by Professor » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:22 am
The purpose of education is NOT to prepare students for a workforce. The purpose of establishing a curriculum is to prepare them for the workforce. The purpose of education is to get them to learn that curriculum. It's and important distinction. The people who make up a curriculum are the ones that say, "Computers are more important, we should unclude computer sciences." They are the analyzers and educational PhDs. They are the scientists and "big picture" people.
Teachers are the ground force. They are the ones that teach. They are the ones that are tasked with making students learn the curriculum. They have the most responsibility, and receive the most accolades. And also the most criticism. They are the quarterbacks of the educational world, in that sense.
And, teachers should be given fairly free reign to doo whatever they want in their classroom to help students learn. Some students learn by memorization. They write everything down, transcribe it at home, then study the notes. That's how my wife learned (and she's pretty smart). I, on the other hand, learned by sitting up front and participating in class. But I learned very little by taking or re-reading notes - in fact, I went through 3-years of MBA classes and only used up 1 500-page notebook.
My point is that teachers should be measured on results. If their kids know what they should know, why question the methods? Within reason of course. You can't teach the American Revolution by taking a 6-month field trip around New England (though, that'd be amazingly effective). On the other hand, if a teacher isn't effective, there is always the old, "Here is the book, here are the lessons, here are the tests - now teach them."