Teacher Suspended for reading Enders Game?

[Riddlesinthedark he/him]

Preposterous.

The reasons I say this are two.

First, the book has already been approved. It has been approved by other professionals who have used it in their classrooms. It has been approved by the historical significance of the book itself. It has been approved by its literary merit. Why should it need to be re-approved?

Second, since it has already been approved by professionals, the only people left who could approve it anew are non-professionals. That is akin to having other patients approve a doctor's diagnosis before she can give it to her own patient. Such actions harm the educational system in general. Professionalization is a necessity for quality, while placing a group under the authority of non-experts deprofessionalizes the field. It is the professionalizing influence of a field that expels the charlatans, snakeoilmen, and the tomfoolery that makes a field untrustworthy. Teacher is already weakly professionalized, largely due to its willingness to take in other professionals, and to allow its own to seek other professions. It is weakened by bloated administrative structures divorced from the actual craft of teaching. It is weakened by ignorant parents seeking haphazardly to enforce their ill founded opinions on the field. Requiring that a book like Ender's Game get reapproved would unnecessarily diminish professional authority and place untrained and unknowledgeable individuals in a position of authority.

Now, you noted that teachers and administrators can be absent of common sense. This is true, but irrelevant as all people can be absent of common sense. Teachers aren't infallible, certainly, but until they fall, their training and the approval of their peers has earned them the ability to perform their profession unmolested.

The argument for Politics over other spheres is older than feudalism, and Plato and Aristotle both make sound arguments.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Voldy

[Thought]

@Voldy, the necessity for professionalization is well attested to historically, and that process can only happen and continue to happen when oversight for a field is entrusted to professionals within that field. Since you didn't name any particular arguments to support your position, I cannot comment on them (indeed, as far as I am familiar with Plato and Aristotle, they made no such arguments, but then, I am no expert on them either).

Medicine was one of the first professionalized fields, and this process occurred in the latter part of the Middle Ages. As such, it is often used as a case study in this process. The fact that there are still unprofessionalized practitioners makes it relevant here.

Why do we trust licensed doctors but not, say, reflexologists? The reason is because we know that a licensed doctor has been trained and that someone who knows what they are talking about has said that THIS doctor also knows what he is talking about. We don't trust reflexologists because they have no such vouchsafes. If there is an honest one out there, they're surrounded by hordes of charlatans. And, if there is an honest one out there, they still didn't have a standardized training. Good intentions don't make up for ignorance. Because we trust licensed medical professionals, we can easily find the medical aid we need.

The trust we have in doctors, and the benefits we receive from it, are directly related to the professionalization process. Starting in the Middle Ages, medical practitioners began to value book-learning (aka, University education). Those who were educated performed more reliably, thereby gaining the trust of their patients. The practitioners had a reason to exclude unreliable individuals, as those individuals undermined the reputation of all medical practitioners. As quacks were excluded, the profession was trusted more, which allows greater mobility of its members and quicker dissemination of new technology, techniques, and treatments. It also brought in greater and more reliable profits for its members.

Oversight boards comprised of non-professionals are inherently problematic because they are not motivated by the same need for honesty that professionals are. Nor are they trained in such a way to recognize what is proper and what is not. The most effective non-professional governing bodies are those that refer and defer to professionals (as we tend to see in court cases involving medical practitioners). Or, in other words, the best non-professional boards are the ones who are just figureheads for professionals.

Education is already a troubled professional field. For one, teachers are paid too little, particularly in comparison to the economic prosperity that they generate. This has the effect of siphoning away individuals who would have otherwise been excellent professionals. Lack of reward also relaxes the professionalization force within the field. The permeability between the profession and other professions is likewise a hindrance. It gives the impression that the field isn't rigorous (and, to be fair, it is less rigorous than it should be, but that is largely the result of non-professional interference).

Why, then, should education be further hindered by forcing an uninitiated governing body on it? If the profession acknowledges a book, like Ender's Game, as being a piece of literature that children should read, then it is in their best interest to speak from honesty and experience. Administrators have neither that motivation nor aid. If they agree with professionals, then they are superfluous. If they disagree with professionals, then they are detrimental to the process. When the greatest good a governing body can aspire to is to be irrelevant, that governing body should not exist.

Indeed, we have already seen the problems that non-professional interference in education has produced. Even now, there are schools in the United States that do not teach the critical foundation of modern biology and medicine (aka, Evolution). Worse, some schools teach incorrect information in its place. These events are not brought about by professionals but by non(and ex)-professionals. Further, look at Texas, which is continuing to mangle history education in order to achieve political goals.

Now, it is a small matter if a single school has its children read Ender's Game. That in itself won’t end the world. However, it is a specific instance of a larger, destructive trend: non-professionals are being allowed to meddle with education.

@Aethling, I agree, teachers are indeed held to a higher standard than the general public. Which is exactly why we train them specifically to meet those standards. Why, then, should we allow untrained individuals who we do not hold to high standards to be the ones to make important professional decisions? Authority and responsibility go hand in hand.

[Tamzin Ashevai she/her]

There's so much I want to say, but I'm new here and I don't think my opinions would carry much weight. I don't want to say something challenging before I've had an opportunity to explore where I might feel more comfortable expressing my controversial opinions.