We teach, Parents educate, is the proposition of a policy I heard a while ago. That made me think?

The older the children the more likely that educating them is a useless job. Think about the way children change. Once they have entered puberty (and turn into little adults) it is hard to change them. When they are younger it is easier to influence them.

So you might argue that educating is not part of teachers of higher levels; once children have a certain age the main focus is teaching and any effort to re-educate them is not worth it.

When younger, children and pupils are more prone to influences, and thus also from those influences at school. Now the question is should teacher have such an additional role in educating children of that age?

Teachers serve - whether they like it or not, whether they are conscious about it or not - always as a role-model. They "rule" by example.

Parents' influence of their kids' behavior at school is limited. They have educated them to listen to authorities - some more than other, also according to the type of school. Some schools have a more anti-authority approach. But parents are just not there, all the time. This is good.

Schools have their own style. This is noticeable from the image people communicate about this school outside it. When "sending" your kid to a school you approve with the style of the school. Some school is more orthodox, some more open, innovative, etc. And that signature will be part of the educating process of the pupil.

Therefore, teachers have implicitly an educating role, according to the style-rules of the institute they work for.

One of the remaining questions is whether the individual teacher adheres to these rules.

H.J.B.

© 2008 Hans Bool