The Underground Philosophy Of Education: Teaching is Not for Dummies

“The Underground Philosophy of Education” serves as a tool to provide realistic expectations upon entering the classroom. Individuals coming out of college will be better prepared for the workforce. They will be able to better handle the administrative barriers and the parental concerns in order to fully focus on the needs of the student. Teaching is not easy. Teaching is not for the unprepared and Teaching is NOT for Dummies!

Chapter 1: The Philosophy – Wait, Take, Share - page 7
Chapter 2: Teachers – Weed Them Out - page 29
Chapter 3: Students – Signs of Ignorance - page 43
Chapter 4: Parents – Unknowledgeable Persistence - page 55
Chapter 5: The Administration – Blame or Responsibility - page 75
Chapter 6: Welcome to Oz - page 85
Chapter 7: If Education Was a Pill - page 99


Chapter 1: The Philosophy – Wait, Take, Share

Now, the real deal of education can be discussed in simpler terms than pedagogical creeds and differentiated instruction of the sort. I would like to let the reader know how I decomposed the professional talk to what I will call the casual language to which one can relate and [simply] understand better. Just in case there is any mystery, I am a child of public housing and of a single parent family of eight children; so while I was growing up, I was clueless to any words similar to epistemology. In the field, I often had to break down the million dollar words for myself in order to connect what I see with what I know. And so, the following thoughts were constructed in the meantime to create my creed for education.

The development of a child is one of the major areas of focus to address in presenting a philosophical stance on education. To that, I believe that a child development is due in part to interactions with the environment. Scientists have conducted extensive research concerning the “nature verses nurture” theory, which analyzes whether a child naturally acts the way he or she does, or if their environment influences them.

Tell me, how many people operate totally from natural instinct, with no evidence of change or development through experience? Or, how many people go solely by what they pick up from their environment and never show any evidence of instinctive or natural behavior? The battle to base education on either nature or nurture is senseless because it is clearly a mixture. I also talked about how a child develops through social interactions. One can see that a child’s educational experience seems to be based solely on interaction. Can you think of a child who comes to school specifically to read, do math, spell, and memorize countries everyday; a child who never thinks about when he or she is going to see a friend, girlfriend, or have to face an enemy?
In my experiences, a child mainly comes to school to talk with friends. Some keep their grades up in order to maintain freedoms and rewards, but if grades had no bearings on a child (i.e. passing, failing, or sports eligibility) how do you think report cards would look? To the child, school is not fundamentally about education and we need to keep that in mind. Students already know why they’re coming and stressing the importance only effects a few.

Continuing on similar lines as to why students come to school, one might also think about why students behave the way they do when they are there? If they have their own reasons to come, it is almost certain that those reasons will control how they act. In my creed, I stated that behavior is intrinsic. I think that what a child does comes from them and only them. If you study the behavior of a child (good or bad), you can see that they know exactly what they’re doing and the consequences of their actions. Even in law, the few times a person was not held accountable for their actions were if their insanity plea was actually proven. Otherwise, people in life and children in school are aware of what they are doing...