I love to learn stuff. I would sit at a desk and read all day - NY Times, hockey blogs, Bio of Abe Lincoln, History of the Byzantine Empire, explanation of nuclear fusion - anything that taught me something. I know that is one of the reasons I got into teaching, because I get to learn stuff right along with the students, and if I do it (teaching) well, then sometimes the kids teach me stuff.
And this curiosity about everything is really the only thing I want to communicate each and every year. I always get up at some point and say "if you leave this classroom having a total interest or obsession with one thing, a passion to know or get better at this one thing, then I will be happy." And I always mean it, because I know that none of the content that I cover will likely be in my students' heads by next week, let alone next year, but that curiosity or excitement to explore should never leave.
Which is why I flip out every time I read some well-meaning politico/liberal thinker type extol the need for something to be included in the curriculum. We need to educate our kids about the importance of recycling! Don't leave out the (name your disenfranchised group) when you cover the history of our country. Make sure they understand that bullying is bad!
Not that any of those things that gets talked about is bad, in fact generally when I see what is being suggested, I nod my head in agreement. Absolutely they need to understand the importance of budgeting and saving. Fer shure, you cannot undervalue the need for good oral hygiene. Expecting teachers to solve social ills simply because they teach something is foolish at worst and naive at best.
Because those things ARE NOT education. Education, in my view, is exposing a kid to the world, showing them how to explore that world and guiding them when they get stuck. I do my worst teaching when I get in the way of that.
Unfortunately, I am constrained to get in the way, because I am given a whole set of obstacles, more commonly described as the curriculum. The curriculum is great in that it sets objectives and outcomes and skills that can be learned. What it doesn't do very well is allow for curiosity.
Let me give an example of what I mean. I teach grade six social studies. And in the course of teaching this fine subject, we come across ancient Athens. Now the curriculum says I need to teach students how decision making processes (democracy) were developed here. What it says I can't do is feed the flames of excitement in each and every one of my students (mainly boys) who say, is this ancient Greece? Can we learn about the mythology? What about the Romans? Can we learn about them too? What I have to point out to them is that we don't have time to even look at the traditional rivalry between Athens and Sparta, let alone Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Roman Republic and the rise of Julius Caesar. And I am forced to tell them that they won't get the chance to learn about anything like that until university. And the reason I can't, nor can any of their teachers from here to eternity, is that the subject of ancient Europe, medieval Europe and modern Europe has been ruled out of the social studies curriculum. (this particular vent is my own soapbox, but it could equally apply to the science curriculum or math for that matter).
What would be nice in one of these interminable curriculum reviews would be if someone said, Y'know, these subjects are all pretty full of stuff. What if we eased off a little and assumed that teachers want to teach, kids want to learn and if we give them some space they will do exactly that?
I think it would be fabulous if there was a month of non-structured exploration built into each and every curriculum, for most of the grades. Perhaps some suggested subjects or areas of inquiry, but mostly non-mandated with the only requirement being that the interest of the class must lead the way. Shoot, one of these years I might actually learn about Chinese history from my students (I had never heard of Zheng He until one of my students objected to only learning about Canadian explorers and made her own presentation on this ancient Chinese admiral).
For you nay-sayers that feel there is not enough covered, I point out the Language Arts curriculum, which has very little in concrete outcomes, but yields the most amazing products of all the subjects. Good teachers can let their students roam as far as they want and they very frequently do.
If we take the political/social/pragmatic agendas out of what we teach, or rather what we force kids to ingest, then imho, we would have students who were far more capable of providing nuance and balance to our culture, having discovered their own brains and how thinking for themselves is good.
Oh, and that teachers really aren't the be-all-end-all of knowledge. That would be good too.
