Monday, May 2, 2011
3rd Question for Discussion on Rawls
Rawls argues that the concept of Justice ultimately rests on two philosophical principles; autonomy (we take on the 'obligation' freely) and reciprocity (we have to fulfill our 'obligations' because we have recieved benefits from others). How do these ideas apply to the 'obligation' of education and the student/teacher 'contract'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
During our discussion it suddenly hit me that most of the frustration and anger I feel about teaching as a whole can be explained by Rawls arguement. As teachers, we see ourselves as part of a contract with students. On our part, we provide the best information we have on our subjects in the best way we know how. We spend hours, unpaid, developing lessons and grading papers. What we ask of our students in the name of reciprosity is that they arrive ready to learn, give us a honest effort, and be willing to put time in outside of class to master the concepts we teach them. Our frustration is based on the fact that our students seem to no longer feel a need to honor their side of the contract. A system has been created over the last 30 years which sees no responsibility for students and they and their parents have bought into it. Instead of spending massive amounts of money on instruction techniques that don't work or aren't practical, perhaps we need to to reassert the principle of student reciprosity and see what effect that has on student achievement!
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with what Jay said! He took the words right out of my mouth. Also,as a teacher it is my obligation to do what the district has hired and payed me to do. Even though it seems that the district ties our hands behind our backs and losses sight as to why we are here and what our objective is. It is also my moral obligation to do what I got into teaching for in the first place. As far as the student/teacher contract goes, this is totally one sided right now and unless the pendulum starts to swing back the other way we are going nowhere fast as a society. It is hard to fullfill our obligations when there is no reciprocity from the other side. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteHow do these ideas apply to the 'obligation' of education and the student/teacher 'contract'? Teachers take on obligations to teach freely, and we should fulfill these obligations to the best of our ability. Most dedicated teachers will do this; they will follow benchmarks and curriculum guides and make plans to best suit the necessary instruction. As always as in any other job, there are always those who will take the easiest way out and do only what is necessary for fulfillment. One's teacher's standards and expectations are not necessarily every other teacher's standards, and the same goes for students. Teachers should be obligated to fulfill the student/teacher contract as well as they can, but students do not necessarily fulfill their end of the contract, perhaps because they do not sign a contract and do not always look on their learning as valuable. That perhaps makes some teachers work harder and others work even less.
ReplyDeleteAll three of you make excellent points. It is difficult to see public education as a contract in the business or moral sense. It is easier to see it in private education. There is a definite 2-sided approach to the outcome of graduating well-educated young people, plus support from involved family and community members. We sign our contracts with the DCSD to do our jobs for specified salaries, with morals, values, beliefs, and goals hidden under the veil. Our students are somewhat like clients - they either seek what we offer and use it to their benefit, or they waste their own time and get no further than someone who just won't follow financial advice. School contracts would be more "fair," if teachers were evaluated on their part of the bargain, rather than on outcomes we cannot control.
ReplyDelete