Self-Discipline

Philosophy of education

To state a single purpose for school in a democracy is to dismiss the interests and needs of the people that schooling is supposed to serve: the students. Different students value different things, and thusly should be able to obtain different outcomes from their schooling. While the three general categories state that schools should serve the purpose of either preserving or transmitting culture, preparing students for the workplace, or reconstructing society, there is no logical reason why a school cannot achieve all three purposes. This idea operates under a similar notion as using social reconstructionism as a lens. If the fundamental belief of reconstructing society rests on the idea that society is broken, then certainly its broken in multitudes. Reconstructing society encompasses the other two purposes of schooling. The workforce is broken and poisoned by greed. If a student wishes that schooling serves them the purpose of preparation for the workplace, teach them the value of humanity first, and then prepare them for the workplace. A student can read Steinbeck’s novel, In Dubious Battle, to acquire a humanistic view of the workplace, and read Shakespeare’s tragedy, Macbeth, to learn the dangers of lust for power and greed. Certain disciplines lend themselves better to reconstructing society than others, and in that same vain certain disciplines better prepare students for the workplace than others. But English has its value in that any given profession, the ability to write concisely and clearly is valued. Wedged with the writing is the timid injection of humanizing texts to give the student reconstructionist outlook on the world. On the notion of preserving and transmitting culture, literature is one of the chief ways that this can be done, as exemplified in the paragraph prior. Literature has the power to bring to life the struggles and delights of cultures both close and far removed from our own.

There is the quandary of general disinterest in school itself, let alone multiculturalism. If students fail to become engaged in areas more culturally relevant to them, it is likely going to follow that they are going to fail to become engaged in areas less culturally relevant to them. I think the single, or at least the largest, mitigating circumstance that is able to combat this is personality. The term casts a particularly broad net, but encompasses what students need from their teachers. Teachers need to exist beyond the material they teach, and that often comes from a place of vulnerability. It might seem slightly counterintuitive, but teaching from a place of vulnerability humanizes the teacher and helps foster better relationships between students and teachers. I have been in classes where I did not particularly enjoy the material, but I enjoyed having the teacher. While the material did not necessarily motivate me to perform to the best of my ability, the personal relationship and respect I had for the teacher motivated me. If students like their teachers, they will want to learn from them. One of the easiest ways a teacher can foster a relationship like this with their students is by having an open-door policy, and to take it a step further, by being safe-zone certified. There has to be a recognition from students that their teacher is human. Finding common ground between your students and yourself helps foster a better relationship. Learn about your students and tailor certain parts of the class to their interests, while still maintaining the content. If the goal of the teacher is to really teach students, that means that the teacher has to be willing to adapt to the nature of the learner, and not the other way around.

This is a fundamental aspect of the teaching and learning process. A true teacher never stops learning. If you teach at a public school, you are performing a public service, and in turn should make an effort to make that service as effective as possible. This includes learning new teaching techniques, learning things about your students, learning how to adapt to adverse circumstances. Becoming a teacher is making a commitment to help students learn and to never stop learning yourself. There will always be more to learn and there will always be more to teach. When students witness a teacher’s commitment to learn from them, it gives the students a sense of value. It gives them a belief that the knowledge and experience they possess is valuable. For literature students, this can be done through actions as simple as learning a given student’s interests and bringing or suggesting a book that they might enjoy based on that. This shows a commitment to students that a teacher cares about them.

All of these actions and ideas serve one purpose, and that is to educate students and to make that education more accessible and interesting to them. Performing these actions with a degree of enthusiasm helps the cause because it generates excitement for the topic at hand and can help engage students. The content itself may not engage the student, but if the way the content is delivered allows for the student to be hanging on every word the teacher is saying, then that will lend itself better to retention. There is a reality that must be faced when teaching that not all content taught is going to be interesting, but behavior and teaching style is how you combat that. And in light of teaching a subject that is so tied up in the Humanities, teaching with a touch of humanism helps guide students in the right direction.

Schooling can be whatever students make of it. It can serve a purpose that they derive themselves. School is compulsory, but learning and understanding is not. I believe that social reconstructionism aids learning in a way that nurtures learning itself as a discipline. Outside of school, society needs a commitment to learning and understanding, for these two concepts are at the very essence of humanism, and the very essence of students, teachers, and all mankind alike is vulnerability, that which makes us human.