[HPforGrownups] Re: More on Snape

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 102641

On 23 Jun 2004 at 23:58, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> Exactly - flourish or die. Is it OK though to risk a chance of some 
> students dying (in a  metaphorical sense :o)), even if some will 
> flourish?

Whatever (valid) teaching method a teacher chooses to use, there 
will always be some children in a classroom who will flourish under 
that method, and some who will flounder. There is no such thing as 
a method that works with all children, or a method that is 
incapable of harming some children. As I've said before, I 
experienced education that was based on all the ideas that were 
supposed to be good for children. 95% of the kids in my classes 
probably flourished in those environments. But I almost died - 
metaphorically, certainly, but as I was suicidal after a year in 
that environment (and the teacher reasons, to be fair, were only 
part of the reason, but they were a part), it was uncomfortably 
close to literal as well.

Many people seem to develop a belief somewhere along the line that 
the teaching methods that worked best for them are automatically 
the best teaching methods available. That simply is not so. It just 
means that those were the methods that best suited *their* 
educational needs. That doesn't make them the best methods in any 
objective sense. By the same token, just because a method didn't 
work for you - or even if hurt you - doesn't objectively speakin 
make it a bad method. It just wasn't *right* for you.

And it gets even more complicated because whether a method is a 
good one or a bad one, also often depends on what you want to 
measure.

If you regard education's primary purpose as instilling academic 
knowledge in a child, you may favour different methods than if you 
regard education's primary purpose as creating a self-confident 
child. If you regard both as equally important, you may favour a 
different method again.

The education I experienced and enjoyed had three primary goals. To 
first of all, create critical thinkers. Secondly, to instil useful 
knowledge. Thirdly, to eventually create highly self sufficient 
adults. Three main goals in that order.

For *those* goals, Snape like teachers have a *very* real place in 
the system.

A school with a different philosophy, would have different goals, 
and therefore would choose different methods. Just as valid. Just 
different.

It's a mistake to believe schools can be 'all things to all 
people'. If a school tries to deal with *every* possible goal of 
education, it's likely to wind up failing to deal with most of them 
at all. With our modern universal education system, where we have 
large numbers of taxpayer funded schools open to all, though, 
schools are often forced to at least try and do this - because 
making choices as to who you help and who you don't... well, that's 
really tough to do.

But the Wizarding World - and Hogwarts - seems different to me.

First of all, it looks like there is no assumption in the Wizarding 
World that everyone is entitled to a secondary level education 
(unlike most of our modern technological societies).

JKR has told us in an interview (apparently) that Hogwarts is the 
only school for Wizards in Britain.

Neville tells us that his entire family were worried he wouldn't be 
able to go to Hogwarts.

Consider the implications of that...

Hogwarts seems to be either Britain's *only* school for Wizards - 
or certainly, it's most prominent. And to get in, you have to reach 
certain minimum standards.

The Wizarding World apparently doesn't believe that secondary level 
education is a *right* in the same way our world does. It's a 
privilege.

While this view may seem odd to people today, historically - 
including into quite recent history - it's not that unusual.

The thing is, because the Wizarding World doesn't see secondary 
education as a fundamental right, that means it's far less likely 
that it feels there is any obligation to ensure that every child 
gets the education that would best suit their needs.

The school I attended which had the staff of Snapes (-8 was one of 
Australia's most prestigious private schools. It worked largely on 
the principle that "We teach the way we teach - if that's not right 
for your son, then don't send him to us." It worked for me because 
it was right for me - and for most of my classmates, because they'd 
go elsewhere where it didn't.

I think the Wizarding World may have something of a different 
attitude: "We teach the way we teach - if that's not right for you, 
well, we're sorry - but we don't have to educate you."

In *our* world of universal, compulsory (or at least near-
compulsory) education, that type of attitude is pretty unaccaptable 
- if you force children to go to school, you accept some extra 
responsibility for ensuring that the school can meet their needs.

But if it's voluntary... or even more, if it's a privilege - the 
pressure to do that is *far* less.

I think Howarts is very much a sink or swim educational environment 
- you don't *have* to go there - but if you do, you play by its 
rules.

And in such an environment as that - then, frankly, methods where 
some will flourish and some will fail are just part of the 
equation.

Neville doesn't do well in potions (-8. But he does do well in 
Herbology, and he seems to get by in other subjects. Even he seems 
to be getting benefit from the school.
 
> By the way, I am still waiting for someone to show me canon proof 
> that Snape is a good teacher academically. :o)Let's put aside whether 
> he is abusive or not for one second.
> 
> Yes, Shaun showed some good examples that Snape is passionate about 
> his subject, but do we see any canon proof that his students actually 
> learned something (besides Hermione making polyjuice potion)or that 
> he just expects him to do well.

Well, we might get some decent information on this if the studenst 
took about the OWLs in Book 6.

But for the moment, I think there is still one clear piece of 
evidence.

Umbridge describes Snape's fifth year class as 'fairly advanced' 
for the level - at the same time as she is criticising Snape's 
syllabus choices. Umbridge doesn't seem to miss a trick in 
criticising the teachers - she's not going to say Snape has a 
fairly advanced class if it isn't true (in fact, I would suspect 
given the way she treats other teachers that 'fairly advanced' 
probably means a lot more than she says).

Also, if he wasn't teaching them properly, I think we'd have heard 
some very bitter complaints from Hermione before now. (-8


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia