this Article was taken from Dilema veche
Or better: each teacher to build their own manually. An opinion widely accepted is that the manuals current – and school education in general – are poorly defined, because the emphasis on “information” (i.e. on the memory of the disciple) and not on the “competence” (i.e. on the development of skills in existential and intellectual useful). It is added that a good manual must be “fascinating”, full of “mystery”, “games”, of pictures, of the various maneuvers of seduction. When it’s not that the kids “get bored”. Anyway, they have too many classes and too many lessons for the home. For their part, if they are asked, students respond, as expected, differentiated: from the one who would like the “manual of the history to have it on the “Ştefan cel Mare on the cover” to the one who would prefer the covers with the “kendama”. (I don’t know what that means? Neither can I! But I found out, resourceful as they are, it’s a very fashionable japanese game with the ball.) More “hooked up”, another student is of the opinion that “the manual ideal is the tablet”. Personally, I liked the more of a statement of the young Andrei Tanasescu (class XI): “The best manual is the teacher!” Here’s the key: with a good manual, a teacher unfit can cause disasters, while, even with a manual bad, a good teacher can do wonders. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter the quality objective of the manual. But education is, by excellence, a “meeting face to face”: the quality of interlocutors is decisive.
I’m Not gonna complicate the debate, adding his infinite nuances. I will make only three points, the reaction of a “conservative” (probably) out of phase, tired of the inflation opinions “about”, without immediate consequences, a prisoner of his own experiences:
1) the Opposition of “information competence” seems to me insufficient. First, that they are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary. You can’t be truly “competent” in life post-high school if you’re not well informed. And, vice versa, the information’s luggage barren if it’s not mînuită with skill pragmatic. It is essential, however, that education includes mandatory, and a third term: “formation” of the personality, shaping the human “whole”, the infusion of values, of taste, of decorum, of the employment community. Wilhelm von Humboldt did, in the early NINETEENTH century, a distinction the capital between the “Ausbildung” (drill applied, specific education, professional) and “Bildung” (configuration “of the person”, the construction of man “full”, stimulating “normality” – i.e. adapting to the “norm” of humanity). To be a good doctor or a good carpenter, you have to “learn”, technically, to do your job (“Ausbildung”). to be a real man, you have to be more than a professional and much more than a “resourceful” with the “skills” lucrative: I have to be the result of an effort by the “Bildung”, modeling full.
2) Has great success about a Finnish professor of mathematics, asked what he teaches he children. “To be happy!” Sublime! But to say thanks if you learn the multiplication table! High school teacher must be a model, but not a “guru”, a confessor, a savior of souls. The idea – still widespread – that the “happiness” it can “teach” after a solutions in two-three steps, how to learn riding a bike or swimming, it’s an idea of a stupid man. Or hypocritical cunning. Close by is the idea that, at school, the student must not be bored, to feel compelled, to have the feeling “corvezii”. “Natural” is the play, “freedom”, the suspension of the rules, concentration, transpiration. Obvious that the teacher must strive not to practical pedagogy as on the exploitation of slaves, as a înregimentare soldierly. But if you go to school to play, I wonder where you go when you really want to play?! Not to mention that to induce the child the idea that effort and discipline are abuse, draconian’s soon to prepare for retirement rather than for life.
3) More dangerous than the inflation information and price tag playfulness is handling the ideological to students: education understood as a correlative of indoctrination. As per my forecast: everything that was not in agreement with the policy of the party and with the prospect of a “bright future” was reprehensible and forbidden. Now, there’s a trend, which prohibits, strut and nătîng, everything that’s not according with the slogans of “fairness” ready-made. Life is not polychromatic, it’s not an amalgam of “good” and “bad”, but a struggle between “good” and “bad”, in which the “bad guys” not just branded, but simply treated as “non-existent”. We exclude from the curriculum, Hatchet, because he talks about the aggressiveness of the male. We exclude, also, Mara his Slavici, the lyric “sad” to Eminescu’s prose suffocated by the “idioms” of his Branch. Why to teach your kids what a “quiver”, or a “finer moments”, when, in daily life, they have to do with “pinterest”, “kendama” and “vlog”? With such criteria, we’ll throw in the trash most of the cultural production of the world: from the nudes (the instrumentalization of women…) at painting religious (manipulation finally), from Iliad (too much war) to the Master Manole (the murder of a pregnant through edification), to Plato (anti-democratic) to Caragiale (un-american), etc.a.m.d. A lady teacher prefer Shakespeare. Shakespeare? That with Othello (racism), with Titus Andronicus (14 killings, 9 of which are place on the stage, in front of the audience), Macbeth? the Same god seems more “correct” the Jungle Book (full, however, the discrimination of animals, with tigers bad and panthers). Or Arghezi (heightens artistic “sores, mucigaiuri and mud”?). Ready! Our children will only read stories with zîne, they’ll just see the soap opera with happy endings and will doze off in the sauces pink, without drama, without “evil”, without the risks. If that’s “the line”, I can’t help but I’m glad I got rid of the childhood.
you Can comment on this article on the dilemaveche.ro.