Here is an op-ed piece in the WP that ties in with the dustup in Maine.
So what's your view of Zimmerman's argument?
My own is that unions should take positions on controversial matters. They have to calculate the political costs/gains of doing so. But I see no inherent harm in doing so. Professional associations do so; city councils do so; why not unions, even teacher unions.
The problem is in the classroom. Teachers themselves need to teach in controversial areas about controversial questions. It's one of the best ways kids learn to think. They don't do so in areas they care not a whit about.
But teachers need to learn how to do this. How to stimulate discussion and thinking from several points of view, without privileging any, and also, without denying their own point of view.
My own experience is that it's not too difficult to do. Students don't simply do what teachers tell them to do; nor what teachers tell them to think. They may parrot for a pat on the back in class or for what they think is a way to a better grade. But they, most of them, don't simply swallow a teacher's point of view.
What they cannot do well is think about public issues. We see this on this thread where folk think the way to discuss public issues is to denounce their opponent. A good teacher will help them find their way to respect for other's positions, arguments, and points of view, while finding a language, that's their own, with which they try to persuade others.
The problem, as I see it, is their education schools tend to think of this as technique. It's much more about a teacher's attitude than a technique. I've seen dramatically different techniques produce classrooms in which students argued effectively with one another and learned huge amounts. |
