I'm not really sure what to say on the idea of making sure teachers are more interesting. While I agree with Isaac on the big impact that feeling engaged and having a good relationship with the teacher can have on a student's learning, I don't really know that teachers need to be particularly exciting. I mean it may be a nice bonus if a teacher has an especially friendly and energetic disposition― I think we've probably all had at least one ancient math teacher devoid of all humor and emotion, and it does makes 5th period pretty dry. But I don't think being fun necessarily means being a good teacher, or vis versa. The pretty much universally acknowledged "coolest" teacher at my high school didn't teach her students a thing; her class was a joke. If she weren't funny and you weren't happy to be having no homework, you'd probably question where your tax dollars were going.
Anyway, "personality" is too vague and arbitrary to be used as a criterion for hiring teachers, much less firing them. Every teacher, just like anyone else, is going to seem likable to some people and not others. The most important thing is simply that they know the material and are willing to work with students..
I do think that today's education system isn't as conducive to creativity as it could be. Basics like literacy and arithmetic aside, it may not be a bad idea to allow kids more freedom in pursuing their personal educational interests, or at least more intellectual freedom with the way they're working and the pace. We shouldn't throw all standards out the window, nor do I think we can really do away with tests (despite what some people may say), but there could be room for more flexibility and specialization. I'll leave the exact plan of action to someone else. Obviously we have a compelling interest in having kids who have a reasonable foundation in scientific ideas, and learning to read and write is fairly essential to living as a full member of society. Kids may not like it, but then few students are ever going to report to liking schoolwork―not even your valedictorians and salutatorians, most likely.
You can bend over backwards trying to get kids to learn, but ultimately the ball is in their court. And really, I'm not sure classwork is supposed to be entirely enjoyable at all times. We've talked about schools teaching kids relevant life skills, and learning to meet your responsibilities and do things you don't necessarily want to be doing is as important as anything. Life is full of boring or bothersome things that you have to do; kids need to learn to suck it up and improve their outlook. After all, to a large extent things will be as interesting as you choose to make them be.
I think it is important to remember that there's going to be some boredom in education. It involves sitting still, concentrating, etc. You make a valuable point in reminding us to just accept this. Indeed, I sometimes think that we need to be more bored as a culture--I am rarely not occupied with something these days thanks to smart phones, etc., and it's a shame. I remember sitting around as a kind with 3 TV channels on Saturday and thinking, I'm genuinely bored. There's a huge value not only in learning to overcome boredom, but I think to tolerate it and to actually embrace it, to find interesting things within boring things--it's the whole purpose of our course, really. Eventually, it's possible to be entertained by the boring, to find an appreciation for it. There's even a group of so-called "boredom enthusiasts" who like to find extremely boring things. It's really a species of very dry humor, at the end of the day, and learning to appreciate the boring is a crucial skills.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Isaac is certainly right that there has been a shift toward testing and narrowly mechanistic approaches to teaching. The US has the most creativity and critical thinking oriented education system in the world, and what we need to do is preserve that while accepting the need for the occasional test, and, yes, some boredom.