Teachers Can and Do - All the Damned Time.
Hi all,
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Ever hear that one? It's one of those sayings that's stuck with us, no matter the original context or the point it's author was trying to make. I've heard it enough times to want to scratch my eyes out. Because it's generally used to justify anti-education
arguments, particularly in relation to certain subjects that are part of the curriculum in public schools. In other words, why are we paying teachers to teach subjects they know nothing about, that have dubious value for our children. And so on and so forth.
Now, am I saying every subject taught in schools is valuable for children? Not really. But my comments on that subject are generally reserved to gym class, and only in passing, because I'm not particularly convinced I'm right about that one. However, the chorus I hear tends to attack subjects that develop higher level thinking, such as language, drama, history, literature, etc. The arts. Subjects that require critical thinking skills; that require students to make connections between ideas, to consider events and facts from different angles.
These subjects may not be as logic based as mathematics or science, or as hands on as shop/automotive/woodworking/drafting, but that lack of structure is actually what makes them strong subjects. Freedom - to think. To question. To come to your own conclusions and form your own world view.
Now, someone has to teach the children of the world. And if we take that saying at face value, and if we agree with it, then we believe all the education systems in the world are being run by a bunch of amateurs. Since that's clearly not true, what gives?
Turns out the saying above was penned by Bernard Shaw in Man and Superman back in 1903. I didn't know that before today, when I read yet another infuriating op-ed/click-bait story designed to irritate at first glance (which is another issue) and decided to do a little research. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered the saying comes from a maxim which is actually an indicting something else entirely. Turns out context is everything.
Just for the record, Shaw wasn't talking about teachers in general, but rather was specifically referring to University professors. Given this was written back in 1903, when women were few and far between in the halls of academia, I'm fairly certain he was referring to the men who inhabited the grand old ivory towers of the western world. Gentlemen, he calls them - men without experience or aptitude teaching to others of the same ilk. Men more concerned with the theoretical application of 'knowledge' than the practical application of effort.
Really, he was discussing a general dissatisfaction with the way those men assigned value. Again, not by what any person had done, but rather by the credentials that came with him. In other words, how long any given person had spent in the system, sucking up and impressing the right people.
In short, he was talking about how wasteful the University system was - and sometimes still is, when the value of professors and students isn't measured by competence, but connections. Good ol' favoritism and pedigree and all that garbage. And particularly, when those same professors and students don't question the information they're being presented.
Just to underscore how misused this quotation is, I'm going to share a little something Shaw wrote at the end of his maxim:
No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strict sense an idiot.
Now isn't that interesting? Because I'm fairly certain most of the folks who use the argument that teachers are overpaid incompetents would consider themselves specialists. Moral and upright people. Which brings me to the last few lines of that maxim:
Do not give your children moral and religious instruction unless you are quite sure they will not take it too seriously. Better be the mother of Henri Quatre and Nell Gwynne than of Robespierre and Queen Mary Tudor.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Ever hear that one? It's one of those sayings that's stuck with us, no matter the original context or the point it's author was trying to make. I've heard it enough times to want to scratch my eyes out. Because it's generally used to justify anti-education
arguments, particularly in relation to certain subjects that are part of the curriculum in public schools. In other words, why are we paying teachers to teach subjects they know nothing about, that have dubious value for our children. And so on and so forth.
Now, am I saying every subject taught in schools is valuable for children? Not really. But my comments on that subject are generally reserved to gym class, and only in passing, because I'm not particularly convinced I'm right about that one. However, the chorus I hear tends to attack subjects that develop higher level thinking, such as language, drama, history, literature, etc. The arts. Subjects that require critical thinking skills; that require students to make connections between ideas, to consider events and facts from different angles.
These subjects may not be as logic based as mathematics or science, or as hands on as shop/automotive/woodworking/drafting, but that lack of structure is actually what makes them strong subjects. Freedom - to think. To question. To come to your own conclusions and form your own world view.
Now, someone has to teach the children of the world. And if we take that saying at face value, and if we agree with it, then we believe all the education systems in the world are being run by a bunch of amateurs. Since that's clearly not true, what gives?
Turns out the saying above was penned by Bernard Shaw in Man and Superman back in 1903. I didn't know that before today, when I read yet another infuriating op-ed/click-bait story designed to irritate at first glance (which is another issue) and decided to do a little research. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered the saying comes from a maxim which is actually an indicting something else entirely. Turns out context is everything.
Just for the record, Shaw wasn't talking about teachers in general, but rather was specifically referring to University professors. Given this was written back in 1903, when women were few and far between in the halls of academia, I'm fairly certain he was referring to the men who inhabited the grand old ivory towers of the western world. Gentlemen, he calls them - men without experience or aptitude teaching to others of the same ilk. Men more concerned with the theoretical application of 'knowledge' than the practical application of effort.
Really, he was discussing a general dissatisfaction with the way those men assigned value. Again, not by what any person had done, but rather by the credentials that came with him. In other words, how long any given person had spent in the system, sucking up and impressing the right people.
In short, he was talking about how wasteful the University system was - and sometimes still is, when the value of professors and students isn't measured by competence, but connections. Good ol' favoritism and pedigree and all that garbage. And particularly, when those same professors and students don't question the information they're being presented.
Just to underscore how misused this quotation is, I'm going to share a little something Shaw wrote at the end of his maxim:
No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strict sense an idiot.
Now isn't that interesting? Because I'm fairly certain most of the folks who use the argument that teachers are overpaid incompetents would consider themselves specialists. Moral and upright people. Which brings me to the last few lines of that maxim:
Do not give your children moral and religious instruction unless you are quite sure they will not take it too seriously. Better be the mother of Henri Quatre and Nell Gwynne than of Robespierre and Queen Mary Tudor.
Comments