>> Your premise is wrong. Teaching is really the act of caring for and
>> nurturing student capabilities. Teachers create a set of conditions in
>> which the learner can more effectively focus on their learning than is
>> otherwise normally available.
>
> your opening comment makes Jinan's point.

If I was in a position of power over Jinan, then my opening would have proved his point, I agree. But since I am not in a position of power and we have equal status as members of this discussion then my opening was merely provocative and would have demonstrated a lack of sensitivity had I not intended to prove my point in a follow-up like this. (Thanks for taking me to task, it is well deserved.)

I take the moral intent of this discussion group to be the exploration of truth in regards to education. Therefore we share in the responsibility to communicate in ways that are generally respectful and sensitive, but the greater point is to engage in the process of discerning what is right, true, beautiful and good in the field of education. ( A process that never ends and does not produce 'T'ruth.)

I deliberately ignored my normal standard of sensitivity in order to expose what I believe is a vitally important point in understanding the abuse of power and authority; that context matters a great deal. Specifically the context of the power relations between people make all the difference. Unless we are fully aware of the power structures in which we are embedded then we cannot act effectively on our duties 1) of care and nurturance as those authorized to wield power and 2) of engagement and participation as those who obey authorities.

> telling someone (anyone) 'you are wrong' is neither caring nor nurturing but is an
> authoritarian act.

Once again, just to be clear, I realize that my statement was insensitive, but I disagree that it constitutes an authoritarian act. Authoritarian acts require 1) the authorization to wield power over subordinates and 2) using primarily (or only) that authorization to assert power over a subordinate rather than cultivating more deeply meaningful sources of legitimate authority, such as fairness, equity, compassion, integrity, etc.

>> I understand why you would posit such a negative view of teaching <snip>
>
> Interestingly, I did not see Jinan's viewpoint as 'negative'. It seemed to me more 'diagnostic'
> in raising what Jinan sees as legitimate concerns about many of the educational systems that
> are in use today.

I assert the 'negative' label because, the argument is an attack on teachers and teaching, regardless of how the people in that profession conduct themselves in their professional duties. I happen to know many teachers who conduct themselves in ways that completely contradict what was asserted. Maybe you do to since you limit you concurrence to 'many educational systems.' I refuse to accept a blanket attack on teaching as legitimate when there are many important exceptions.

>> [Teachers are] charged with ensuring that the student acquires what they lack.
>
> Again, respectfully, and from a strictly neutral linguistic/analytical 'taken at face value'
> perspective, this premise is an example of (subliminal/covert/by-example) authoritarianism.

Two things, first this seems to have miss my distinction between instruction and teaching. The part in brackets should have read [Instructors are] which I was trying to say has an inherent power imbalance and can easily degenerate into authoritarianism. I contrast that with a proper understanding of teaching as the task of establishing a proper context of caring and nurturance to facilitate learning. Instructors that resort to authoritarian tactics may do so either because the context of their instruction lacks proper supports for caring and compassion or because of a lack of appropriate skills, outside stresses or personal choices, in spite of a context with ample support.

Second, there is no such thing as a neutral perspective. If you 'take at face value' what I wrote then you are assuming your particular perspective is privileged, but it is just as informed by a vast collection of biased unconscious processes as everyone else's. In this case you are implicitly asserting your take on authoritarianism is the correct perspective. It is certainly a valid perspective, but neither of our perspectives on authoritarianism are neutral nor objective.


>> When students have been given the freedom and taken the responsibility
>> to pursue their interests and passions for making their way in the
>> world, then they approach teachers as equals and good teachers respond
>> to them that way.
>
> this is a (hugely) authoritarian assertion: 'then they approach teachers as equals'...

I don't understand how that particular assertion can be authoritarian. The situation I posited is one in which students have the world to choose from (given the freedom) and then in response to their own inclinations choose to engage with a teacher as a means to achieve their own goals (taken the responsibility). The nature of the situation is one in which one person (the student) has identified a goal they wish to pursue and from amongst a set of options chosen another person (the teacher) to help them achieve that goal. The student is empowered to make a different choice if the teacher does not perform adequately. The exchange is between equals, the student has (directly or indirectly) resources that the teacher wants and the teacher has knowledge, skills, and/ or information that the student wants. They each have the ability to hold the other responsible for a failure to meet the other person's expectations. That is the essence of equality.

> And of course I understand that you are (I believe) referencing 'skill acquisition'... but at face
> value your statement says something entirely different than that, because factually -- in the
> eye of each beholder -- we are all either 100% equal from birth to grave (and deserve to be
> responded to that way 100% of the time)... or we are not.

I vehemently disagree with this kind of black and white thinking on equality. First of all just positing equality brings difficulties. What kind of equality can we possibly have from birth and throughout life? Obviously not equal height, weight, skills, knowledge, information, and I could probably go on and on. Next there is the absurdity of asserting even the possibility that any humans could respond to anything a particular way 100% of the time. Given just these two challenges it seems to me that taking such a strong stance quickly becomes logically untenable.

My larger point is that in order to be effective we have to understand the power structure in which the teacher/ student or instructor/pupil relationship occurs. I make a careful distinction between the roles of teacher and instructor in order to clarify two different kinds of power relationships. A teacher is responsible for creating a nurturing environment in which students can effectively pursue their learning objectives. Teachers and students, in this perspective, are inherently equals within the learning community.

Instructors, on the other hand, are specifically charged by the nature of their role with the delivery of specific knowledge, skills, and/or information that their pupils lack. If the pupils do not perceive a lack then there is no reason for them to be accepting instruction.

The problem I see in most schooling is that these two distinctly different roles are conflated with each other and in the resulting confusion instructional goals are imposed as if they are relevant to teaching. This results in the teaching environment deteriorating into a series of amoral technical problems with instruction. And when the moral necessity of care and nurturing are stripped away then the morality of authority asserts it's ugly head and we have compulsory instruction system that undermines learning.

When teaching is properly understood as the moral context for instruction, in which there is an overarching duty of care and nurturing to which instruction must be subservient, then the result is dynamic learning communities. Given my perspective on the moral character of teaching versus the technical character of instruction, then a wholesale attack on teachers is simply wrong. I agree that the observations of classroom practice upon which the attack are based are also wrong, but the critical point is to attack the power structures not just the people who are stuck in them.

--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: The Attitude Problem in Education