Everyone thinks that they have the answers to education, and the reality is, they probably do. After all, we went to school; we were all taught, right?
Personally, I don't think education was meant to be standardized yet that is what many are trying to do. Why? Well, first, most continue to think that education is the panacea that will fix all that is wrong with current culture. The truth is this: education reflects the power of culture and the "normativity" of that culture.
Secondly, education does indoctrinate and inculcate children with a certain worldview and way of thinking. To teach in a Socratic way is to allow the child and the process some freedom to develop in ways different than the norms of society. The powers of culture do not want that to happen. They want to reinforce the normative structure of current culture, for better or worse, through the educational process.
Currently, the powers, in this country, are in the process of standardizing the standards in a movement towards core competency. The movement, inside of itself, is a step in the right direction, but again, it only sets the stakes in the ground. Reaching those stakes is another effort indeed. That effort requires teachers who are equipped, schools that are funded, parents who are supportive and students who are motivated to learn.
Even though all these things are important, I still think each one pales in comparison to what is really important inside this process of education. This element is the very reason why private schools out-perform public schools. It is the reason most home-school students are successful. It is the reason why most expensive schools are successful. And that important element is the relationship between the teacher and the student, which opens up a multitude of other issues to be considered.
In regard to curriculum, some of it is poor, but the majority of it can be thrown into one category... good. In my opinion, curriculum will not make or break a school; teachers will, and teachers who are given the room and the space to build relationships with students will teacher to the highest level regardless of the curriculum put in front of them, provided that they come to the process with the right perspective. Poor curriculum will certainly have an effect on education, but equipping teachers with proper tools, educating them correctly and allowing them the space to build relationships with students will most certainly produce results.
Regarding curriculum, why do we need it? I do not ask this question in rebellion and as a means to do away with current curriculum; my question is more epistemological: what are the reasons for its use? If we have standards, do we need curriculum? Asking teachers to meet standards and adhere to curriculum would seem to me to stifle relationships with the students. If we throw standardized test preparation into the midst, building quality relationships with students becomes an uncertainty, at best.
But, do we want today's teachers building relationships with our students? That seems the more relevant question. I think the answer depends on the school and situation, but the question, just the same, is paramount because teachers still wield enormous power. The process of education is still a trusted means of transferring information from one generation to the next; because of this nature, parents walk their children into this process expecting teachers to imprint their knowledge and expertise onto their children (We can talk on whether this is a true educational process later.). With all that is taking place today, should we not demand more knowledge about the school, the class and the teacher that will be educating our children?
If the teacher possess this power and is paramount to this process we call education, the question them becomes multi-layered. How do we train teachers well? How do we filter out those that should never be teachers? How do we rid ourselves of those teachers who are already part of our system and have proven to be untrustworthy, inadequate and corrupt? Currently, we have no answers to these questions, or maybe we do, but those answers lie in places we would rather leave in the dark. To find those answers would reveal the true focus of our current educational process which appears to be one reality but is really another.
I will stop here as I believe I have created more questions than answers. Please keep in mind that those thoughts above are thoughts in process and not ends within themselves. I am and will always be
an advocate of education, especially Christian education that produces students who can answer the call of I John 4:1 as adults! Blessings
2 comments:
Great question! Why do we have both standards and curriculum? I'm thinking that this has never actually occurred to me. When I was held accountable for meeting standards (public school), I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to tweak the curriculum to fit the standards. Some of it was "good," but a large portion of it wasn't worth using. You're right, building relationships was much more difficult in the midst of six different sets of curriculum, progress monitoring for standardized testing, and prepping for testing. I was overworked, frustrated, and felt like an utter failure more often than not.
What kind of teachers do you think we would have if there were no curricula? Maybe weeding out the inadequate teachers, at least, would be more probable.
I think we would have... teachers of students and not teachers of stuff. I think you are right; we would weed out those who were in it for the wrong reasons. Again, it comes back to quality over quantity for me. If there was either standards or curricula to provide a vision, but there was great emphasis on relationships then, we might have more teachers in it for the right reasons.
Post a Comment