Schools are political. And most of the time...that's a problem.
Everyone has different reasons why they work in education. Most teachers, I believe (I hope), teach because they genuinely want to help students learn and succeed at some level. Administrators are there to see that teachers teach and students learn. Where things get hairy is in the expectations (and I speak mainly about public schools here). Because schools are funded with tax dollars, there are certain expectations that come with how those dollars are spent- and rightly so. I don't want to give away a portion of my income to a black hole of educational spending. I want it to provide quality education. But because people, specifically politicians, have a vested interest in seeing that those tax dollars are being used in some sort of measurably successful way, there are all sorts of standardized tests and educational markers that must be adhered to. Administrators administrate these test and markers and the teachers must teach to prepare students for whatever must be done. Unfortunately, teachers are incentivized to produce the best test scores so administrators are happy so, in turn, politicians can boast certain percentages of kids who did such and such on this particular test proving that our educational system works. But have these test produced true learning? Do students have a healthy command of the knowledge? Has the role of the teacher been neutered in a way? This might be an exaggeration...but maybe not.
Even if standardized tests don't play as big of a role, individual tests within the classroom also pose a risk to real learning. We (American schools) do a great job of fact memorization. Students will memorize multiple facts, regurgitate it back onto an exam, get an A, and think that they have learned quite a bit. While it's important to know facts, I would much rather focus on learning big picture stuff. How do all these facts fit together? Do you have a good overall view of your subject and where your lessons fit along the way to a comprehensive understanding of each discipline?
As I said before, students don't see learning as applicable to their lives. Why I believe this attitude exists is partly because students don't see the full scope of how these individual facts fit into a bigger picture which, in turn, has a huge effect on how they process information, view surrounding around them, and handle the opinions of others. That is a broad and vague statement, I know, but it's getting late and I don't want to have to defend my position any longer. So ha! Part 3 to come...some time.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thoughts on Education, Part 1
As a substitute teacher, I've had a lot of opportunity to observe students, teachers, and administrators in both the public and private school context. It is from these observations and my own personal reading about the field of education that I hope to write down some of my thoughts on education in general and why our American educational system seems to be broken on so many levels. I realize that my scope is limited on the subject, so I readily welcome the opinions of others.
Many students, I believe, don't see the value in a liberal arts-type educational system (whereby one will learn from a number of different disciplines). The argument will sound something like this: "Why do I need to learn all this stuff- I'm never going to use it in real life?" This statement is not necessarily true.
1. Some actual bits of information will be used, mostly in a social context. Having a good grasp on fields of history, economics, science, math etc. gives students a better basis from which to have meaningful conversations with people of all educational backgrounds. I think the concept of logic also plays into this argument. Without a solid foundation of liberal arts, I'm guessing it would be harder to think on more of a theoretical level. Do you think that is an incorrect statement? As a side note, it would be interesting to study history and the attitudes behind a more liberal arts education. I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that a liberal arts education was encouraged or even required in ancient cultures. That would be an interesting study.
2. While I realize that there are many learned bits of information that will be either unemployed or forgotten, there is a more theoretical aspect to liberal arts education which I find enormously valuable. Much of primary, secondary, and even college education is aimed at teaching you how to learn. While a student, for example, may not directly enter the field of mathematics as a teacher or researcher, learning how to find connections between mathematical concepts and understanding the process of problem solving will be invaluable later on in a career. I've been told that once someone is hired for a new job in any field, there is a huge task of re-education that must occur. While you may use some "hard skills" (universal skills pertaining to a specific task), each company or organization has many processes and social norms which a new recruit has to quickly pick up on. This is where learning how to learn will benefit a student in the future.
This is an enormous subject (hence part 1). So hopefully I'll be able to write more thoughts later.
Many students, I believe, don't see the value in a liberal arts-type educational system (whereby one will learn from a number of different disciplines). The argument will sound something like this: "Why do I need to learn all this stuff- I'm never going to use it in real life?" This statement is not necessarily true.
1. Some actual bits of information will be used, mostly in a social context. Having a good grasp on fields of history, economics, science, math etc. gives students a better basis from which to have meaningful conversations with people of all educational backgrounds. I think the concept of logic also plays into this argument. Without a solid foundation of liberal arts, I'm guessing it would be harder to think on more of a theoretical level. Do you think that is an incorrect statement? As a side note, it would be interesting to study history and the attitudes behind a more liberal arts education. I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that a liberal arts education was encouraged or even required in ancient cultures. That would be an interesting study.
2. While I realize that there are many learned bits of information that will be either unemployed or forgotten, there is a more theoretical aspect to liberal arts education which I find enormously valuable. Much of primary, secondary, and even college education is aimed at teaching you how to learn. While a student, for example, may not directly enter the field of mathematics as a teacher or researcher, learning how to find connections between mathematical concepts and understanding the process of problem solving will be invaluable later on in a career. I've been told that once someone is hired for a new job in any field, there is a huge task of re-education that must occur. While you may use some "hard skills" (universal skills pertaining to a specific task), each company or organization has many processes and social norms which a new recruit has to quickly pick up on. This is where learning how to learn will benefit a student in the future.
This is an enormous subject (hence part 1). So hopefully I'll be able to write more thoughts later.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
NYC for the Ball Drop
Well, I did it. I finally went to Times Square in New York City this past New Years' Eve. Overall, a great experience. There was a lot of standing, a lot of waiting, and sometimes confusion; but it was great time with great friends (and some new friends from all over the world). The thing that surprises me the most was how quiet the crowd was. Honestly, until the very end, people just stood there, practically not making any noise. It was a little eerie. It is definitely an experience and if you have the chance to go and you have the ability to hold your pee for about 13 hours- I would say do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
