Is Teaching a Trade?

     This question has been following me around after reading Matthew Crawford’s Shop Class as Soulcraft as suggested to me by Sara Atwood as an extension of my thought on Ruskin, work, and tactility. This book, which is a very convincing and a lovely read, makes a great case for looking at how work, especially manual work is devalued in society. Crawford speaks to the precision innate in trade work; where one’s hands make all the difference. A true craftsperson, a tradesperson can replicate an object with almost eerily precision, regardless of starting materials.

                This had me thinking about education, specifically that well-worn saying “those who can’t do, teach.” I of course think that saying does nothing but perpetuate the stigma attached to instructors, teachers, educators, that anyone can teach, or worse that those who do teach are simply versed in verbosity that has no practical application.

                A trade is defined as “a job, requiring manual skills and special training” (OED).  Being in the education field certainly requires special training (horrible stereotypes aside), so how does the manual fit into what we do. I am an advocate for how the manual is actually very much part and parcel with what instructors do every day. The experiential of education is often glossed over or belittled in favour of big thoughts, big theory, and sadly big money. However, for ideas to really develop or be readily available for application, the experiential is key.  This experiential mode can function in numerous ways. In a simplistic manner there is this division of educational “types” or educational “spaces”- that university is the space for theory and college the space for application and the experiential. Those who have taught in both spaces know this division is not so cut and dry and nor should it be. This is because I believe that teaching is a trade on many important levels; to teach you need skill, you need knowledge of not just facts, application, and analysis, but an awareness of pedagogical design- what works to engage learners in classrooms  or online and what doesn’t.

                It would make sense that teaching be understood as a trade since it has become so progressively devalued in society like the manual trades (like carpenter, electrician, and mechanic) have been over the 20^th and into the 21^st century. The value of this kind of work cannot be measured however and we truly miss out on the embodiment of teachable moments by continuing to devalue this work in the face of more mechanization. The prevailing discourse surrounding teaching and education at this point seems to still define teaching as a profession. However, I think repositioning teaching actively in our discourse and practice as a trade would be a valuable way to emphasize how the foundation of education rests with individual manual skill coming together as a collective to frame and expand ideas.

Just a thought…