Beyond the Hard Truths of Teaching

I have been trying to get myself motivated to start blogging about education on a regular basis once again.  I am going through my education files and while doing so found this article by Marvin Chachere that closely mirrors my feeling about teaching.  


Click here to learn more about Mr. Chachere  a retired teacher and University of California administrator who played saxophone in his youth with a New Orleans jazz band and died June 17, 2010 after 82 years of life.

BEYOND THE HARD TRUTHS OF TEACHING 

Marvin Chachere

EARLY ON in my teaching career I learned that most principals, superintendents, and deans don't worry much about fostering student learning. 

I'm not sure precisely what they do worry about or even what interests them. Perhaps it's management itself. matching means to ends. Or maybe it's simply tranquillity, • school that's run smoothly. At any rate, teachers and managers have little in common. 

When I taught college. I told my students each semester, quite bluntly. that their institution wasn't organized and run primarily for their learning. I reminded them that they'd worked hard to gain admission. only to be hassled in registration lines. circumscribed by course requirements, intimidated by term papers and exams. categorized by grade points. 

My message, of course. was a truism: Wanting to know something is a necessary precondition for leaming it. "How many of you are here to learn philosophy?" I'd ask. Everyone. (It was an elective course.) "How many of you would be here if this course offered no credit?" No one. 

Students know the difference between learning a subject and going through the motions because they need the credits. Indeed, if a student really wants to learn, he doesn't need good teaching, and if he doesn't want to learn, the best teaching is useless. You can't force anyone to learn anything, unless you're an army sergeant teaching a recruit to fire a rifle. You may tell others what to learn, but this carries no force. Students recognize their rights in this very clearly, and they can easily reject your teaching. 

By now you may be thinking that if I had any self-respect [ should have long ago sought other work.  But for me it was precisely by recognizing these realities and struggling. with them in my own mind (if not in faculty committees, board meetings. and teachers' unions) that I found nourishment as a teacher. I enjoyed teaching and I stayed with it, but not to invent methods for jamming Iearning into the minds of unwilling students. If I wanted reform at all. it was in how I saw my job. Gripped by cynicism regarding my superiors and futility regarding my charges. I still struggled to see teaching as noble work. 

My efforts weren't completely successful, but they brought satisfaction. Once I decided to Iet the managers and policymakers get on with their work, whatever it may be. I was free to get on with mine. By concentrating on the conditions of my students their real and supposed reasons for being in my class, their interests and abilities, even their joys and sorrows. I sought to reform my thinking, to neutralize the negative forces. In other words. I sought the essence of teaching: to stimulate, inspire, animate and arouse another.

" The main job of the teacher is to convey enthusiasm. A teacher isn’t a purveyor of intormation, a guide to the realm of ideas, ambassador of culture, a certifier of students' achievements, or a  guarantor of good. paying jobs. Even less is a teacher concerned with development of a students' character and good citizenship. The only goal that's worth pursuing is to inspire your students with a love of your subject. Any other outcome, however honorable, is incidental. 

This is simplistic, you say. All teachers try to get students interested in their subjects-and good teachers succeed. My point may be simple, but it's not simplistic. It carries three practical consequences, each affecting the improvement of teaching. 

The first consequence is that you acknowledge your students' individual likes and dislikes even as you continue to show them how they can become enthused about what you're teaching. Realize that some students just don't like math, history, literature, science, or whatever. In recognizing individuality, you recognize reality. 

The second consequence is that there's no subject for which studentls' enthusiasm is unworthy or unwarranted, not even basket-weaving. Let me quickly add that I don't propose teaching something just because students will sign up for it-a Bruce Springsteen seminar? But interest in one thing may lead to interest in other things; basket-weaving isn't unrelated to geometry, to physics, to history. Any student who shows you enthusiasm about anything at all has displayed a certain capacity. Good teaching implies the ability to exploit that capacity. find ways to put it to use, and transfer it, if possible to your subject. 

The third consequence follows from the simple essence of teaching. You can’t arouse enthusiasm for a subject unless you've mastered it. The more you learn the more ways you have for arousing students' interests, and the better your teaching will be. Mastery is far more important than methods. Methods follow mastery, not the other way around. Students will be quick to see your enthusium. and if it sterms from mastery they may catch it. 

That's all you can hope and work for. And it's enough. ~