The most fundamental question few openly answer is what the purpose of education is. America is without question a new experiment in a nation-less state with an ideologically-based identity. Though all the ethnic groups of the world are arguably mixed considering the migrations of people over time, nation-states around the world build their identity firstly around this characteristic. Since the Civil Rights Movement, the scientific racism and apologies for imperialism gave way to a shaky state-sanctioned program of inclusion in the name of making up for lost opportunities and de jure exclusion domestically. What we teach our students and what we omit are questions that confront teachers around the world from Saudi madrassas, Jewish religious schools, North Korean political science departments, and Harvard law classrooms.

The philosophy I adhere to is primarily realist with existentialist and re-constructivist sympathies and both an aversion and respect for pragmatism.  Simply put, I am a bitter idealist who sees institutional and practical constraints as the brakes placed on the wheels of individual self-realization.  My own education seems to come out of the idealist school. There was an emphasis on higher-level thinking, facts, ideas and the canon of knowledge concerning Western Civilization. These classics were taught to help students perform well on standardized tests that often cover such subjects. This also prepared students for university course work.

The search for truth, focus on self-realization, character development and moral growth were possible because of the high stakes involved. The high level of education of the parents, the high average incomes of the households and the general trend for parents to strive to help their children with their educations meant this philosophy could be put into practice. On the pyramid of needs, these students were free to address the top tier of self-realization. The holistic approach was sometimes annoyingly abstract, but the point was to keep the students thinking. Students were constantly asked to piece together connections between factors after in-depth analysis of the subject matter coming from lectures, research and projects. I agree that the model is elitist, but I think the reverence for such institutions as Ivy League education, Oxbridge tuition and other prestigious forms of education shows that our societal model is inherently elitist. Though the approach is considered bookish, my high school instruction prepared me so well for university coursework that I simply did not have to exert myself mentally until the fifth semester. The argument against such an in-depth approach makes me think of an image including cavemen drawing pictures of their action-packed hunts, scholars reading in the great library of Alexandria, and twenty-first century Americans either sitting in front of their thin-screen TVs watching football or mindlessly perusing the web on their slick laptops.  The cycle has come full circle.

               What I see as ideal is existentialism, but there still exists the problem of helping children grow up to be functional adults who can adapt to the demands of society and market forces, which do not always hold individuality high on their list of priorities. In my teaching, I try to incorporate reflective and metacognitive thinking, but I remain focused on what affects their lives in the form of assessment and graduation. In teaching history, I believe there should be an understanding of both the embellished version of a story and the sootier reality of the issue. Because I believe educational systems can stifle creativity and infringe on the development of individual maximization of talent, I want to improve this by allowing for more student input and leadership. On the other hand, once students have come to accept school as an institution that primarily decides what they can and cannot do according to behaviorist conditioning with rewards and punishments, giving the students free rein can be a disaster. Rather than embracing their newly-found freedom, some students simply play a game of discovering what limits the teacher will enforce by trial and error, which leads to nothing but disruption and wasted time. In theory I would love for my lessons to be 100% student-driven, but the problem is that by relying on their cues, I fear they will not coincidentally choose topics they will be responsible for on standardized testing.  In sum I believe that financial constraints make idealism untenable for state-supported schools. Societal pressures and market-driven corporate culture make instructing with the existentialist philosophy an act of defiance on the behalf of the teacher at the expense of the students’ futures.

               On the other side of my preferences are pragmatism and constructivism. I have taught high school and university students. Naturally-motivated students are not what I encountered every day. Real life situations are difficult to simulate in a 100-year-old classroom, and flexibility can be anathema to organization and understood expectations. Though I support a general education and experimentation, students face tests that determine their future. Diversified education is a good thing, but time constraints must be considered. Honestly, I think students should be in school until 8, 9, or 10 pm. I saw this in Korea and their standards are not at all behind ours. Plus plenty of social problems we have do not exist there at all. The criticism that pragmatism rejects traditional values in religion, ethics, and society makes me think what similar pressure would have existed during the Jim Crow Laws, Anti-Chinese Immigration Acts, the Indian Removal Act, and the McCarthy Era. Regardless of my preference for realism, I recognize the anointed position constructivism currently enjoys. Though I do believe in multiple representations of reality, and see oversimplifications as horrible concepts to disseminate, the suggestion of creating “authentic tasks in meaningful contexts” is rather abstract and ill-defined. The collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation and not through competition runs directly against the grain of our mainstream society that prides competition and individual perseverance.

