|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 12:19:10 GMT -6
Low income and low education tend to go hand in hand. People that don't care that much about school tend to pass that on to their kids and also tend to be unemployed or emplyed in more menial jobs. Parents that do care, tend to pass that on. There are so many factors to look at, but generally speaking it's a chicken or egg argument. Affluent areas produce more kids that excell academically. Lower income areas produce less. Lots of ways to look at why that's true, and I'm sure you could fashion a study to say just about anything you wanted about it. you missed it because that had zero to do with the article thanks for not reading but replying
|
|
|
Post by gunrun on May 28, 2010 12:25:44 GMT -6
So the research shows a Montessori setting maybe beneficial in these areas, but is that even possible in the football world? I know in football you can use a variety of teaching methods: demonstration, lecture, repetition etc etc but I think it's pretty much impossible to use a Montessori approach. What do you just walk onto the field and say "Ok everybody go work on some drills that you want to do." I think you can lead them to understanding a technique a bit better. For example: I had a DB coach that, before teaching his kids to press with a certain leverage, had them try to press a receiver from a head up position. They had a really, really hard time doing it because the receiver has a two-way go. After a few reps for everyone, he stops the drill and asks "What would help you do this job better?" Almost all of them will say something like "If we knew which way he was going to go" and then he says "And how can we do that?" and then they have the lightbulb go off and say "Well, if we were only on one side of him, we'd know he can't go that way..." and then they start working it with leverage and holy cow! it's easy! This isn't a perfect technique of teaching and is somewhat time inefficient, but they certainly UNDERSTAND why it's important to have good leverage afterwards. There's a degree of self-discovery to it, while being properly monitored/coached. That's pretty good to start them off in a position of failure and let them discover on their own the what and why behind the technique we are trying to teach them.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 28, 2010 12:31:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bouncingboredom on May 28, 2010 17:21:59 GMT -6
Low income and low education tend to go hand in hand. People that don't care that much about school tend to pass that on to their kids and also tend to be unemployed or employed in more menial jobs. Parents that do care, tend to pass that on. I cannot disagree more with this. My Father spent 35+ years working in a plastics factory on a low income, but if anything, that made him MORE interested in his childrens education. He and my mother did everything they could to push me along the academic path. My ultimate semi-failure was mine, and mine alone, economic factors played little part in that. What is more interesting to me is the quality of teachers and teaching materials in low income areas compared to middle/high income areas.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on May 28, 2010 18:04:18 GMT -6
I think you can lead them to understanding a technique a bit better. For example: I had a DB coach that, before teaching his kids to press with a certain leverage, had them try to press a receiver from a head up position. They had a really, really hard time doing it because the receiver has a two-way go. After a few reps for everyone, he stops the drill and asks "What would help you do this job better?" Almost all of them will say something like "If we knew which way he was going to go" and then he says "And how can we do that?" and then they have the lightbulb go off and say "Well, if we were only on one side of him, we'd know he can't go that way..." and then they start working it with leverage and holy cow! it's easy! This isn't a perfect technique of teaching and is somewhat time inefficient, but they certainly UNDERSTAND why it's important to have good leverage afterwards. There's a degree of self-discovery to it, while being properly monitored/coached. That's pretty good to start them off in a position of failure and let them discover on their own the what and why behind the technique we are trying to teach them. That's good teaching there but still not really a true Montessori method. The way I understand it is that students are given total freedom in what and how they want to learn. So if that is true then it would be like walking onto the field and asking what do you want to practice today? One kid would want to work on routes maybe one would want to work on catching and maybe the third would want to work on blocking. So would that truly work on the football field, I can't see it happening. So anyone have any ideas how to transfer the results from this study to the field?
|
|
|
Post by bouncingboredom on May 28, 2010 18:16:53 GMT -6
At the very least you would have to specifiy that they did a certain amount of work on certain skills each week. The choice would be no more than what order they do that work in and maybe they get to chose which out of a selection of two or three drills (for a specific skill) that they do.
