$$ SYNDICATEDÂ content
Are you an On Account or Unlimited Access Member?
|TOO BUSY TO JOIN TODAY?|
|We reserve the right to validate your circulation|
|578 words, with tag|
Last week, a teacher friend forwarded me a letter one of his students had sent asking him to re-mark an assignment she had failed.
Her reasoning was clear: She needed the grade. His reasoning for giving her the failing grade was equally clear: She didnâ€™t follow the instructions and she didnâ€™t understand the material. Plus, he told me, she had been skipping classes.
But still, she asked, could she please redo the assignment?
The last I heard, the answer was still no. As it should be.
The studentâ€™s request for special treatment was infuriating but not at all unusual. Iâ€™ve heard similar complaints from other teachers. Students asking for special treatment, do-agains for missed tests, re-takes after failures.
Iâ€™ve seen it, too. Last year, I taught a course in public speaking at a college and had to field requests from seven students who wanted special treatment. They said they were nervous. They had stage fright. A few had official documentation testifying to the legitimacy of their anxiety. Individually, they approached me to ask if they could complete the public speaking class in private.
Like my friend, I felt infuriated. No, I told them, you canâ€™t take a mandatory public speaking class in private. Setting different course outcomes for a special few wasnâ€™t fair to the other seasick students in the class who diligently delivered their speeches. Nor was it fair to ask me to bend the institutionâ€™s standards just a little lower so they could clear the bar.
Yet, as infuriated I feel, I have trouble blaming students for pressuring me to cut corners and modify the curricula to help them pass (even when theyâ€™ve demonstrably failed). A lot of these students have come through schools that have permitted, and even encouraged, this sort of behaviour.
Itâ€™s the pay-for-play model of education. Students accrue crippling debts to pay for an education. They want what they pay for.
This isnâ€™t the ranting of an old-fashioned teacher. Schools are shameless about treating students like ATMs.
Hereâ€™s one example. The same friend who sent me the studentâ€™s request for a re-do sent me a passage from a mandatory disabilities training course heâ€™s required to complete. The school, speaking through the training, says unambiguously that â€œAccording to the Customer Service Standard, students are indeed â€˜customersâ€™. Faculty, staff and student leaders are among those at the University who are â€˜service providersâ€™.â€
So itâ€™s hard blame students for acting like obnoxious customers to their service providers when schools obnoxiously reduce them to customers.
In this regard, nobody can say students learn nothing from school. Many deserve a place on the deanâ€™s list for adapting to the inhumanity they find in institutional schooling.
This sad situation plays out at many schools. Indeed, clawing back some of the moral authority for teachers is one of the reasons Ontarioâ€™s college teachers have gone on strike. Letâ€™s hope they win.
If educators want students to treat learning with the seriousness and respect it deserves, educators must treat students seriously and respectfully. This proposition is painfully obvious, but at least in the higher levels of education where bureaucrats write disability training manuals, such a thought is alien.
The real school exists between teachers and students who treat the knowledge they inherit with the awe and reverence itâ€™s owed.
Education of any lasting meaning will never be found between â€œcustomersâ€ and â€œservice providers.â€
Troy Media columnist Robert Price is a communications and professional writing instructor at the University of Toronto.
Included in Troy Mediaâ€™s Unlimited Access subscription plan.
Troy Media Marketplace Â© 2017 – All Rights Reserved
Trusted editorial content provider to media outlets across Canadaâ€‹
Â Terms and Conditions of use