Rule of 3 on "Poorly Funded Schools"

Lucas Leydon

Williams

English 1A

8 September 2013

        It is important that teachers have the ability to adapt their teaching methods to the needs of the individual students.  If teachers have only one way of teaching, it will prevent a number of students from receiving a quality education. Teachers must constantly be finding ways to refine their teaching methods and find ways to reach out to a variety of learning styles. This could be accomplished by conducting regular meetings between teachers to discuss how to incorporate certain ways of teaching they have found to be successful. Teachers with more experience should be able to pass along useful tools they have come across to assist newer teachers in relating with students. Teachers should never be static in their methods and should posses the desire to always be improving their teaching style.

       Teachers must have a passion for what they teach. If passion is not present in a teacher, it makes for a dull learning experience. Passion is what inspires the student to want to learn and excel in the class. I have had teachers who just sit there, robotically going through power points, making it an extremely difficult lecture to sit through. I feel the performance of the student relies greatly on the abilities of the teacher, and passion plays a major role in this outcome. If passion is never sparked in students from a teacher, this will have a negative affect not only on the teacher, but on the generations to come, having the students of today as the teachers of the future. 

       If an education system's pedagogy is one influenced heavily by big business, they will adopt a model that values quantity over quality. This can affect our students in a very negative way. It is a quality education that is needed, not a quick and "efficient" one. Education systems have a role in molding the future generations, and an education system focused on quality should be the foundation of its focus. Schools must whip out the microscope and integrate a system that stimulates and refines the talents and abilities of the students on an individual level. If a student shows potential in a certain area of study, the schools goal should be to focus in and cultivate these abilities. Schools should also display flexibility in adjusting the students academic curriculum to aid in the field of study they plan to pursue. A student interested in engineering should be given an "engineering dominant" academic progression; a student interested in music, a "music dominant" academic progression, and so on. I feel this approach would allow the student to get the most out of their educational experience and better prepare them for their future. "Detailed focus on an individual level" should be the model that academic systems strive for. 

       Big business focuses on getting the highest amount of output from the least amount of input. This means education would be focused solely on numbers, such as test scores, rather than a thorough understanding and comprehension of what is taught. Just because someone can memorize facts, and regurgitate them for a test, does not necessarily mean they have fully grasped what is being taught. If anything, this serves merely as a memory test. Students must be given attention in detail to make sure they understand what is being taught on a critical level. I feel standardized testing is a form of taking the easy way out for education systems rather than putting effort forth to ensure students not only understand what is being taught, but to instill the ability to inherently go beyond the standards imposed upon them. It is analogous to the phrase," Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Likewise, 'Teach a student some facts, you prepare them for a test; Teach a student how to learn, you prepare them for life'. 

       A "big business" model for education will produce an extremely negative effect on future generations. Because big business is focused on quantity rather than quality, this would mean quality educators' focus would be shifted to "quantity", or putting out the highest amount of students possible. Quality can put out quantity, but can quantity put out quality? I don't think so, and this is the problem the next generation would face. Being a product of a "quantity" educational system, future teachers would not have the skills necessary to produce a quality education for future students. At the time, it may sound very promising for teachers to focus on and be able to put out the highest amount of students possible, but this will create a snowball effect for the future of society, not possessing competent individuals needed to meet challenges that humanity will inevitably face. This is analogous to someone who favors "quantity" when buying food (fast food) rather than "quality" (healthy food) because it is more convenient at the time to save money, when further down the line is faced with health issues due to their eating habits. Our "educational habits" should be fully embraced and placed on a "quality" diet before things get out of hand and go beyond the possibility of repair.

       One reason bad teachers exist is due to a lack of passion for teaching. Teachers who are not passionate about what they teach create the atmosphere of learning to be felt like a chore. This will not spark an interest in the student which is needed for them to succeed in the class. I have experienced this first hand having taken a class with a teacher who lacked passion for the subject, making it a very dull and un-motivating experience, to taking the same subject with another teacher who was totally passionate about what they teach, giving me the interest needed to succeed and also the desire to want to learn what was being taught. It is amazing how the difference in attitude of the teacher can make in the outcome of a students learning experience. Passion should be the foundation every teacher thrives on. 

       Ten year plans may also be contributing to the development of bad teachers. When a teacher no longer has to worry about whether the quality of their teaching affects their pay or job security, they can become very un-motivated to teach above the minimum standard. This is a major issue that must be revised. Schools must create an incentive for teachers to want to teach beyond standard levels. Ten year plans counter act this incentive and adversely gives them incentive to slack off. Of course, not all teachers take this negative advantage of the ten year plan, but for those who do, they waste a good amount of time and money that could be spent on teachers worth employing. I was unaware of the ten year plan until recently and find it to be a flaw in the system, which explains how certain schools can come to be "bad schools". Previously I was under the impression that teachers were under the microscope of the administration as much as the students were of the teachers, and would be subject to losing their job had they not been expressing their full potential of their teaching abilities. Maybe my naive supposition wouldn't be a bad ideal to strive for!