The Difference between an excellent education and an average one

The differences between children.

I won't address the cultural differences here but I will address the issue of the attentive v. the not-so-attentive student, and the dynamic diversity of readiness to learn. Firstly, I state it this way because children who "act up" in class are often simply ready for more stimuli, and therefore I think disruptions can be dealt with indirectly by giving these children more responsibility. Care should be taken of course to observe first and especially to note the conditions, then on another day or so seek to guide this child's energy towards a helpful task, towards more responsibility in class, and thus attach a positive association to their impulses rather then a spirit defeating negative response. Very quickly one will discover which disruptive children have a different sort of pro-activity need and which truly have disorders and/or counseling or other professional needs. This may seem an indirect way to this revelation, but I think it is better than the applying the survey line of questioning that only serves to underscore the negative perspective.

The differences between home environment and classroom.

I believe it could very well be that children labeled as attention deficited can be better helped if they are viewed contrarily as prepared for a faster pace. In other words, less challenged internally but rather the classroom environment is challenged―that is, in that it does not match the pace the child has become accustomed to. Of course this will not be true of all children diagnosed ADHD, but I do believe we can avoid losing creative thinkers to this categorical limbo if we account for the above concern that perhaps some children just need a higher level engagement. Perhaps this is already addressed in some schools or programs, I don't know. Regardless, this presents a greater challenge for educators obviously, and so therefore, very energetic, gifted teachers will more likely excel at this. But to extend that a little further, I think teachers should be required to take drawing and/or design classes. Here me out: only in this way will they in the least become visually competent. I should emphasize: I don't mean teachers should aspire to be artists, not even that they must be able to draft a likeness. What should be required though is that their vocabulary be broader, such that they can train the develping child's eye to be able to describe what they see with more acuracy and therefore be on the way to greater critical thinking, the pinnacle of literacy. The pace of civilization today and the need for more innovative thinkers, demands that we address visual literacy.

Perceived adult to child differences.

In general I think teachers should take parenting classes. An odd thought perhaps, but maybe not so. They are truly the most challenged of guardians are they not? What would we think of a mother or father with 25 kids at home? We'd either think them irresponsible for having so many or we'd merely wish them a good deal of fortitude. Teachers can use volunteers, it is true. And parents I think should recognize this and do all they can to participate in what ever way they can, from cross walk duty to helping out on the playground or in the classroom. But, what must be recognized is that we are training our children to repspond to multiple authorities that often have different rules. The child thus learns that adults differ too as to how to manage their difficutlies and other people. How are we surprised then when children are not consistent in their behavior? Perhaps we expect too much consistency. And further, this leads to my last "difference" point...

Different teachers lead to a world of diverse ideas.

Frankly, this is what may hold us back forever until our doom if we do not address this. Thanks to nearly a century of weeding out the controversy and "political incorrectness," both liberal and consrvtive efforts have manged to sterilize our history and narrow the curricular scope and thus deter the posibility of learning from our big mistakes. In simple terms, if we take out what can be debated in the schools, what's left but sentiment and rote learning? So, what do I propose to do about it. Well, first of all, I think we need to give more authority back to the teachers to the degree that they are not required to test for national standards and school performance for Federal funding. This NCLB precedent is bogus. Secondly, teachers should be given the mandate to form congresses such that they decide amongst themselves what literature to utilize, and become responsible to each other to report successes and failures. Let them make this their challenge to be flexible and thus more responsive and engaged with the continualy morphing dynamic of "differing" children. They must also be allowed variance from the congresses selections. I believe we will achieve a greater variety of thinkers, the more variety we allow in the classrooms, it's as simple as that.

Other differences (of opinion) and Barriers? There is another great barrier, however, that must be addressed if any of the above can be achieved. The interest groups, corporate or otherwise, that have become dependent upon the status quo will fight like the dickens to prevent any considerable change. Lobbies, for example, must be answered and challenged in kind in the legislatures and in the media. Both administrators and union leaders will be aggressively against these relaxed constraints, I'm sure. So too, will the publishers of inferior texts that have been given extended contracts and even perhaps complacent teachers will raise their offended voices. What better way to put debate and ingenuity back into academia than such a row?!