sorge.blogspot.com

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Wow. Thirteen and a half hours ago I was just getting out of bed. I've been on the net for a bit, gone to work, done some grocery shopping, and made it back home. At that other place I used to spend more than that at my desk a lot of the time. It's such a nice feeling, having time to spare, to chill out and do nothing before/after work. The only problem with the late shift is that I have zero motivation to go to the gym in the morning, and it's closed by the time I get home.

So. I wanna ask y'all a question. I've been thinking about how government policy and the general attitude of contemporary Australian is geared towards economic growth and achieving high financial status. I strongly believe that both should be more balanced with more concern for the welfare of others and the 'greater good' of humanity/mankind. When I become a teacher there'll be an fantastic opportunity to impart this belief on my students and do my bit for developing a future generation with a more humanitarian view on life and society.

My question is, do you think this is ethical? Do you think the role of a teacher should be purely to educate, to show their students what directions are available to them, and to assist them in reaching their own goals, or should a teacher be permitted to directly influence the beliefs of their students? The reason I ask is that none of the teachers I've ever had have stepped outside of the bounds of pure education. This is not to say that I disagree with the way they taught - I really enjoyed the way most of my teachers carried on their classes. We just never discussed ethics in society, purely social evolution and history (though that's probably 'cause I didn't finish school :P).

4 Comments:

  • At 11:47 am, October 14, 2005, Blogger shrike said…

    I don't think you can separate the two. At any rate, certain types of knowledge are inexorably intertwined with certain values. Teaching science encourages a rational worldview. Teaching art encourages creation for nothing other than aesthetic pleasure. Teaching religion encourages embracing the undefinable.
    But if you could seperate the two, I'd say that it is absolutely the teachers role to impart values. There is such of void of ethic and morality in (adult) people today that to do any less would be irresponsible.

     
  • At 11:28 pm, October 14, 2005, Blogger viola said…

    When I think about the best teachers I had in high school, I think that the way in which they taught me was quite neutral (as far as that is possible as humans). However, what I learned was basically skewed to one side. I think that school curricula (depending on what kind of school you go to) have an agenda, and my school was particularly liberal and modern. Instead of learning about "history" as a fact, we learned about things like imperialism, decolonisation, genocide. Instead of looking at "the classics" in English, we looked at books that had a particular message. It was all very left of centre and quite shocking to me at first after having been in conservative Australian private schools all my life.

    I think that it's best to be neutral. Present the information - from both sides of the fence - and allow your students to form their own opinions. Encourage them to be open minded, accepting, inquisitive and critical, and I think that they will naturally develop an accepting, balanced, loving and humanitarian view on life and society. I am not sure though that teaching values explicitly is the job of teachers. Catholic schools kind of give me the creeps.

    That is the approach I think I will take when I become a teacher!

     
  • At 4:32 pm, October 18, 2005, Blogger serp said…

    Whatever you decide, just make sure there is plenty of Dilbert Hole quoting in all your classes.

     
  • At 10:40 am, October 20, 2005, Blogger Lach said…

    The role of a teacher is to babysit kids until they're old enough to get social security

     

Post a Comment

<< Home