There is a saying that, if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. (And you'll have to give him a fish everyday the rest of his life.) But If you teach him to fish, he'll feed himself for the rest of his life. Few people will argue with the truth of that statement. Therefore, the implication by Republicans that our welfare system gives fishes to people who should be fishing has merit--if we were really committed to teaching them how to fish.
Let's not fail to realize that there are Americans who must be given fish every day of their lives. We know who they are and we should do it. We have members of our American family who are mentally or physically challenged. America is able to take care of them. But we cannot do it adequately when money is being given to able-bodied people who have the capacity to provide for themselves but not the ability.
The problem is that many able-bodied people also need help. Able-bodied children who come from a non-inspiring, non-encouraging, non-challenging homes, and without proper role models can "learn to fish" if that child attends schools where teachers know how to teach them to fish. And if there are teachers who cannot do it, there should be people within school systems who can teach the teachers how to teach students to fish. If such people are not within the school system, there must be somebody somewhere where of both teachers and their superiors can go to learn how to teach children to fish.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe that if students are given a fishing pole, some hooks and bait, and take them where the fish are that they have been provided opportunities to learn to fish. Granted, some children may be able to learn to fish by watching other children fish. But most teachers want student to "fish" independently, and most students are not in classes with the good "fisherman." There is no doubt that students learn to "fish" much more easily when teachers teach them to fish.
Presently, too many colleges and universities are not enabling educational leaders in our school systems to help local educators teach children how to fish. many institutions which have staffs capable of challenging educators don't do so because local educators have options to attend other institutions where standards are lower. Also, educator-training institutes with such highly qualified staffs likely must charge higher tuitions to pay the salaries of such staffs or lose them to the business.
Hence, the need for a government financed Education Academy with high academic standards. Those who say this is another example of government being too big are wrong. Government must be as small as it can be but as big as it needs to be, big enough to provide the nation's children with the kind of education both they and the nation need.
The children themselves are factors in this equation. And if children don't have the kinds of parents at home that schools think they should have, why aren't schools teaching students how to become better parents than than the ones they have. Even teach those parents who are willing to learn. These efforts could generate community-wide awareness, and efforts on the parts of those community institutions and organizations that can support these efforts and impact children lives within that community.
Secondly, schools should teach students how to be become better students by teaching them how to learn the subjects teachers teach. Not all student know how to study and how to learn. Many don't know when they don't understand or what it means to understand. Conservatives are right: People should know "how to fish." But they are short on expressing the need to "teach them to fish." Democrats, on the other hand want to feed them until they are taught how to fish, not just given hooks, bait and poles.
Conservatives act as if they don' t really want intellectually hungry children to be able to fish. It's as if they would rather expand the welfare state to reduce the number of children prepared to compete for good jobs. It's as if they would rather give them a fish every now and then or keep them fishing in shallow waters rather than prepare these children to go into the deep waters of academic achievement where they fish are bountiful and the opportunities for tremendous catches are great.
Some of that may have been true.
But, essentially, African American are now in control of their own destiny in educating black children. But Black educational leaders cannot lead young people to levels of excellence in achievement and performance.that they themselves have not achieved. I was always concerned as a teacher that my ability to challenge my students was limited by my knowledge of what was possible by my students. I did not assign physics problems that I could not work without first referring to the teacher's manual. One year, I assigned them and some students solved them.
Teachers of at-risk students have a very difficult task because "at risk" does not mean "can't learn." And those needing to challenge children at the highest level have an even greater challenge because knowledge of the content to be taught is not the same as knowing how to enable students to learn that content at levels of challenge commensurate with the students abilities.
Consequently, schools should provide study halls specifically for science, mathematics, and language arts, where students can enroll as needed. They would be manned by teachers who are inspiring and trained in remediation. Some students, as a consequence, would take fewer courses per semester or per year and require one or two years longer to graduate but they would graduate ready to fish.
Even though this column has been a "fish" story or sorts, poor education is not the fault of children and parents who don't know what needs to be done to improve the condition. It's the fault of those who do know what is wrong--or choose not to find out--but still get paid as if most graduates have learned to fish.
No comments:
Post a Comment