the wild" experience.

On the other hand, administrators (ideally) interface with students, parents, and educators to help everybody navigate a reasonable path through a complex set of social, economic, psychological, and legal environment events.

How well the administrator does that will tell you how good they are at the job. Not all are good, and even those who are good are not good at it all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom