Teachers and Schools

Jaspers’s account of teachers and schools is concrete. He has clear views about what kind of person should be teaching, what they should be doing, and what the school as an institution is for. The article works through the guiding-hand model of teaching, the requirement that teachers themselves be lifelong learners, the link between research and teaching, and the special role of the primary school.

The guiding hand

Jaspers’s central claim about teaching is that children must be educated according to their own inclinations and abilities, under the guiding hand of the educator. The phrase combines two commitments that less careful teachers separate.

Inclinations and abilities: the education is tailored to who the particular child is. Children differ. A teacher who insists on the same education for every child is not respecting the inclinations and abilities of any of them. The teacher’s first work is to know the actual children in front of them and to design the education to fit who they are.

Guiding hand: the teacher is not absent or passive. They have a real role: guiding the child through the work, helping when help is needed, intervening when the child is going wrong. The teacher is not the boss giving orders; they are not the bystander leaving the child alone; they are the guide whose hand shapes the path the child takes through the educational journey.

The combination is the centre of Jaspers’s account of teaching. A teacher who imposes a uniform programme without regard to the child’s actual nature is failing on the first commitment. A teacher who lets the child do whatever they want without guidance is failing on the second. Both failures produce poor education. The correct stance is the guiding hand: present, knowledgeable, attentive to the particular child, but not coercive.

Flashcard

What does Jaspers mean by *the guiding hand of the educator*?

Tap to reveal

Answer

A teacher who is present and attentive but not coercive, tailoring the education to the child’s actual inclinations and abilities

The phrase combines two commitments. Inclinations and abilities: the education is tailored to the particular child, not imposed uniformly. Guiding hand: the teacher is present and active, guiding the child through the work and intervening when needed, not absent or passive. The combination distinguishes Jaspers’s account from both authoritarian teaching (uniform imposition) and laissez-faire teaching (no guidance).

Lifelong education for teachers

Jaspers attaches the quality of education directly to the quality of the teachers. The value of a school, he writes, is directly bound to the quality of its teachers, who can only perform their task of educating young people through lifelong self-education and training.

The claim is strong. A school cannot rise above the quality of its teachers; no curriculum, no facilities, no methodology can compensate for teachers who have stopped developing themselves. And the development required of teachers is lifelong. A teacher who completed their training at twenty-two and has not seriously continued learning since is, by Jaspers’s standard, no longer the kind of teacher a serious school should employ.

His more pointed statement: the only true educator is one who is permanently engaged in a process of self-education through communication. The two words permanently engaged are doing the work. The teacher is not just keeping up with their field in a casual way; they are actively, continuously, working at their own development as an educated person. The work is done in part through communication with others (colleagues, the students themselves, the wider intellectual community). The teacher is a participant in an ongoing conversation, not a finished product who has nothing more to learn.

The reason for the requirement is internal to Jaspers’s account of education. Education, he has already argued, is helping the student come into their own through their own free engagement. A teacher who is not engaging in their own continued coming-into-their-own cannot model this for the student. They can teach the words of an account of education but cannot embody it. The students, watching, see the gap.

The flip side is also stated. Education, Jaspers writes, can only be correct if its addressees acquire the ability to educate themselves through stringent and tenacious learning. The aim of the teacher’s lifelong self-education is to produce students who will themselves take up the work of self-education for the rest of their lives. A teacher who is not a lifelong learner cannot produce students who become lifelong learners; the example is missing.

Flashcard

Why does Jaspers say teachers must be permanently engaged in their own self-education?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Because a teacher who has stopped developing cannot model coming-into-one’s-own for the student

Education is helping the student come into their own through free engagement. A teacher who is not engaging in their own continued development cannot embody this; they can teach the words but not the practice. The students see the gap. The aim of the teacher’s lifelong self-education is also to produce students who themselves take up the work of self-education for the rest of their lives. The example is the transmission mechanism.

Substance and research

Jaspers attaches the substance of teaching to research. Good teachers, he says, must recognise the need for substance in their teaching, which only research can provide. His sharper formulation: only he who himself does research can really teach.

The claim links two activities that modern teacher-training programmes often separate. A teacher’s work, on the standard model, is to convey existing content to students; the teacher learns the content during training and then transmits it during their career. Research is a separate activity done by specialists, mostly at universities, whose results may eventually appear in textbooks.

Jaspers rejects this separation. A teacher who is not doing research themselves is conveying second-hand material whose connection to the actual subject they cannot vouch for. They know what the textbook says; they do not know whether the textbook is right. They have not engaged with the open questions of the subject; they have only studied the closed answers their training provided. The result is a teaching that is technically accurate but substantively thin.

A teacher who does research, even at a modest scale, engages with the open questions. They know what is genuinely settled and what is still being worked out. They know which claims have strong support and which are tentative. They know where the textbook is over-simplifying and where it is correct. The teaching that comes from this kind of teacher carries weight that the second-hand teaching does not.