Re-constructivism to me is both essential for this country to heal its wounds and possibly the greatest threat to freedom of expression. Every tightly-controlled state has tightly controlled historical interpretation. The mark of a free country in my perspective is the liberty to address the most controversial and divisive of topics with conflicting opinions given the same respect. Proponents of the opposing opinions must use logic and reason to reach a compromise of sorts or at least agree to disagree. Until this country lays out a codified list of state-sanctioned beliefs, God willing this day will never come, correcting social ills can be very tricky. The attempt to eradicate discrimination and make amends for ignoring subjects deliberately to justify dubious assumptions about society can lead to equally tyrannical demands of conformity.  For teachers to focus so much energy on convincing students of the need for change, training them to be social activists and petition the government, the political atmosphere of the country would have to be drastically different. It is my understanding that parents, citizens, policy makers and politicians do not believe that teachers are in a position to determine the beliefs that students are supposed to hold close to their hearts. All the same, I strongly support instructing students to pay attention to world issues and read literature from around the world.

               This leads me to the philosophy I identify with the most, realism. Perceived logic can easily lead to incorrect conclusions and what we think exists does not always exist. In order to gain as much understanding while simultaneously taking into account limitations, realists attempt to be as objective as possible.  Students are asked to deduce meaning from their observations and not to force previously conceived notions on the subject of their investigation. Students study systems, arrangements, order of processes and deduce theories about the relationships being observed. Though the scientific method may not be impeccable, it is the best model we currently have. Watered-down courses waste students’ time, mislead audiences, and result in meek outcomes. I do not like being a guinea pig. Thus I assume my students do not either. School, like work, must be goal-driven. People in whatever capacity work harder when they have a stake in the result and the goal is not obscure, convoluted, and based on the interests of someone out of touch with their realities. Though lectures seem to be out of vogue, I see lectures as productive, and when people do not have a frame of reference for a historical event such as the partition of India, it is best to give them some background information. With students who reliably read, this can be done as homework. With students who are a bit more recalcitrant, lecture may be the only input they receive concerning the facts and figures. The questions given on standardized tests measure students’ ability to use background information already stored to make logical assertions. If the students are not even remotely familiar with the topics, there is no way they will be receive positive marks. As out of vogue teacher-centered classrooms are, the research still states that teacher-talk-time has decreased only marginally regardless of concerted efforts to flip the ratio.  I try to use the teacher-centered classroom to mine as much student participation out of the students as possible. In my opinion, the best teacher walks the tight rope balancing a preconceived understanding of which directions the class should go and an ability to adapt to the personal needs and interests of the students authentically. It is this authenticity that cannot be trained for. This comes with luck, subconscious adaption and not only a lot of experience, but the intelligence to piece together the lessons of past failures and successes. 

               The critics of realism state the realist approach is inhuman, mundane, rigid, scientifically cold, and inherently classist. It also purportedly fails to consider the totality of man and overemphasizes hard work and discipline. This is where my opinions come forth. I face a wretched job market and accept that I will probably have to deal with pay cuts, that unemployment will probably rise, that I will possibly be added to its ranks, and that job skills are not well-matched with those of our educational system’s products. I think our country needs a large dose of realism. I have worked with a Spanish company and envied my coworkers who could take siestas. On the other hand, the high number of unemployment makes getting a job there a bit trickier. A Cypriot I knew used to tell me about the slow and leisurely pace of life in her homeland. They, like other EU members, are being forced to ask for bailouts. Other first world economies like France and Italy with their work ethic heavily tied to humane treatment are not doing as well as other economies with cultures based heavily on relationships of responsibility. As Americans, we face competition we have not seen since before the U.S. took its place as world hegemon. Our lifestyle, our status, our way of life depend on our ability to create the most innovative and effective system of education. We have a long way to go.

