The first source: liberal arts specifically answered a question our class asked how is any of what we're learning going to help us in the future? This article answers by saying it is not the specific content that is important the way we are learning it, to "digest it" , to analyze, make our own conclusions or opinions about it. it is a struggle many teachers have is always being questioned of their curriculum and how important it is. This reminds me of how SOF has the habits of mind which help us analyze things, find significance, etc as a different way of teaching instead of just teaching specific content like linear functions or ionic bonding etc and moving on. But in high school there are limits to what one can learn, they are all generalized classes and have specific curriculum for us to take in order to graduate. My question is who decides what students should be learning every semester and every year? ( For example chemistry, algebra etc.) I believe a top priority for schools is to be able to show how significant the stuff they are learning really is, because usually students never get an answer to this and become discouraged. There are limits schools have that don't allow to change the entire curriculum every U.S. high school or allowing students to take only classes they would like.
With the second article i believe it is true that education does play a part in making society " prosperous" and more productive. The reason why we've had an economic crisis is because in high school we aren't taught how to open bank accounts, manage credit cards, pay off our debt, pay our bills etc. and so, many go into debt starting from entering college to possibly their retirement. In many countries they learn how to improve their society for the future while we mostly just live in the moment and just "patch" never fully fix something. But of course there are limits to what we can be taught and it brings up the argument been having for years of whether should having more life skills classes or core classes( like we have now.) But i think should have one life class to make it balanced, best of both worlds and it will allow students to have at least one class all will enjoy and learn things they won't question.
In third source ( USATODAY.com) tells the line we are always told from birth " go to school and get good grades, so you can get a good high - paying job." But the article says nowadays this " American Dream" is nearly impossible, because high - paying American jobs are going to begin disappearing. Which might make some say then why should i go to school if either way it will be hard to get a job much less a high - payed one. But article continues to say about how it has become more about the money. the numbers are what are most important than the loyal employee, causing for less employment. For those who get out of school expecting the better life only to face the fact that they are going to be unemployed for awhile. It also talks of the the need of more entrepreneurs who can create more real jobs. Its more about what you must expect after graduation, how maybe what we've always been told may not mean anything anymore if it won't actually guarantee a GOOD job.
In the last source it is of a teacher who believes “If you had an amazing teacher who was talented and passionate and given the freedom and support to teach well,” she said, “that was just 100 times more important than anything else.” The most important thing is not curriculum or the class size but the teacher, a teacher who actually cares and is passionate about their students. Reminded about when Ms. D came in and talked about how she liked to connect with students and she seemed like a teacher Ms. Kenny would like. And like our school, she didn't believe passing a standardized test made the student. She wants other things from her students; " I wanted them to be wholesome in character. I wanted them to be compassionate and to see life as a responsibility to give something to the world. I wanted them to have a sophisticated intellect. I wanted them to be avid readers, the kind of person who always has trouble putting a book down. And I raised them to be independent thinkers, to lead reflective and meaningful lives.” And from the success of her schools she must be doing something right, I also believe teacher plays a huge part in our education. If my teacher isn't passionate or enjoys teaching, it doesn't help my own learning process it makes me feel like why should it be important for me to learn if my teacher doesn't care or teaches poorly. It also says how in charter schools teachers can be fired for poor performance, which I thought went for all schools. But it should be known form beginning whether or not the teacher they are hiring fulfill the requirements Ms. Kenny has. At the same time isn't also important to have passionate students? Or does having a passionate teacher lead to that?
