This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Navy Enlisted Instructor:
Anybody Can Be One
In recent years the Navy has expanded its ratings to embrace areas of professional expertise previously considered to be collateral or temporary duties. The establishment of ratings for masters-at-arms and military counselors, for example, will doubtless prove beneficial as personnel trained in these important responsibilities move into billets afloat and ashore.
The Navy ought to take one further step and establish an instructor rating.
At present, the Navy seems to regard its instructors as disdainfully as did George Bernard Shaw—"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” Carrying Shaw’s calumny to its logical conclusion, teaching becomes not a vocation but, rather, an avocation that can be pursued by any bluejacket, male or female, regardless of intellect, temperament, or bent.
And so it can! "Teaching,” as we have come to know it in the military, can be done by anyone. Just as any child can make a mud pie. But who wants to eat it?
Good teaching, however, cannot be done by bad teachers—which is what a great many Navy instructors are. We have all snoozed through courses taught by instructors whose hearts obviously weren’t in it, or who were indifferent either to lesson preparation or their students’ needs, or who were working with one eye on the door, eager to get back to the fleet or to a different assignment ashore.
The present methods of selection (if they exist) and training our instructors are, I believe, inefficient in time and money, harmful to morale, and not in the best interests of the Navy.
The Navy would profit immensely by the establishment of an instructor’s rating for enlisted people who have a
strong commitment to and interest in education, and who have demonstrated in their previous tours the qualities of intelligence, leadership, personality, and human concern necessary to successful, stimulating, and rewarding teaching. As guidelines for the selection, training, and retention of such individuals, I would suggest the following, fully realizing that such a program might be refined after its inception and subsequent review:
► Attainment of pay grade E-6 or above in another rating. (Professional competence in a subject area is essential to the development of an effective teacher.)
► Demonstration of talent in leadership and counseling as well as ability in working with people of diverse racial and educational backgrounds. (Much of a teacher’s most effective work is done in one-to-one sessions outside the classroom and after 1600 hours.)
► Recommendation by commanding officer and other superiors as to the applicant’s suitability for teaching.
► Identification and selection through appropriate tests (Navy and civilian sources) and an interview.
► Attendance at a Navy instructor’s school expanded in time and subject matter to include educational psychology, tests and measurements, instructional techniques (lecture, discussion, practical work, and team teaching), audio-visual aids, and learning difficulties (particularly reading weaknesses).
► Completion of an intensive period of at least four weeks of cadet or "practice” teaching under the close supervision of experienced and successful instructors.
► Frequent and personalized evaluation of the instructor’s teaching by both superiors and students—the results being used as part of the teacher’s annual evaluation and as a basis for his own professional development.
► Provision for further training at civilian colleges and universities during off-duty hours and short sabbaticals.
We’ve all poured our heart out to our boss, spouse, chaplain, or kid and asked, "Right?” only to be told, "I’m sorry, I wasn’t listening.” Nobody listens any more. But a few do read. If nobody seems to care what you think about anything, perhaps you ought to contribute to "Nobody asked me, but ...”
Maybe what you have been saying isn’t worth listening to. But, if it is, we may print it and pay you $50.00. If it isn’t, you’ll feel better for having got it off your chest.
The inauguration of an instructor s rating along these general lines would produce a corps of teachers whose pres' ence would be quickly appreciated in various schools and commands. Since training is the backbone of readiness, those who do the training would be as expert and professional in their calling as any other member of the naval establishment. Training is too important and too complex to be left to amateurs; we don’t go to an auto mechanic for health care or to a gardener for hull maintenance, but at present we are doing just about that in Navy training-