A great teacher cannot be defined in the way an acute triangle can. Teacher accountability and the obsession civil servants have concerning how to designate such wastes valuable time. A great teacher is one who when allowed the freedom to create a wonderful learning environment without restrictions, fulfills his or her duties. This is a vague, but I believe you cannot quantify success for this profession.  

The various needs I had as a student, a child, an adolescent, and a young man were met at different times by individual teachers who have affected me greatly. My second-grade teacher never allowed me to lazily just coast through class. Whether IQ testing has any justification or not, my scores at this time were extremely high. Being close to the bottom of the socio-economic barrel in such an elitist neighborhood can be overwhelming. She helped me gain the confidence to shine academically in an environment where my peers may have had wealthier family backgrounds, yet less developed cognitive skills. My high school English teacher helped me formulate reasonable and defensible arguments against draconian rules with faulty foundations. If we sincerely believe that the cultivation of democratic principles is the primary task of our state school systems, it is imperative that students be given a chance to construct their own arguments. At the university level, I had a wonderful German professor who pushed me to work harder on my German even though I had never visited the country and was taking advanced composition. The wealthy will always be able to pay for SAT prep courses, private tutors, and astronomically expensive university tuition fees. It is the talent that lies in the muck of lower-class and middle-class mediocrity that needs to be nurtured and unleashed.  

As a fifth grader, I can distinctly remember a teacher telling my friend that he would never amount to anything. Like myself, my friend had recently moved into the neighborhood from a less than an affluent area.  Our teacher seemed to be a self-designated inspector of appropriate character and thought. He made learning a matter of conflict. Regardless if I was interested in the subject matter, his legalist way of thinking only made me feel imprisoned in his classes. Thus, all learning from this teacher stopped. Trying to beat a sense of inferiority into an 11-year-old is simply despicable. In high school, I witnessed world history be butchered by a football coach who belongs in the recruiting office instead of the classroom. Some teachers respectfully admit their limits, while others brow beat their students into being afraid to ask questions.  I dreaded going to that class because instead of receiving anything insightful, I was forced to listen to football locker-room jokes for more than half the period. At university I remember another “teacher” who supposedly taught us intermediate German. The class met only twice a week, so his frequent cancellations amounted to theft. Though I resented his completely visible disdain for teaching practical German classes, I was aware that his career depended on publishing at the students’ expense in the hopes of raising university prestige. My ability to speak German was but a minor concern and their neglect was an unfortunate but unavoidable result. Lastly, there were my University of Texas professors. The head of my Czech department was in the process of resigning and relocating, and quite frankly could not be bothered.

The best teachers set the benchmark for what I need to become. The other teachers are the benchmark for what I should never become. I want to wake up and feel that if God is looking over my shoulder, he or she has nothing to criticize. I want to help people the way so many good people helped me. I want to be someone who makes students feel comfortable exploring ideas instead of rehashing the same stuff that has weakened our economy, made us the most obese nation on earth and the primary suspect in the humanity’s disastrous alteration of ecosystems. In lieu of my experience with the University of Texas, I want to be a teacher who remains loyal to his obligations by being a helpful mentor even when the district is about to start lay-offs, even when my coordinator is in a bad mood, or there are family problems at home. A professional, like a soldier does not allow these factors to influence his or her performance. Teaching and waging war are both in the interests of the entire population of a state. Thus a fitting synonym for teachers are warriors fighting ignorance and helplessness.

The reason for my desire to become a teacher can be looked at cynically or romantically. Within our own society, there is the saying that if you can’t do anything, then teach, and if you can’t teach, teach at the university level. Having taught at the university level, maybe I fit in both the former and the latter. The romantic perspective of my choice of profession is that I hope to take the information I have accrued and help students think critically, avoid oversimplification and grapple with the complexities of this world so that we may advance as a people, a nation and more importantly a species. From questioning rampant cultural bigotry in Korea, the foundation of institutional racism toward the Roma in the Czech Republic to my Saudi students’ perceived need for the destruction of Israel, I have tried to instill in student’s a notion of world community.

