What Should Teachers Teach?

[henry quirk]

Yes, I do see some danger in this. All respectable professionals are peer reviewed, and sometimes have to do refresher courses. There also must be safety standards that protect whistleblowers.

professionals we're not to question, reviewin' professionals we're not to question: check

professionals we're not to question, gettin' additional trainin' from professionals we're not to question: check

whistleblowin' professionals ought not face those they accuse: check

a recipe for shiny times

Then get to work on it if you don't already do so.

get to work on what?

[Immanuel Can]

You are so mysterious, Mannie. You keep your personal identity unusually well covered up.As you have the right to do, of course.

I do. And I have proper reasons for doing so. I want people to be able to speak with me impersonally, regarding truth and facts, not regarding personality or with artificial and unwarranted deference to what I may or may not know.

[gaffo]

Thee ACTUAL Truth and FACT IS that ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being would do the EXACT SAME thing, which "another one" does, if they were brought up in and with the EXACT SAME circumstances. So, human beings 'trying to' judge ANY one else, then the ONLY thing that they can Truly "judge" them on is there OWN 'past experiences', and OBVIOUSLY NO two human beings has had the EXACT SAME past experiences. Therefore, to 'be able to 'judge' "another" correctly and/or properly' is just FALSE and INCAPABLE thing to do.

1000 bpercent truth, fully agree/

This means that ABSOLUTELY NO person has the RIGHT TO 'judge' "another", nor even has the actual CAPABILITY to actually be able to 'judge' "another" correctly nor properly.

dissagree here, i reject moral relitivism, and so i have no right to judge others. i do but must be mindfull of not walking in thier shoes.


you seem to be affirming moral relitivism - and like you said above - and i affirm - i would do the same as the other if in thier shoes - as a universal humanist i affirm we are all the smae - you and i are the same me in your r should and vise versa would do the same actions.

what i dissagree with is your rejection of a an objective morality - i affirm one morality - what is wrong for me is wrong for you - you just need to be placed in my shoes.


so your argument is wrong, in do es not inclue the ego - the eog of the one that does wrong, and plays teh coward - instead of convicting himself for the immoral act, justifies it.

[Iwannaplato]

Computers are very useful for information retrieval but not for obsessive gaming or social media.

Which leaves out a lot of categories of use. It also puts to the side the problems with children's development regardless of what they use the computer for. A child using a computer many hours a day for information retrieval is not engaging with other people face to face, to that child's detriment. Also the kind of information retrieval (a phrase that actually should set off warning bells itself) is limited online (give how people use online information). It is shallow, less reflective information processing. If you need a specific fact, great. If you want to read a specific article great. But compared to sitting with a physical book, the information retrieval is shallow and scattered. Sure, if one had an entire book online and read it as one read a traditional book then the process would be similar. But this is not how people use the internet. So, studing something becomes information retrieval, rather than say engaging with an author's approach to a subject in the complexity a book allows. Even just the idea that a book was written by someone seems to get lost in the online information retrieval world. When you read a book, you are reading someone's arguments, organization, concepts, connnections. So what is presented has internal relations. When you go for information retrieval you are getting facts (purported at least), monads without internal relations.

Computers are one of several teaching tools. Mannie, you should leave problems of teaching methods and curriculums to the professionals. Education is a specialism. Do you think you know more than medics do about medical practice?

I think lay people, if educated can certainly criticize the current practice in any profession. Outsiders may be even more likely to see paradigmatic biases or power biases - for example, the way pharma affects prescription AND DIAGNOSIS tendencies.

I happen to be a professional in education, but I see no reason to ad hom bar the opinions of people who are laypeople in my field.

[Belinda]

Computers are very useful for information retrieval but not for obsessive gaming or social media.

Which leaves out a lot of categories of use. It also puts to the side the problems with children's development regardless of what they use the computer for. A child using a computer many hours a day for information retrieval is not engaging with other people face to face, to that child's detriment. Also the kind of information retrieval (a phrase that actually should set off warning bells itself) is limited online (give how people use online information). It is shallow, less reflective information processing. If you need a specific fact, great. If you want to read a specific article great. But compared to sitting with a physical book, the information retrieval is shallow and scattered. Sure, if one had an entire book online and read it as one read a traditional book then the process would be similar. But this is not how people use the internet. So, studing something becomes information retrieval, rather than say engaging with an author's approach to a subject in the complexity a book allows. Even just the idea that a book was written by someone seems to get lost in the online information retrieval world. When you read a book, you are reading someone's arguments, organization, concepts, connnections. So what is presented has internal relations. When you go for information retrieval you are getting facts (purported at least), monads without internal relations.

