Fishy ideas?

Though I did not totally agree with all that Stanely Fish wrote, I have to admit I side more with what he deemed as “literate.” I disagreed with what he suggested were the two duties of a teacher: to introduce the students to new texts/materials and then to provide them with the analytical skills to interpret them. I think that the first duty should be the skills and the second the provision of the texts/materials. However, besides that issue, I did agree with Fish.

The role of education should be to provide its students with the skills necessary to improve the world – but the actual “improvement” of the world is not an academic function. When the “improvements” of the world, or society, are pushed, I think it becomes more of a social (or sometimes political) event than an academic one. Teaching and learning should be about thinking – open thinking, free thinking and doing. When students are pushed into a general direction “to do good” then the freedom to think is lost. The claimed “father of education” John Dewey was a supporter for inquiry and independent thinking – allowing the educated to think of how to best use their skills.

However, that does not mean that I would discourage or protest students using their “literate” skills and abilities to improve the social conditions of the world, if they so choose.