Dear G-Paps,
Trailing World War II, the family dynamics changed. The men died in war, and the women sustained the machinery by which they gallantly marched to their death. Gender norm roles changed forever. Rebuilding the economy became a burden shouldered by both men and women. By implication, fathers and mothers. To further explain, this will be a subtle insult, which I believe will not be smiled at, considering that you are a master of economics, well-versed in world history. Nonetheless, the preamble above would suffice, should this letter fall into the hands of a lay reader.
With that said, for decades following the war, many parents have relied on their partnership with teachers to raise their children. Nevertheless, with the growing rate of failed public schools and mushrooming private schools, it appears that caution has been thrown to the wind. (I understand how they provide opportunities to underserved students, as well as being the nurturing stage of many an educator’s dream.) Parents are more concerned with the color of school uniforms and the number of coloring books cum lunch box aesthetics than they are with the quality of the teachers they have given charge over their wards.
Many teachers are not who they think they are. It is unfortunate that the profession that decides the future of any nation has been reduced to a profession of survival: the one you take up just to keep body and soul together. Forgive my wailing letter if this is all it appears to be, for I doubt that I shall be proffering any solutions in this one. Rather, you may catch me, quite hardly, making a case for why we need quality teachers. However, I present no hard and fast rule as to how we may find or make them.
There is no overstating that the influence of the teacher is far-reaching, and there is no measuring its length nor its breadth. In the same manner, the consequences of instructions are unpredictable. Henry Adams in The Education of Henry Adams opines thus, “A teacher affects eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops.” The call to be a teacher is one with such weight that it can only be borne by character and discipline.
It demands that one lead a life dictated by its impact on others. This is not to suppose that you are living for others; you live only in consideration of others. These others are, more often than not, uninterested in your sacrifices and offer no appreciation for the teacher’s bonds. Were there blood ties, perhaps, the yoke would have been somewhat bearable. Permit me to say that teaching is but a thankless profession. As John Locke submits in Some Thoughts Concerning Education, “The great principle and foundation of all virtue and worth is placed in this: that a man is able to deny himself his own desires.”
Regardless, the teacher must bear His yoke with grace, exalting himself above no more than the ant. See, the intensity and moral weight of a teacher’s influence must not be overlooked, because the master-and-disciple relationship is never innocent. George Steiner highlights the same point in Lessons of the Masters: “The master-disciple relation is one of the most intense in human experience.”
As such, a teacher must be a person of impeccable character. Against such defeats the purpose of the calling. Character cannot be worn as a costume. I have argued elsewhere that even clothes speak before a man does, for they announce seriousness or the lack of it. How much more does the daily conduct of a teacher preach long before the lesson begins? W. E. B. Du Bois weighs in on the matter in The Souls of Black Folk when he opines that “To develop men, we must have ideals” given that, as he emphasizes, “The function of the university is not simply to teach breadwinning.” In other words, a teacher is an embodiment of the culture of any society whose wards they serve.
Supporting the foregoing, Booker T. Washington in Up From Slavery, underscores the need for teachers of great repute when he says, “Character, not circumstances make the man.” Furthermore, he lends credence to the far-reaching influence of a teacher when he decries, “The influence of my teachers extended beyond the schoolroom.”
Hence, to have in your employ a teacher lacking in character is to derail society. Teachers who neglect moral formation because they have none weaken civilization itself. It is like cancer that gradually eats up its hosts. Such a pedagogic process produces men without chests. Captured aptly in The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis, thus: “We make men with our chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.” Indeed, if the foundation is destroyed, what can the righteous do?
On the flip side, the methodology employed in the course of teaching is just as important. I have no instructions to dole out or pieces of advice on this, but whatever method is chosen must encourage active learning. It is abysmally embarrassing and oddly surprising that the crop of students leaving our learning centers is a zombie with a certificate. Zero critical thinking skills. I am being generously kind to call them stupid.
Michel de Montaigne, in Of the Education of Children, quips that “The authority of those who teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn.” It follows that many teachers seek to achieve obedience rather than creativity. Rigid authority can suppress intellectual independence. As such, a teacher should form judgments. This allows for the fortification of the soul while making it supple. Jean-Jacques Rousseau corroborates the foregoing, thus, “The only habit the child should be allowed to form is to contract no habit whatever” in Émile or On Education. Inadvertently, a teacher is an architect of environment, subtly influencing development rather than dictating it
The natural order, therefore, is that a great teacher is removed from the outcome, though they control it and the process. The teacher ought to inspire, but not become the product of the inspiration, in that the teacher is a moral and intellectual catalyst. In The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson posits that “The office of the scholar is to cheer, to raise and to guide men.” These men, he supposes, their intellectual self-reliance must be awakened when he submits, “The one thing in the world, of value, is the active soul.”
Little wonder Maria Montessori, in The Montessori Method, argues that “The greatest sign of success for a teacher is to be able to say, ‘The children are now working as if I did not exist.’” It is therefore not surprising that to succeed in this venture, the one who chooses to become a teacher must accept that it is the path of obscurity. Nevertheless, the obscure is not the mediocre. Sadly, many who take on the profession are in oblivion of the truth about the office of the scholar. These are the beasts that perisheth.
I digress. To choose homeschooling in an attempt to escape this apocalypse of ignorance is a luxury available to a few. Even those who can afford to still grapple with the concern of character, should they decide to outsource a resource person. On the other hand, upon success, one still has to deal with the zombified millions who are latched onto the string of certain elements that profit from the stupidity of the many. Overtly, it is a no-brainer that parents who care about posterity must be poised at the polls to ensure that only those who can revive the education sector get hold of power. This will be a Herculean task to take on, as proper education is a career politician’s kryptonite.
Where the above appears far-fetched, parents ought to demand from school administrators the optimum quality in teachers and the absolute best in service delivery. This, I assure you, is steep.
My good man, I do not present these submissions for the vainglory of being labeled an astute researcher, though I would not deny the charge. But to make a case for the cast-iron fact about the active roles teachers play in the lives of our children. Hence, to ignore the education sector is to set our society on the highway to ruin.
Having examined the above, why would a parent leave the education of their ward to chance? Why should PTA meetings feel like a chore? Why be passive in the most active thing you would ever do with your life? Again, why?
Comrade and parent,
Frank.