Honestly though, I couldn't see that working.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 28, 2010 18:41:07 GMT -6
Low income and low education tend to go hand in hand. People that don't care that much about school tend to pass that on to their kids and also tend to be unemployed or employed in more menial jobs. Parents that do care, tend to pass that on. I cannot disagree more with this. My Father spent 35+ years working in a plastics factory on a low income, but if anything, that made him MORE interested in his childrens education. He and my mother did everything they could to push me along the academic path. My ultimate semi-failure was mine, and mine alone, economic factors played little part in that. What is more interesting to me is the quality of teachers and teaching materials in low income areas compared to middle/high income areas. Sorry, but self-anecdotal stories are no substitutes for 100,000's of pieces of data. Of course, none of this is what this study is about.
|
|
|
Post by bouncingboredom on May 28, 2010 18:59:42 GMT -6
I cannot disagree more with this. My Father spent 35+ years working in a plastics factory on a low income, but if anything, that made him MORE interested in his childrens education. He and my mother did everything they could to push me along the academic path. My ultimate semi-failure was mine, and mine alone, economic factors played little part in that. What is more interesting to me is the quality of teachers and teaching materials in low income areas compared to middle/high income areas. Sorry, but self-anecdotal stories are no substitutes for 100,000's of pieces of data. Of course, none of this is what this study is about. I appreciate this had little relevance to the original study mentioned, but then neither did the other post. And I have generally found as a rule that it's unwise to so readily discard any data just because it runs contrary to what you consider the norm.
|
|
mojoben
Sophomore Member
Posts: 148
|
Post by mojoben on May 29, 2010 7:47:00 GMT -6
What would be interesting to see how things compare in a "rural" setting compared to a "urban" setting when it came to low-income affects?
There are a lot of small communities in the Great Plains that majority of the people are living along or under the poverty line. Just seems they aren't affected the same as someone from the Urban setting more times than not. Money might be tight/very little, but generally their surroundings in my opinion help them succeed better compared to the the Urban low income families. Many of these small communities rally behind their children for them to have a better life even if it means they will likely leave that small town after graduation.
So yes SES can be issue any where, but my guess it is much more of a issue in Urban settings regardless of race... it is more of the cultural settings imho.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on May 30, 2010 19:34:00 GMT -6
Interesting article but nothing really groundbreaking here...tracks well with what I have heard during inservices for teaching low-income kids over the past 10 years or so.
One of the best books I have ever read on the subject is "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby Payne. Anyone who is interested in the cognitive differences between kids who live in generational poverty versus kids who live in circumstantial (temporary) poverty should check it out.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 30, 2010 20:22:08 GMT -6
Interesting article but nothing really groundbreaking here...tracks well with what I have heard during inservices for teaching low-income kids over the past 10 years or so. One of the best books I have ever read on the subject is "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby Payne. Anyone who is interested in the cognitive differences between kids who live in generational poverty versus kids who live in circumstantial (temporary) poverty should check it out. If you read Payne, make sure you read this www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/sava212.shtml to balance it out. Much of her ideas are not based on research, and her success is based simply on packaging middle class stereotypes of poor and minority environments and selling them to the administrators and school boards made up of...tah dah... middle class whites who already have these stereotypes. A link to the abridged version of the article described in above abstract www.edchange.org/publications/Savage_Unrealities_abridged.pdf
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on May 30, 2010 23:21:43 GMT -6
Interesting article but nothing really groundbreaking here...tracks well with what I have heard during inservices for teaching low-income kids over the past 10 years or so. One of the best books I have ever read on the subject is "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby Payne. Anyone who is interested in the cognitive differences between kids who live in generational poverty versus kids who live in circumstantial (temporary) poverty should check it out. If you read Payne, make sure you read this www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/sava212.shtml to balance it out. Much of her ideas are not based on research, and her success is based simply on packaging middle class stereotypes of poor and minority environments and selling them to the administrators and school boards made up of...tah dah... middle class whites who already have these stereotypes. A link to the abridged version of the article described in above abstract www.edchange.org/publications/Savage_Unrealities_abridged.pdfPaul Gorski? Really? That's where you want to go? Do you know anything about your boy?
|
|