This is a good subject. Most of the comments make it a political issue, and I think that's a huge part of the problem. The powers that be, of whatever persuasion, recognize that if you want to change society, the best place to do that is with the children - shape them to your image, whatever that is, while they're young. So Robert Ell…
This is a good subject. Most of the comments make it a political issue, and I think that's a huge part of the problem. The powers that be, of whatever persuasion, recognize that if you want to change society, the best place to do that is with the children - shape them to your image, whatever that is, while they're young. So Robert Elliott is right - what these powers are doing is shaping the future generation, and they know that. Every time an administration changes, a different Secretary, or whatever the head of the Education department is called, turns the education system in the direction they choose. This is how public schools have managed to turn so many parents to choose private. If there were an unchanging standard for education, rather than it changing every administration, society wouldn't be tossed about by every new wind of change that catches the public's fancy. An example is Harvard - how much it has changed is reflected in its slogan - founded in 1636 with the slogan "Truth for Christ and the Church". Well, it's easy to see how much has changed. Enough said. My point is, the educational system shouldn't change with every administration.
You are right, though it does seem like the same philosophical issues in education get discussed and debated for decades without any fundamental changes happening. It's all how to teach this or that, but not helping the students think for themselves. (In fact, that is exactly the opposite of what a lot of conservative state legislatures clearly want today when their objective is to limit or ignore uncomfortable topics.)
Also, I substitute teach at junior and senior high schools in what is supposed to be a higher quality metropolitan district, and the level of focus by the students has seriously dropped since my kids were here 25 years ago. One difference, I think, is that they are now on school supplied iPads and simply are not sitting down quietly and studying. There undoubtedly are other issues, not least the miserable last couple of years, but this was happening before that. About 1 in 20 knows how to concentrate, and they almost invariably say it is because their parents work with them at home. Teachers cannot make up the difference, at least until the students in school grow up enough to get some maturity and maybe realistic career goals (not all of them will be in the NFL or NBA).
Throwing money at this problem by reviving one half-baked plan or another won't solve any of this, nor will teaching to meaningless standardized tests. What could help in the classrooms is treating teachers like really skilled professionals with training and salaries to match, and of course much smaller classes. As it is I worry a lot about how these young people can possibly grow up to be effective and educated citizens, and in my cynical moments I think that is exactly the point: They won't be.
I agree with your point about the teachers. That's another consequence of changing educational goals with every administrative change, and we can sympathize with the difficulty teachers face every time the curriculum changes. Yet we keep changing the curriculum everytime something in society changes - this is asking for problems.
Attention levels of students is another challenge teachers face. Again, I'd agree with Robert Elliott, that "school" and "education" are two different things. The quality of the teacher should be of primary concern, and not so much the curriculum - it's the qualities the teacher exemplifies that will have the greatest effect on students. Since students are receivers of those qualities, teachers have to maintain the highest standards to interject into their students, and should be constantly trained regarding the changing needs of their students. A teacher exemplifying the highest standards can be instrumental in transforming an inattentive student, if the student is encouraged and wants to emulate that teacher's qualities, regardless of what the curriculum is.
The changes that you see coming from the top, i.e., the Dept. of Education and from some state governments based on political philosophies and sometimes coming from some harebrained scheme that aims to solve problems with re-recycled "reforms" and redirected resources is all just a part of the confusion connected to compulsory attendance laws. Education is inherently political but when schools are operating to satisfy legal requirements, everything else and especially the students must take a back seat or get thrown off and under the bus. Students must be present under their own volition or the environment is inevitably hostile and destructive. Regardless, education is a matter for students and their families. Schools are for fish. If some are able to garner knowledge, skills, and character there, that is wonderful for them. For most, they are about socialization, training, and warehousing. There is no such thing as mass education or forced education. It's time to get real.
This is a good subject. Most of the comments make it a political issue, and I think that's a huge part of the problem. The powers that be, of whatever persuasion, recognize that if you want to change society, the best place to do that is with the children - shape them to your image, whatever that is, while they're young. So Robert Elliott is right - what these powers are doing is shaping the future generation, and they know that. Every time an administration changes, a different Secretary, or whatever the head of the Education department is called, turns the education system in the direction they choose. This is how public schools have managed to turn so many parents to choose private. If there were an unchanging standard for education, rather than it changing every administration, society wouldn't be tossed about by every new wind of change that catches the public's fancy. An example is Harvard - how much it has changed is reflected in its slogan - founded in 1636 with the slogan "Truth for Christ and the Church". Well, it's easy to see how much has changed. Enough said. My point is, the educational system shouldn't change with every administration.
You are right, though it does seem like the same philosophical issues in education get discussed and debated for decades without any fundamental changes happening. It's all how to teach this or that, but not helping the students think for themselves. (In fact, that is exactly the opposite of what a lot of conservative state legislatures clearly want today when their objective is to limit or ignore uncomfortable topics.)
Also, I substitute teach at junior and senior high schools in what is supposed to be a higher quality metropolitan district, and the level of focus by the students has seriously dropped since my kids were here 25 years ago. One difference, I think, is that they are now on school supplied iPads and simply are not sitting down quietly and studying. There undoubtedly are other issues, not least the miserable last couple of years, but this was happening before that. About 1 in 20 knows how to concentrate, and they almost invariably say it is because their parents work with them at home. Teachers cannot make up the difference, at least until the students in school grow up enough to get some maturity and maybe realistic career goals (not all of them will be in the NFL or NBA).
Throwing money at this problem by reviving one half-baked plan or another won't solve any of this, nor will teaching to meaningless standardized tests. What could help in the classrooms is treating teachers like really skilled professionals with training and salaries to match, and of course much smaller classes. As it is I worry a lot about how these young people can possibly grow up to be effective and educated citizens, and in my cynical moments I think that is exactly the point: They won't be.
I agree with your point about the teachers. That's another consequence of changing educational goals with every administrative change, and we can sympathize with the difficulty teachers face every time the curriculum changes. Yet we keep changing the curriculum everytime something in society changes - this is asking for problems.
Attention levels of students is another challenge teachers face. Again, I'd agree with Robert Elliott, that "school" and "education" are two different things. The quality of the teacher should be of primary concern, and not so much the curriculum - it's the qualities the teacher exemplifies that will have the greatest effect on students. Since students are receivers of those qualities, teachers have to maintain the highest standards to interject into their students, and should be constantly trained regarding the changing needs of their students. A teacher exemplifying the highest standards can be instrumental in transforming an inattentive student, if the student is encouraged and wants to emulate that teacher's qualities, regardless of what the curriculum is.
The changes that you see coming from the top, i.e., the Dept. of Education and from some state governments based on political philosophies and sometimes coming from some harebrained scheme that aims to solve problems with re-recycled "reforms" and redirected resources is all just a part of the confusion connected to compulsory attendance laws. Education is inherently political but when schools are operating to satisfy legal requirements, everything else and especially the students must take a back seat or get thrown off and under the bus. Students must be present under their own volition or the environment is inevitably hostile and destructive. Regardless, education is a matter for students and their families. Schools are for fish. If some are able to garner knowledge, skills, and character there, that is wonderful for them. For most, they are about socialization, training, and warehousing. There is no such thing as mass education or forced education. It's time to get real.