The claim is demanding. Most school teachers do not have research time built into their work; the school day is full of teaching and the marginal hour is rarely available for original inquiry. Jaspers’s standard implies that this is itself a structural problem in modern schooling. A serious school should make time for its teachers to do research; a school that does not is producing teaching of lower substance than the same teachers could supply if the time were available.

A modest application a working teacher can make: even without formal research time, a teacher can keep one or two questions in their subject permanently open, reading and thinking about them across the years. The questions become areas where the teacher genuinely knows what is at stake, what is settled, and what is open. Their teaching in those areas will be substantively stronger than their teaching elsewhere. The model can grow as the years go on.

Flashcard

Why does Jaspers say *only he who himself does research can really teach*?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Because a teacher who does not engage with open questions teaches second-hand material whose substance they cannot vouch for

A teacher who is not doing research knows what the textbook says but not whether the textbook is right; they have studied closed answers without engaging with open questions. A teacher who does research, even modestly, knows what is settled and what is tentative, what the textbook over-simplifies and where it is correct. The teaching that comes from a researching teacher carries substantive weight that second-hand teaching does not.

The school and its tasks

Jaspers identifies two tasks for the school as an institution.

The first is that schools must arouse the historical spirit of the community and of life through the symbols of that community. The school is the place where the next generation is brought into contact with the long history of the community they are joining. The history is not just a set of facts to be memorised; it is the lived inheritance of the community, which the student needs to engage with to become a full member.

The mechanism Jaspers proposes is twofold. The school provides systematic consideration of the previous history of the community, so the student learns what came before and how the present grew from it. The school also enables contact between young people and their educators, so the inheritance is transmitted not just through books but through the personal example and conversation of older members of the community. Both are needed; either alone is insufficient.

The second task is more practical. Schools must enable students to learn and practise everything that is necessary for work and a profession. This is the vocational mission, and Jaspers does not dismiss it. A student who graduates without the capacity to do useful work in the world has been failed by their school; the school’s job includes preparing them for productive adult work. The vocational preparation is a matter of deliberate planning; it does not happen by accident, and it requires the school to design specifically for it.

The two tasks combine: the school transmits the historical inheritance and equips the student for work. Either alone is insufficient. A school that does only the first produces students with rich cultural understanding and no way to support themselves; a school that does only the second produces students who can work but cannot connect their work to any larger inheritance. The both-and is the right standard, even though most schools do better at one than the other.

Flashcard

What two tasks does Jaspers assign to the school as an institution?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Arousing the historical spirit of the community and preparing students for work and a profession

(1) The school brings the next generation into contact with the long history of the community through the symbols of the community: systematic study of previous history and personal contact between young people and their educators. (2) The school enables students to learn and practise everything necessary for work and a profession through deliberate planning. The two tasks combine; either alone produces partial graduates.

The exceptional importance of the primary school

Jaspers closes with a special emphasis on the primary school. The primary school, he writes, plays an exceptionally important role: it lays the moral, intellectual, and political foundation for the entire population.

The claim is strong. Three foundations are at stake. The moral foundation: the basic sense of right and wrong, of honesty, of fairness, of care for others, that adults will operate on for the rest of their lives. The intellectual foundation: the basic capacities of literacy, numeracy, observation, and clear thinking that all later education builds on. The political foundation: the basic disposition toward civic life, toward authority, toward fellow citizens, that will shape the adult’s participation in the political community.

All three foundations are laid in the primary years. By the time the child reaches secondary school, the foundations are mostly set; later schooling can build on them but cannot easily replace them. A weak primary school therefore produces weak adults across all three dimensions, with consequences that no amount of later education can fully fix.

The implication for educational policy is sober. A society that wants strong adults has to take its primary schools seriously. Funding, teacher quality, curriculum, time, attention, all of these have to be available at the primary level on the assumption that the work being done there is the foundation of everything else. A society that under-resources its primary schools is mortgaging its own future.

The implication for the teaching profession is similar. The primary teacher is doing work whose consequences extend across the student’s entire adult life. The respect accorded to primary teaching should reflect this. In many societies, primary teaching has lower status than secondary or university teaching; Jaspers’s account suggests the ranking is exactly backwards. The most consequential teaching is the earliest.

A B.Ed. student choosing what level to teach at should hold this in mind. Primary teaching is not the easy entry point to a teaching career; it is the foundation work that all the higher levels rest on. A society needs strong primary teachers more than it needs strong university lecturers, on Jaspers’s account.

Flashcard

Why does Jaspers say the primary school has *exceptionally important* role?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Because it lays the moral, intellectual, and political foundation for the entire population

Three foundations are at stake. Moral: the basic sense of right and wrong that adults will operate on for life. Intellectual: the basic capacities of literacy, numeracy, observation, and clear thinking that all later education builds on. Political: the basic disposition toward civic life and fellow citizens. All three are laid in the primary years; later schooling can build on them but cannot easily replace them. The most consequential teaching is the earliest.