Reforming the Schools: Who is willing to sacrifice for it?

He who gives what he would as readily throw away, gives without generosity; for the essence of generosity is in self sacrifice.-- Henry Taylor

One of the most common and apparently pleasurable distractions for Americans has long been to jump on bandwagons. Nothing warms the heart and expands the self-regard more than to promote “reform” of one kind or another, especially if you, personally, don’t have to pay much for it.

Commitment is a problem. That sometimes means using up personal resources, time, money, attention, patience, to make things happen. But if you are particularly concerned to promote reform, then you might want to have a way to judge how much a person is willing to stand by you if things get sticky.

You may not ever expect someone to be willing to break the law for the sake of the reform, but you may be surprised, occasionally, at the enthusiasm for this that you encounter. (Gung Ho, we call them.) On the other hand, it’s not to much to ask someone who is willing to bother you with complaints, to put up or shut up: help, or don’t interfere. (Better yet, use The Little Red Hen’s Rule: no help, no bread.)

It is a long-standing American tradition to complain about the public schools. But it is a rare occurrence for anyone employed in them to resign his or her position over an issue of reform. Most are disinclined to personally confront a colleague even when they believe that person’s behavior to be unprofessional to the point of immorality or criminality.

What you need is a checklist, a survey of items ranging in intensity from very to minimally disruptive, which will give you an idea whether you, personally, or your colleagues, are sufficiently committed to change to bring it about.

For such an assessment instrument, see Assessing Role and Commitment


Cordially
--- EGR

Are Students a Teacher’s Clients?

updated 2/3/21

“You are rewarding a teacher poorly if you remain always a pupil.”-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Our advertising-saturated culture invariably slops over into education. Houses are offered for sale as "homes"; amusement parks as "great adventures"; life insurance as "protection."

Some suggest that a student should be thought of as a "client." Perhaps what is at work here is the thought that people who deal with clients are more "professional," more worthy of respect, than those who deal merely with customers, wards, dependents, charges, inmates, or students.

Is reconceptualizing student as client just harmless ego bolstering for the practitioners of our traditionally underprized occupation? I think not. Students are not their teachers' clients. Nor should we aspire to our students' someday achieving such a relationship with us. Client is a term both too pompous and too shallow to characterize the special relationship that under the best of conditions exists between teacher and student.

No teacher gains an increment in prestige by referring to his or her students as clients. That deep commitment to (one might say, "obsession with") students' well-being found in many, many teachers -- a commitment that leads them to spend energy, time, and money far in excess of any compensation they could hope for -- is miserably served by the characterization of the student as "client."


To examine these issues further, see The Student as "Client"

-- EGR

Disregarding Disagreement: rituals of misdirection

updated 11/5/19

I never met a man I didn’t like. -- Will Rogers

It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. —Baudelaire

We Americans pride ourselves on being friendly. Americans have tons and tons of “friends.” Some people use Facebook to count the “friends” they have. Hardly anyone refers to someone they know as an “acquaintance.” That sounds so off-putting, so unfriendly.

Want to be my friend? Just don’t get too serious. Talk about sports; show you’re a fan. That way, if we disagree, I can appreciate it as team loyalty.

Don’t bring up religion. You go to your church, I go to mine. (Weirdoes don’t go to any church, although some OK people might not go because they’re pissed off -- for understandable reasons -- with the clergy.) I’m OK; you’re OK. Enough of that.

Do you really want to talk about politics? (Did you miss last night’s game?) Well, OK, provided you stick to vague, fuzzy labels like liberal, conservative, libertarian, Republican, or Democrat. Maybe even socialism, or capitalism,progressive, or independent. Don't ask, "What do you mean?"

Don't talk about anything too technical, or too heavy. Otherwise, you begin to sound like a “wonk” or a “squint” and you get into serious altercations. Everybody knows that wonks and squints are just one step away from being “weirdoes.” Just remember some of our newer words of wisdom: Let it be, let it be.

Fellowship is based on entertainment value. Even news broadcasters -- you might say, “especially news broadcasters” -- know this. Much more than compromise and tolerance -- which put demands on our emotional, intellectual and moral strength --, it is memories of good feelings, presumably shared, that hold us together. (We still love Uncle Harry, the lecherous, drunken slob, because he’s attended family dinners forever.)

This is why we don’t study history or geography in school: too much of old, bad memories and other times and places. Out of sight, out of mind, out of existence. Our reality is found in the here and now of “reality shows.” If misfortune happens there, we know it’s just acting.

Planning for the future? We listen to those who make us feel comfortable, unchallenged, and we keep our fingers crossed.

For references and to examine these issues further, see Getting It Together: 
the nature of consensus


Cordially
--- EGR