I personally consider myself passionate, approachable, and willing to walk the extra mile for students.

As a prospective social studies teacher, I want my students to learn that the black and white painting of the world they have been presented is a far cry from reality. I want my students to think for themselves, create their own opinions and most importantly be able to back up those opinions with logical arguments regardless if they resemble my own opinion. The goal is to help students regardless of their beliefs be able to stand by their assertions, yet be able to accept constructive criticism. Another goal in teaching history would be to make students recognize that their understanding of the wider world is riddled with huge holes in the hopes of prompting them to learn more and more. Many adults become complacent with ignorance. No one at the age of 17 has a firm and intricate understanding of the world. Only in the curious days of our adolescence do we care to find out more information. Upon receiving the never-ending list of responsibilities that accompany adulthood, many simply learn what they have to and call it a day.

Pedagogical research seems to have produced many new and innovating theories, yet the quality of our education in our age of information has progressively plummeted. With this understanding, I accept the works of prominent scholars, yet try to be as practical as possible. Each individual is different. Every group of individuals interacts differently. Teachers need to be able to adapt to these ever-changing circumstances and avoid applying theories to entire groups with the justification that it is new and research-based. If the students want activities, give them the opportunity to enjoy their learning. If the class is not as interested and the group work is more of a hokey experiment in cooperative learning than a genuine method of instruction, I will revert to what they know. Teachers are not omnipotent beings that can convince students at all times that their lessons are designed to enrich the students’ lives.  Experimentation is great, but having been a student, I prefer not to be used as a guinea pig. It did not make me feel more respect for my teacher’s ability. It simply made me distrust the teacher’s sincerity.

It is worth noting that I have made no conscious decision to study technology. As a youth, I poked fun at my friends who spent hours playing video games. The sad truth is that the people who isolated themselves from society and lived out their lives through avatars proved to be at the forefront of our new age. Working with glorified chalkboards, I find myself in a catch 22. We need to use more technology because the students do not respond the same as they used to. Bombarded by images, videos, podcasts and other blips, students need more technological interaction. The question is whether teachers have become sales representatives for Microsoft, Apple or other technology-based companies instead of distributors of knowledge. Realistically I have heard over and over again that we need to incorporate technology into the classroom. One funny consequence of this at one of my schools was that we had a smart projector sitting in the corner of the classroom because it interfered with the lesson. As a university lecturer in the Czech Republic, I noticed that whatever technical skills an American educator could have, it would not matter in an environment with 20-year-old computers intermittently running on XP without Microsoft Office, and not enough money to fix the copy machine, from which the students get their texts. American school districts dole out more and more cash on technology while firing teachers. Logically, some teachers will see themselves replaced by written programs in the next fifty years, yet all are judged according to their “correct” incorporation of technology in their classes.  To appease these pressures, I try to be an informator instead of an automator. I want the addition to have a purpose and not simply be an exercise in teacher technological competence. Another pressing issue is to help students understand which sources are reliable and which are simply drivel written in the heat of the moment by an individual with no desire to back up his or her theories. The technological addition has to help students cross the bridge to understanding. As a teacher, I need to be aware of changing trends, standards and norms. Time is always an issue in classrooms and if technology supports the biggest bang for their buck, then I use it.

Facing the problem of educating our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and class oriented society, I base my methodology around realism. I see the situation here in the United States tipping into an abyss most of us are not ready to accept. With the world transforming exponentially at a rate no generation before us can even fathom, change is essential. The question is what kind of change. When we consider the state of our nation and our species, whatever methods have been employed in the past have created the society we live in today.  Far from perfect these methods need some alteration. The problem is when teachers obsequiously follow trends in education and neglect the actual work of educating. In my own teaching, I constantly consider how I compare to the most effective of my former teachers and the most ineffective of them. The most pertinent problem I face is that there is no precedent for the incorporation of technology. With this stated, I will stand on the sidelines and let the more dare-devilish of teachers do the experimentation, yet I will accept their findings and change my practices appropriately.