Demanding and Rigorous

From a New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof.

Centuries ago, serious religious study was extraordinarily demanding and rigorous; in contrast, anyone could declare himself a scientist and go in the business of, say, alchemy. These days, it’s the reverse. A Ph.D. in chemistry is a rigorous degree, while a preacher can explain the Bible on television without mastering Hebrew or Greek — or even showing interest in the nuances of the original texts. 

 Hmmm...

Work, Anagnoresis, and Parapeteia

I have a good friend who is a high school teacher. More specifically, he is a Tech Ed teacher. Those of you who are my age or older may wonder what it is that a Tech Ed teacher teaches. According to my friend, Tech Ed (for Technical Education) is the latest phase in the evolution of what we used to know as “Shop.” In my time, it was more formally knows as “Industrial Arts.” This was where kids who were not on a college track learned basic vocational skills usually relating to some kind of trade – metal working, engine repair, wood working and carpentry, machining or drafting, etc. Apparently, these sorts of things are no longer taught in High School. Apparently, schools now seem to want to prepare everyone to go to college. 

OK, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but I think not by much. My friend actually expressed his concern about this at one point. He said, “It used to be that you could graduate from High School and have a good part of the skills you would need to build a house. Not anymore. I’m not sure where someone goes now if he wants to learn to be a carpenter.” 

It is an irony, perhaps, that for all it’s talk about equality of opportunity and diversity, it seems to me that today’s educational establishment is actually becoming much narrower, and trying much harder to fit a wider rang of people into a much tighter channel. I suspect this the case because of a certain prejudice that is overlooked – a prejudice against manual labor. It has become an accepted perspective to view manual labor as almost the equivalent of slavery. It is assumed that if someone digs ditches, paves roads, frames houses, fixes cars, cuts trees, or any number of other forms of actual physical work, that they are most unfortunate, and that the only way to improve their lot is to leave behind their work and become a part of the new information economy. Hence the term “Tech Ed.” It basically means training in the use of computers. 

This misguided philosophy is essentially the pervasive problem of Gnosticism. It’s a tough weed that almost derailed the early church, and is so hardy that it still finds ways to sprout in the bare ground left behind by modern materialism. Somehow the material physical world has become distasteful to the educated people who hold the knowledge of power. The soiling of the hands with real matter is left to ignorant and unfortunate who either don’t know better, or are unable to rise up out of that condition. 

Beyond that, it raises a more concrete problem. It leaves us asking how, if everyone is busy writing computer programs or assembling or managing banks of servers, who will manufacture the circuit boards, build the buildings that house them, or mine the coal and burn it to power those electronic machines?

Mike Rowe, co-creator and host of the Discovery Channel program, Dirty Jobs, addresses this whole question with eloquence and wit. Anybody that can actually talk about how they personally experienced a clear anagnoresis and parapeteia while castrating sheep is worth listening to.

 

Of Cabbages and Kids

A married couple comes to a local potluck dinner. They bring a lovely cassarole of roast vegetables. In the course of conversation it comes up that the vegetables are from this couple's garden. They grow much of their food on the land behind their house. They also keep some livestock in their barn and a few chickens, from which they get a significant part of their meat and all their eggs. The reason, they say, is simply that they like to know where their food comes from, what is in it, and most of all, they simply believe that home grown food tastes better.

Most people would find this admirable. They might not want to do it themselves, preferring to run down to the local grocery store. Even so, they admire the industry and appreciation of good things that motivates this young couple to self-sufficiency.

On the other hand, another married couple comes to the same potluck dinner. They have several children. In the course of conversation it comes up that the children are taught their school subjects at home. The reason, they say, is that they like to know what their children are learning, to have a more direct hand in shaping their character, and they just like having children around.

For some reason, it is common for the second couple to receive many subtly raised eyebrows in their direction, and questions posed in tones carefully veiled to hide the skepticism lying behind the questions. It seems that most everyone understands why growing ones own food is a good and noble thing, even when it's all available at the store for just a little money. Nevertheless, to undertake the teaching of one's own children just seems like such a crazy thing to do when there are trained professionals right around the corner, who are already paid to do it for us. It's all just so much time, and so much work, and frankly, just a little strange.

What strikes me as strange is the double standard.

Amateurs in Education

I’ve been trying to write a post about the recent flaps in California and New Hampshire about home schooling. I only want to write a few paragraphs, but as I move into the third of fourth paragraph of a draft, I realize that this could get really long and involved. So, let me try to present this in the form of a few pity aphorisms.

I
The State has a vested interest in insuring the education of children.
The ultimate responsibility for a child’s education lies with the parents.
This is still true even when the child is being educated by the state.
If the state wishes to involve itself in education, the role of the state is not to assume responsibility for education, but to act as a resource for parent.
If the parents wish to contract with the state to use their educational services, the parents still bear the obligation for the quality and content of their child's education.
Home schooling is necessary - at some level - even for children who attend publicly funded schools.
Home schooling is unavoidable. Children learn from their home, regardless.

II
The state has a responsibility to protect children and prevent abuse and neglect.
Home Schooling is not child abuse.
Home Schooling does not cause child abuse.
Eliminating or controlling home schools does not prevent child abuse.
States already have laws to detect and deal with abusive situations as such. Passing laws restricting home schools to prevent child abuse is beside the point. Enforcement of current laws is of greater value.

III
Not all parents are good home educators.
Not all teachers in public schools are good teachers.
Teacher Unions seem to want to claim that education is too important to be left to amateurs.
I might assert that it is too important to be left to detached professionals with no real personal stake in the outcome.
If only “credentialed professionals” are to be allowed to teach, then they must be held responsible for results. If the kids aren’t learning, those responsible must be fired.
Teacher’s unions cannot have it both ways.

IV
Education is above all a spiritual endeavor. Education is the shaping and formation of a person.
Education is only secondarily about economics and information and careers.
Preparation for careers is training, not education. It is necessary, and is PART of education, but is different in kind.
The end goal of education is NOT a productive taxpaying citizen.
The end goal of education is a wise person.

I’m not sure how pithy those were, but I think they sum up the core of my recent thinking.