Fri Thoughts

An op-ed in today's newspaper included a statement on "...education and, most importantly, the skills to keep learning." Bingo!  But I don't know where to start.

I've always maintained that the value of my college education was not necessarily in the actual learning that took place.  Of course, my professors were demanding and we had to know a lot. After all, a common theme on my returned/graded papers was something like, "No sloppy thinking allowed."  We had to support our views with facts and strong thoughts.

With full discount for my zeal regarding my Amherst experience, this is what we were taught.  We had to apply ourselves, often with a great deal of sweat and, I dare say, self-discipline, to study different areas of academic discipline.  For instance, although a history major, I took courses, as required, in subjects such as physics (with perhaps my best teacher), religion (from the Western Christian Tradition to Islam to Buddhism and Southern Baptism), sociology, biology (genetics), etc.  And there was always writing, tons of writing.  Such an education teaches students (graduates) to adapt to different environments and to accept the challenges those different environments offer.  It allows one to appreciate, if not enjoy?, what people in other areas are doing and thinking.  We were taught "the skills to keep learning," to apply ourselves to intellectual challenges, to think critically.  (I hesitate to use that term, "critical thinking," as it has been co-opted to, I think, nefarious and negative effect.  But......)

I am reminded of something my running friend Carrie and I frequently say amid our discussions on education.  "Is love of learning no longer enough?"  I think not......

Oh, there are plenty of people, books, Web sites, etc. that advocate such views.  But who listens to them?  Who acts on those views?  Not many.  Our politicians, aided and abetted by the education establishment (often cowed into obsequiousness), and corporate-types, intent on making money from the reform movement (which often includes everything but "reform"), have instituted the mentality of "test, test, test, and test some more."  What room/time does that leave for the challenges and exploration of a liberal arts education?  Besides, as we hear, esp from the Right, "What good is a liberal arts education?  It just creates unemployable graduates?"  What an incredibly ignorant view!

A liberal arts education teaches students to adapt, to see the interconnections between disciplines/areas of study.  And isn't that what preparing for the ever-changing job market of the 21st Century is all about?

And if, regardless of philosophy, education is so very important, why don't we act like it is?  Oh, we spout all of the right things about education and its importance, even if only to "get a job."  But look at how we act, what we actually do?  What we say and what we do are very different.

OK, my views on many teachers are not secret.  I've written about them many times, here in my blog, in more private/personal letters and e-mails, and even in published letters-to-the-editor and op-ed articles.  But if education is so important, look how we pay our teachers?  (Again, remember I think many teachers are still overpaid.)  If education, the work of teachers, is so vital, why in many school districts throughout the country are beginning teachers given a salary that qualifies them for food stamps (if they are single parents)?  I am not at all complaining, not at all, but as I run through a nearby exclusive subdivision (or even houses being built behind ours), I see homes I could never afford.  Oh, I noted what looks like construction workers walking out, getting into their trucks, and heading out to work in the AMs.  I am not begrudging them their work or their pay/wages.  Good for them.  I know from personal experience that construction work is hard.  But if they can afford such expensive homes, why can't teachers?  A recent article cited the average value of a house in the entire US.  That figure is about $80,000 more than what my house is worth.  Another piece in our local newspaper noted that public school teachers in San Francisco can't afford to purchase homes in San Francisco.

Now much of this flies in the face of what goes on in schools today.  I don't think the quality and rigor are nearly as great as decades ago.  I suppose there are a number of reasons.  Many teachers were not forced to experience rigorous, quality education in colleges.  This leads to two things, bad things.  One, they don't know what rigor is or, often, their own subject matter.  Two, they have been taught themselves that education is not rigorous, is not difficult, does not require "sweat" and much self-discipline.  I won't let the politicians and corporate-types off the hook.  They have come to dominate educational philosophies--test, test, test, and test some more.  Even kindergartners and first graders have to take the state tests, on computers no less!  And let's also blame administrators and teachers for letting standards fall so much, if indeed they have as I believe they have.

Ultimately, though, I fall back on the lament of Carrie and me, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"

BTW, please forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes.  I'm too tired to proofread.  I donated blood yesterday and that, oddly, seems to have sapped me.