Computers are one of several teaching tools. Mannie, you should leave problems of teaching methods and curriculums to the professionals. Education is a specialism. Do you think you know more than medics do about medical practice?

I think lay people, if educated can certainly criticize the current practice in any profession. Outsiders may be even more likely to see paradigmatic biases or power biases - for example, the way pharma affects prescription AND DIAGNOSIS tendencies.

I happen to be a professional in education, but I see no reason to ad hom bar the opinions of people who are laypeople in my field.

I agree with all the points you make in your post. I just want to add that teachers quite often meet a parent who thinks he knows more about educating his child than does the teacher. It is almost unknown for the doctor, dentist, or solicitor to have their professional expertise questioned.

Certainly, lay people might be educated. However teaching comprises more than theories; modern teacher education is child centred ,and teachers have practical experience and develop intuitions about the children in their care which they can then compare with theory. Parents who are not professional teachers seldom have both practical and academic skills.

[Iwannaplato]

I agree with all the points you make in your post. I just want to add that teachers quite often meet a parent who thinks he knows more about educating his child than does the teacher. It is almost unknown for the doctor, dentist, or solicitor to have their professional expertise questioned.

The tricky thing there is that the parents are teachers, especially with their particular child. I do recognize this pattern, but it is, unlike the situation with doctors and dentists, much harder to set a clear boundary. And there are fads and fashions and values in the various pedagogies and various teachers, and here also the parents may have a point, or a different set of values, where in fact it is very hard to demonstrate that someone is wrong in the scientific sense. I don't know what it's like nowadays, as I move into codger age, but when I was a kid teachers had terrible knowledge of pedagogical options. And I went to the best public schools (US meaning of public) in a large city. Still, the pedagogy was terrible.

Certainly, lay people might be educated. However teaching comprises more than theories; modern teacher education is child centred ,and teachers have practical experience and develop intuitions about the children in their care which they can then compare with theory. Parents who are not professional teachers seldom have both practical and academic skills.

Sure, and I think there is much correct in what you say. At the same time some of these arguments are based on value differences, not for example what leads to the highest SAT score or most versatile English speaker or whatever. It is a difference over what it is to be a good, moral adult. IOW you go to your car mechanic and they just simply know stuff you don't in a situation with a well trained honest mechanic. An honest well trained teacher may not even realize how much their pedagogy is based on values, how much it is a fad, how the goals are value-based, and then into specifics what the parent knows about their specific child. Now this opens the door for moron parents, trust me I know. But it has no parallel with car mechanics and I would tend to say dentists - though no way I would get a mercury filling, don't care that I never went to dental school. With doctors who are less technicians than dentists, it gets further away from the car mechanic situation. But that's a whole alternative health discussion.

[Belinda]

I agree with all the points you make in your post. I just want to add that teachers quite often meet a parent who thinks he knows more about educating his child than does the teacher. It is almost unknown for the doctor, dentist, or solicitor to have their professional expertise questioned.

The tricky thing there is that the parents are teachers, especially with their particular child. I do recognize this pattern, but it is, unlike the situation with doctors and dentists, much harder to set a clear boundary. And there are fads and fashions and values in the various pedagogies and various teachers, and here also the parents may have a point, or a different set of values, where in fact it is very hard to demonstrate that someone is wrong in the scientific sense. I don't know what it's like nowadays, as I move into codger age, but when I was a kid teachers had terrible knowledge of pedagogical options. And I went to the best public schools (US meaning of public) in a large city. Still, the pedagogy was terrible.

Certainly, lay people might be educated. However teaching comprises more than theories; modern teacher education is child centred ,and teachers have practical experience and develop intuitions about the children in their care which they can then compare with theory. Parents who are not professional teachers seldom have both practical and academic skills.

Sure, and I think there is much correct in what you say. At the same time some of these arguments are based on value differences, not for example what leads to the highest SAT score or most versatile English speaker or whatever. It is a difference over what it is to be a good, moral adult. IOW you go to your car mechanic and they just simply know stuff you don't in a situation with a well trained honest mechanic. An honest well trained teacher may not even realize how much their pedagogy is based on values, how much it is a fad, how the goals are value-based, and then into specifics what the parent knows about their specific child. Now this opens the door for moron parents, trust me I know. But it has no parallel with car mechanics and I would tend to say dentists - though no way I would get a mercury filling, don't care that I never went to dental school. With doctors who are less technicians than dentists, it gets further away from the car mechanic situation. But that's a whole alternative health discussion.

Sure.I understand.

At the same time some of these arguments are based on value differences, not for example what leads to the highest SAT score or most versatile English speaker or whatever. It is a difference over what it is to be a good, moral adult.

