I recently had an interesting conversation about the difference between teaching for the sake of learning and teaching for the sake of preparation. This got me thinking: what exactly makes education, well, educational?
The key difference, I've found, is the end goal. Does an educator want people to learn about Israel, or do they want people to learn about Israel so that they can advocate for it? Are they teaching about the facts on the ground, the people, the narratives, the innovations, or are they teaching about others' perspectives and opinions? Is their teaching to educate or to apply?
This isn't to say that educating to apply is inherently bad; there are advantages to each of these. Education for the sake of itself is great when you're with an audience who isn't familiar with the core facts about the State of Israel, or even for those who want to learn a little bit more. It's the fun facts, reading the Oslo Accords, games about Israeli start-ups, and the powerful discussions about settlements in the West Bank. Education for education is for the people who want to learn.
Education to apply, or "advocacy education" goes beyond this. It demands of its learners a certain drive to act. It calls on learners to fight BDS, speak strongly about Israel, and make an active change. However, in my opinion, it also demands a background in education for the sake of itself. It seems most productive from an educator's standpoint to jump straight to preparing young adults to defend their beliefs and prepare them for deeper conversations only later, but this can cause a detriment to those who go out into the world after only the first part of that lesson. Advocacy education is crucial to learning, but without education for the sake of education, it is helpless.
This is what the three tenants come from: engage, educate, and apply. It's not "debate, defend, apply" and it's not "study, educate, test". You need both.
But you have to know the difference.
Comments