Public, private, I don't care who runs it. Teachers are teachers are teachers; there are good ones and there are bad ones but ultimately they attempt the same goal. I've wanted to teach since I was in fifth grade, so I've been keeping my eyes on how things work in the educational systems and which teachers and methods I liked best and wanted to apply.
One thing I've paid special attention to for dislike of it is the standardization process. I have no problem with national standardization itself; if kids in SC are learning things that kids in NY or CA are learning then great. In fact, the concept might help to combat intellectual disparages between the two coasts, and that's something I'm all for. What troubles me is the methods that the government usually takes to achieve this goal; standardized testing. The SAT and the ACT are less than great but necessary in my book, but some classes I've been in have revolved around what to study for a standardized test at the end of the course, rather than learning, and there's really nothing educational about that. If you want to learn some SAT-level vocabulary, then read
Tycho Brahe's blog, but don't spend an entire semester trying to cram words into kids' heads. Its honestly not worth it, since most will forget it after the first vocabulary test you give them, if they retain it that long.
I had an especially rough run of this my last two years of high school when I was in Advanced Placement history classes. All that is taught is what is going to be on the AP exam, which is nationally standardized. Every quiz and every unit came with the familiar caveat of "Pay special attention to this part kids, because this is definitely going to be on the exam in May." It was basically strict memorization of dryly read facts, and while I'm not opposed to memorizing various facts and dates, in a supposedly college-level history course, there should be
more! Ok, I get that Teddy Roosevelt did such and such, but why is that such and such relevant? Teddy Roosevelt is a singular character in American History, and yet so much emphasis is placed on the words "big stick" in reference to him and that's all you hear!
It wasn't the fault of my teachers either; they were both able and brilliant minds who could inspire even the most desolate minds into action. It was the regulations that bound them so close to standardization that they have virtually no control over their own curriculum. I could never be an AP teacher. It's too boring! There's no freedom! I suppose I would fit in best at the university level, but that's not financially feasible at the moment. Besides, someone with an actual mind for history has to teach secondary school kids their history instead of gym coaches who need to teach an easy class to stay coaches.
And let me delve into technology for a bit. Short answer, I don't need it. Long answer, I don't need it because if you give me a chalkboard and a set of textbooks, I can teach your kids about Caesar Augustus and Nebuchadnezzar. That's not to say that I don't think its all worthy. Powerpoint projectors can provide a vital visual aid that helps kids learn better. I don't, however, understand the need for Smart Schools, where every child has a laptop on their desk. It's too expensive and completely unnecessary.
Edit: I'll admit that I don't currently know of a way that we can make standardization practical without testing; but I will find one.