A primary school teacher in England had a class of seven year olds who were being taught the moral and political principle of inclusivity. Some of these children had low income Muslim parents. The particular objection one such Muslim father had was that his son was being taught that it was okay when a child has same sex parents. My friend is a great persuader and defused the situation during the interview with the little boy's parent.As well as being friendly and persuasive my teacher friend stuck to her principle of inclusivity. The outcome was okay. However this anecdote will illustrate social class divisions, and ethnicity divisions between the teacher who represents the establshed authority and the minority group parent. I regret I do not know what can be done except wait and hope successive generations will adopt the inclusivity ethic.

[Belinda]

professionals we're not to question, reviewin' professionals we're not to question: check

professionals we're not to question, gettin' additional trainin' from professionals we're not to question: check

whistleblowin' professionals ought not face those they accuse: check

a recipe for shiny times

Then get to work on it if you don't already do so.

get to work on what?

I presumed there are boards of (laymen) governors in US schools.

[Age]

Thee ACTUAL Truth and FACT IS that ABSOLUTELY EVERY human being would do the EXACT SAME thing, which "another one" does, if they were brought up in and with the EXACT SAME circumstances. So, human beings 'trying to' judge ANY one else, then the ONLY thing that they can Truly "judge" them on is there OWN 'past experiences', and OBVIOUSLY NO two human beings has had the EXACT SAME past experiences. Therefore, to 'be able to 'judge' "another" correctly and/or properly' is just FALSE and INCAPABLE thing to do.

1000 bpercent truth, fully agree/

This means that ABSOLUTELY NO person has the RIGHT TO 'judge' "another", nor even has the actual CAPABILITY to actually be able to 'judge' "another" correctly nor properly.

dissagree here, i reject moral relitivism, and so i have no right to judge others. i do but must be mindfull of not walking in thier shoes.


you seem to be affirming moral relitivism - and like you said above - and i affirm - i would do the same as the other if in thier shoes - as a universal humanist i affirm we are all the smae - you and i are the same me in your r should and vise versa would do the same actions.

what i dissagree with is your rejection of a an objective morality

But I have NEVER rejected 'objective morality'.

In fact I ALREADY KNOW HOW and WHERE 'objective morality' ACTUALLY EXISTS.

- i affirm one morality - what is wrong for me is wrong for you - you just need to be placed in my shoes.

But, if 'I' was placed, in 'your' shoes, then would 'I' be able to EXPLAIN, irrefutably, what AND where 'objective [one] morality' IS?

If no, then what does "being in your shoes" got to do with this?

But if yes, then will you EXPLAIN, irrefutably, what AND where 'objective [one] morality' IS?

To 'me', what is NOT agreed upon as being 'wrong', (and 'right'), by each and EVERY one of 'you', human beings, is NOT necessarily 'objective morality', AT ALL. However, what is agreed upon and accepted as being 'wrong', (and 'right'), by EVERY one of 'you', human beings, IS 'objective morality', ACTUALLY.

so your argument is wrong, in do es not inclue the ego - the eog of the one that does wrong, and plays teh coward - instead of convicting himself for the immoral act, justifies it.

Or, JUST MAYBE, my argument is NOT actually saying what you think it was saying.

[Advocate]

How to think, what to think, and why, in that order of importance. Of course it's not that simple since kids' changing capacities don't mirror that order.

[Iwannaplato]

A primary school teacher in England had a class of seven year olds who were being taught the moral and political principle of inclusivity. Some of these children had low income Muslim parents. The particular objection one such Muslim father had was that his son was being taught that it was okay when a child has same sex parents. My friend is a great persuader and defused the situation during the interview with the little boy's parent.As well as being friendly and persuasive my teacher friend stuck to her principle of inclusivity. The outcome was okay. However this anecdote will illustrate social class divisions, and ethnicity divisions between the teacher who represents the establshed authority and the minority group parent. I regret I do not know what can be done except wait and hope successive generations will adopt the inclusivity ethic.

Often one can manage to navigate these things well, even with quite different values. But I was actually thinking less of content value differences but form value differences. Some people want, for example, extremely under control children and others want freer children. So, the mode of teaching has values in it. How much noise can they make? Must they raise their hand? Can they challenge a teacher on facts? Can they challenge a teacher on pedagogy? How much is discipline a priority as opposed to something like child expressiveness? How much control do the children have over what they study and even how they study? How much is open ended, where the teacher is telling them what is true as opposed to helping them decide what they believe, perhaps ending up with conclusions that are different from the teacher? What tones of voice are acceptable? How is a child disciplined - more homework, detention, rational argument around why X is a policy or B is a problematic behavior, loss of points on grades, parents are called, sent to principle....and so on? How much does homework count and in what ways does the teacher enforce policy - for example could a student be told it will be very hard to pass the test if they do not do their homework, but it is their responsibility? Or is the teacher coming down hard on not handing in homework, with calls to parents or lost of points coming early? Focus on facts or focus on tools for investigation? Focus on memorization or application in novel situations?

