+Andy Cowen I find your question amusing, disturbing, and curious, all at once. Amusing, because we all have interesting stories, and it's been fun to read some. Disturbing, because it takes only one point of view on the education system, and does not give any service to what actually DOES work in it - and yes, I believe there are some things about it that do work. That isn't to say it isn't still in a dismal state. Curious, because it brings to mind some of the reasons my wife and I intend to educate our children in what would be nowadays considered non-traditional. But to answer your question, and to provide counterpoising perspective:
What went right and wrong for me: Teaching relies on an unwritten contract between a teacher and a student, and it's as much the student's responsibility to learn as it is the teacher's responsibility to teach. Yet, too often the burden of an entire class leaves many students without sufficient "teaching" in a manner that works for them. Example - 8th grade I took Algebra-1, and did poorly, even though I had excelled in math in my prior school (a private school). Against my teacher's wishes, I proceeded into Geometry in the 9th grade, and did quite a bit better. Algebra-2 in the 10th grade was a blast for me. I attribute all of this to the teachers teaching in a manner
I found effective for learning, or not (in the case of 8th grade). 11th and 12th grade I began to slack off, for reasons beyond this conversation. In other classes, my interest was simply not held, or I questioned why such topics were important, like many other students. Having been out in the world now I can appreciate those topics much, much more, and believe I could impart some of that appreciation to my children at least.
I had very good teachers, all in all, until college - and even they were not all bad. Of all my friends, I am one of the very few to have achieved a bachelor's degree from a major institution (UCF). I mention that only because I want to speak to the notion of what college prepares us for, and what it doesn't. I certainly learned a great deal there, and have used my knowledge in my career. Not every college degree will grant that, but I believe there is great value in upper-education. What we must dispose of is the mythical promise of wealth and riches as the reason for upper education. From a purely workmanship point-of-view, I can offer this: I have seen the output of both a university and a technical school - UCF versus Full Sail - for software engineers. Full Sail teaches the
how. UCF teaches the
why. That, I believe, underscores the awesome difference between technical/vocational schools and those that offer full accredited 4-year degrees. If I could change anything about upper-education, I would combine the two schools into one.
That being said, I also learned in my post-graduate days that much of graduate school is designed to produce people who stay in the university system. A Masters will get you a little farther than a bachelor's in the private sector, but a Ph.D. will get you tenure at some big-U, if you can pull it off...of course, in the US, you then spend your days peddling for research money for the university. That's part of the reason I decided that a Ph.D wasn't for me. (Sometimes Ph.D.s make it into the private sector, but really the degree tends to become a liability there.) Yet its frequently Ph.D.s that make inventions that change the world. Point is: people in this country need college a lot more than anyone is willing to admit, because frankly they're not getting that quality or quantity of education in the primary schools, and it's the sort of advanced knowledge that other countries (Germany, for instance) believe should be provided FOR FREE.
There are many things I find disturbing about our current culture, and our public primary education systems. First, the notion that we send children to schools for the "social experience." This has got to be one of the most laughable excuses people pipe up with when they want to rail against homeschooling. Social experience? I was bullied, taunted, and generally depressed - how does that help my learning experience? Not everyone experiences that, but the point is that school is supposed to be a learning environment, not a social conditioning mill. While it's important that children be taught the ways of the world and how to interact with others, I think it's perfectly achievable without having to resort to public, or even private, education complexes. It starts by removing them from under the rock and letting them see the real world.
Second, no one takes public education seriously enough to invest serious money in it. We took my son to the county school office and I was surprised at how dismal the building looked. I quipped to my wife: "Yep, this must be a government building." Money doesn't cure every evil, but a lack of money certainly doesn't help either. We don't pay good teachers worth their feed, we don't keep our schools in good order, we don't have enough teachers to go around... So that's certainly broken. But supposing all of that was fixed...would public school still be broken?
My son currently attends a day-care that has a learning curriculum. I spent a day there recently to observe and interact. I was interested to see how two teachers in a classroom of 9-to-15 2-to-3-year-olds managed. I can say this much: they needed a lot more help. I also saw a lot of missed opportunities for interaction, involvement, and interest stimulation. That's a private institution, and of course they
are three-year-olds. I wonder how it will be in public school?
Not just anyone can be a teacher, but a teacher could be any one of us. What is it to teach? How many who have responded to this post have taught? I can only say that, as the parent of a child with a communication delay, I and my wife have worked hard to teach my son how to talk, to interact, and in some cases to learn. But until we learned how to teach
him, we had no idea what we were doing. It turns out that teaching is more about understanding children than it is about understanding the topics we're trying to teach them. I think that's where many people get it wrong. You can teach a topic 100 different ways and never be understood - understand how your child learns, and now you can teach them exactly how they need to be taught. But what are we trying to teach them?
I pine for my math skills, slowly deteriorating from lack of use and a poor practice when I had time to practice and a teacher to question; my joy of reading has taken off so many years beyond when it mattered for a grade; I would love to really
learn some foreign languages, yet it's ever more difficult with age; politics, economics, chemistry, physics...so many interesting topics, so little time now. I want my children to be forces of good in the world, to be part of positive change. For them to be that, they have only this one chance to learn as much as possible about how the world, the universe, science, nature, math, language works. One chance. This is their only time. It's not that our education system is broken, it's that it is overburdened and crushed under its own weight and the various beliefs that people hold against it. Society is broken - we believe we just need to pawn our kids off on other people who are "qualified" to teach, when in fact we have an innate responsibility to teach our children ourselves - to be part of the teaching equation, to build up their self-esteem and the belief that they can learn and achieve great things. We need to teach them the
joy of learning, rather than sitting by while random events stomp out all desire.
We waste our children's opportunity to learn if we ourselves, as parents, are not active participants. Asking if their homework is done and going to PTA meetings does not quality. Of all the things I could do with my spare time, all the things I could do for myself, I gladly sacrifice it all for my children and their continued learning and development.
