Teachers play an integral role in not only the education of their students but also the lives of their students. Every person who has gone through an educational system can remember teachers that made a positive impact in their lives as well as teachers who negatively impacted their growth or development. Special teachers are those who do more than stand in front of the classroom and recite historical facts or applications of the topic on hand. An impactful teacher cares and takes time to understand his or her students and invests in them. Thus, educational systems must understand the importance of teachers in the development of students and must seek and employ teachers who wish to make a difference in the lives of students.
In the 1986 …show more content…
Both of these theories were enacted in response to an educational structure which promoted relativism and a lack of absolute truths. Thus, the goal of perennialism and essentialism was to return to the traditional educational framework and build up students by passing on the knowledge and truth that had stood the test of time. Other contemporary theories, such as progressivism and humanism, are more focused on the students and base the curriculum on the interests and needs of the students. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. A curriculum-centered education will likely educate all students the same regardless of their talents and abilities. The curriculum acts as the structure for the class to follow. There will be little room for departure from this structure. One advantage of this framework is that students will have a clear understanding of what the teacher expects them to accomplish and that these expectations will be the same for all students. However, this structure does not take into consideration the talents of the students. While students might receive a much broader education in this approach, students have less ownership over their education. A student-centered curriculum gives the student more ownership over their education. Students are able to dig deeper into areas in which they are curious or interested in. For this …show more content…
Because of these standards, schools are not able to give their students as much choice in their education. Because public funding is heavily influenced by meeting these standards, schools currently have to sacrifice their student-centered goals if they want to receive the funding they need to continue providing quality education in their communities. These standards are in place to encourage students to be well-rounded and be prepared for college. They also act as a benchmark and can be used to compare the educational success of schools. While standards may help students take courses they would not have taken otherwise and may help students find their vocational calling, these standards often do more harm than good. Schools and educators feel pressured to cover all the requirements because their job and pay may depend on it. Students are reduced to a number determined by how well they can perform on standardized tests. While the intention of the standardized movement was good (to provide a higher quality of education in America), the implications and results of the movement will be criticized for centuries to
In the 1986 …show more content…
Both of these theories were enacted in response to an educational structure which promoted relativism and a lack of absolute truths. Thus, the goal of perennialism and essentialism was to return to the traditional educational framework and build up students by passing on the knowledge and truth that had stood the test of time. Other contemporary theories, such as progressivism and humanism, are more focused on the students and base the curriculum on the interests and needs of the students. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. A curriculum-centered education will likely educate all students the same regardless of their talents and abilities. The curriculum acts as the structure for the class to follow. There will be little room for departure from this structure. One advantage of this framework is that students will have a clear understanding of what the teacher expects them to accomplish and that these expectations will be the same for all students. However, this structure does not take into consideration the talents of the students. While students might receive a much broader education in this approach, students have less ownership over their education. A student-centered curriculum gives the student more ownership over their education. Students are able to dig deeper into areas in which they are curious or interested in. For this …show more content…
Because of these standards, schools are not able to give their students as much choice in their education. Because public funding is heavily influenced by meeting these standards, schools currently have to sacrifice their student-centered goals if they want to receive the funding they need to continue providing quality education in their communities. These standards are in place to encourage students to be well-rounded and be prepared for college. They also act as a benchmark and can be used to compare the educational success of schools. While standards may help students take courses they would not have taken otherwise and may help students find their vocational calling, these standards often do more harm than good. Schools and educators feel pressured to cover all the requirements because their job and pay may depend on it. Students are reduced to a number determined by how well they can perform on standardized tests. While the intention of the standardized movement was good (to provide a higher quality of education in America), the implications and results of the movement will be criticized for centuries to