So, different sub-cultures of pedagogy and parenting between teachers and between parents and teachers. It is not so easy to just point to science and say pedagogy X is better. Actually it depends on the goals for adulthood and current behavior and values about what a competent person is and a good citizen or good person is (if these are included in the role of teachers and parents will think so since any pedagogy has implict values that are not about the best way to learn math, but rather about how people relate and what is good knowledge or ability and so on.

So, the supposedly dumb parent may in fact have a value clash with the teacher. And the teacher may think, hey, I know pedagogy better than you and not even realize that their pedagogy (even without reference to content) is value laden.

[Belinda]

A primary school teacher in England had a class of seven year olds who were being taught the moral and political principle of inclusivity. Some of these children had low income Muslim parents. The particular objection one such Muslim father had was that his son was being taught that it was okay when a child has same sex parents. My friend is a great persuader and defused the situation during the interview with the little boy's parent.As well as being friendly and persuasive my teacher friend stuck to her principle of inclusivity. The outcome was okay. However this anecdote will illustrate social class divisions, and ethnicity divisions between the teacher who represents the establshed authority and the minority group parent. I regret I do not know what can be done except wait and hope successive generations will adopt the inclusivity ethic.

Often one can manage to navigate these things well, even with quite different values. But I was actually thinking less of content value differences but form value differences. Some people want, for example, extremely under control children and others want freer children. So, the mode of teaching has values in it. How much noise can they make? Must they raise their hand? Can they challenge a teacher on facts? Can they challenge a teacher on pedagogy? How much is discipline a priority as opposed to something like child expressiveness? How much control do the children have over what they study and even how they study? How much is open ended, where the teacher is telling them what is true as opposed to helping them decide what they believe, perhaps ending up with conclusions that are different from the teacher? What tones of voice are acceptable? How is a child disciplined - more homework, detention, rational argument around why X is a policy or B is a problematic behavior, loss of points on grades, parents are called, sent to principle....and so on? How much does homework count and in what ways does the teacher enforce policy - for example could a student be told it will be very hard to pass the test if they do not do their homework, but it is their responsibility? Or is the teacher coming down hard on not handing in homework, with calls to parents or lost of points coming early? Focus on facts or focus on tools for investigation? Focus on memorization or application in novel situations?

So, different sub-cultures of pedagogy and parenting between teachers and between parents and teachers. It is not so easy to just point to science and say pedagogy X is better. Actually it depends on the goals for adulthood and current behavior and values about what a competent person is and a good citizen or good person is (if these are included in the role of teachers and parents will think so since any pedagogy has implict values that are not about the best way to learn math, but rather about how people relate and what is good knowledge or ability and so on.

So, the supposedly dumb parent may in fact have a value clash with the teacher. And the teacher may think, hey, I know pedagogy better than you and not even realize that their pedagogy (even without reference to content) is value laden.

My attitude to issues of teaching methods , and to values, is existentially that each teacher is an individual . While all teachers need to learn skills for keeping order in the classroom, some will lean one way and some will lean another way, and that is all right. Much depends on the psychological health of the teacher; can the teacher in question learn from experience? Children too are individuals.

I am myself am not an experienced teacher having done only theory at undergraduate level and basic teaching practices in a variety of primary schools all of them conventional schools. I have lectured in a further education college but here there was no problem of values as the ethos was to teach skills to get qualifications or employment, and everybody knew this and sort of complied .I was teaching English literature for people who wanted special tutoring to pass a higher exam so to get them into nurse training( as it was called then). It is impossible to exclude values from literature and students liked it for that reason. Therefore I suggest that moral and philosophical education has a seminal influence on the school's ethos.

At the teacher training college I attended students were good-humouredly quizzed about ingrained moral attitudes by lecturers . This was the 1970s . I suppose that helped.

[Advocate]

Whichever pedagogy is better, it definitely includes tearing children as individuals, because as the multiple not-intelligences theory shows, there are many learning and participation styles.

[gaffo]

Or, JUST MAYBE, my argument is NOT actually saying what you think it was saying.

maybe.

welcome discussion.

[Age]

Or, JUST MAYBE, my argument is NOT actually saying what you think it was saying.

maybe.

welcome discussion.

Invite and welcome discussion too.