I think being a kid these days is exhausting.
School plus homework plus extra private tutoring, sports, maybe something else like martial arts or music ect plus social media stresses. Exhausting.
Extra private tutoring... that really should be for cases where students are struggling to meet academic expectations, viz. most commonly if they are struggling to pass. And that really is if the school is unable to provide that particular kind of support (or enrichment, as the case may be).
Yes, I am fully aware that there is a significant business out there for tutoring, and indeed I would probably guess that there are AFF members who are tutors themselves. One does ask whether the education system is adequate if it
requires the average student to receive external tutoring in order to meet academic expectations / goals.
Everything else mentioned there is extra curricular involvement. As I said, I did 3 activities (they were all not year long ones), and I did feel some stress, and at times my parents criticised me for unduly subjecting myself to that pressure and to give up my activities. Apparently after I got dux year 11, one of the parents of my friends (who was also in the chess team) forced him to give up all extra curricular involvement so he could "focus on study"... and he ended up dux in year 12. I'm not sure what is "expected" participation in extra curricular these days, but it seems more than when I went through the system, and definitely seems more than most parents remembered when they went through school.
No, but the question is pretty narrowly defined. If the question becomes : Is the mark of a good teacher strongly defined by the percentage of students who get a Pass when tested on the curriculum and when the teacher is judged against their peers? Then I'd say yes, the teacher bears some responsibility for poor results and should be judged accordingly. There will be extenuating circumstances for a number of students who don't perform - home environment for instance, but most professions have benchmarks for performance and I reckon student's performance in testing is a fair enough one for teachers.
I deliberately "narrowly defined" it as such because it seems the regime which I am working in would
insist on
As, and
not a mere passing grade (which by and large is a grade of C).
Also, assessment should be written to test students' understanding of a given curriculum, however as I have seemed to find out, there appear to be many ways to create an illusion that students have mastered the curriculum when in fact they know far less. This is presenting a conflict between what I believe is my professionalism as a teacher, versus other stakeholders' contrived interests.
