Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyg2
If you can't do, teach.
Too many people in academia think they can make things better with their radical progressive aproaches, all they do is end up screwing things up. Most of them wouldn't last a month in the real world.
If they stuck to conventional methods and just focused on doing it well for a change, they wouldn't have to re-invent the wheel every few years.
|
Sammy,
I would add the phrase, "If you can't teach, become an administrator"
The teachers themselves are not the ones who are constantly screwing with the cirriculum. Over the past two decades, there has been an increasing trend to:
Test to see where weaknesses lie.
Buy a new programme to deal with the "deficiencies"
Test again.
The trouble with that is you raise the cost of education with all the materials which are being replaced an a 3 - 5 year cycle and creating the need for dozens of Cirriculum Supervisors who are 'needed' to oversee the implementation of the new programmes.
In the meantime, there is no one who knows that child and their needs better than a good classroom teacher. But according to current supervisory wisdom (and I'll use THAT term loosely) the teacher must not modify the programme without supervisory guidance.
You are correct and ttom's first post nailed it.
The education system is in desperate need of a return to the basics.
The purpose of publicly funded education is to benefit the society not to provide smoke and mirrors.
Best
Les