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 legislature…
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.
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.