What makes a great teacher?

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture
What makes a great teacher?

 

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

"On August 25, 2008, two little boys walked into public elementary schools in Southeast Washington, D.C. Both boys were African American fifth-graders. The previous spring, both had tested below grade level in math.

One walked into Kimball Elementary School and climbed the stairs to Mr. William Taylor’s math classroom, a tidy, powder-blue space in which neither the clocks nor most of the electrical outlets worked.

The other walked into a very similar classroom a mile away at Plummer Elementary School. In both schools, more than 80 percent of the children received free or reduced-price lunches. At night, all the children went home to the same urban ecosystem, a zip code in which almost a quarter of the families lived below the poverty line and a police district in which somebody was murdered every week or so.

At the end of the school year, both little boys took the same standardized test given at all D.C. public schools—not a perfect test of their learning, to be sure, but a relatively objective one (and, it’s worth noting, not a very hard one).

After a year in Mr. Taylor’s class, the first little boy’s scores went up—way up. He had started below grade level and finished above. On average, his classmates’ scores rose about 13 points—which is almost 10 points more than fifth-graders with similar incoming test scores achieved in other low-income D.C. schools that year. On that first day of school, only 40 percent of Mr. Taylor’s students were doing math at grade level. By the end of the year, 90 percent were at or above grade level.

As for the other boy? Well, he ended the year the same way he’d started it—below grade level. In fact, only a quarter of the fifth-graders at Plummer finished the year at grade level in math—despite having started off at about the same level as Mr. Taylor’s class down the road.

This tale of two boys, and of the millions of kids just like them, embodies the most stunning finding to come out of education research in the past decade: more than any other variable in education—more than schools or curriculum—teachers matter. Put concretely, if Mr. Taylor’s student continued to learn at the same level for a few more years, his test scores would be no different from those of his more affluent peers in Northwest D.C. And if these two boys were to keep their respective teachers for three years, their lives would likely diverge forever."

What makes a great teacher?  The [url=answers[/url]">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/good-teaching][=blue][u]answe... may surprise you.

Sven Sven's picture

Hint: A "master’s degree in education seems to have no impact on classroom effectiveness."  Yet, in America, at least, getting a graduate degree -- along with simply putting more years in at the job than one's colleagues -- automatically "entitles" a teacher to earn a higher income than teachers without a masters degree.  What's generally not rewarded is producing better results.

If the purpose of education is to educate children, one would think that the system would be structured to reward better results and not to "reward" irrelevant factors, such as getting masters degrees or warming a chair for more years than one's colleagues.

E.P.Houle

Over 2/3 of the living genious of the planet lives in  China or India. To see the regressive policy visited upon these little minds sickens.

E.P.Houle

Dear Sven/house troll,

Get a life. Go to school. It's fun. My mom, a fifth grade teacher, turned aside her phd. so avoid embarrasing her hubby. But, the key point is, all those kids are running the country now. If you can't take care of the young you have no future. Ipso facto, the USA is f*d.

Michelle

It's a really interesting article.  Thanks for posting it.  But I wouldn't use it as an excuse for knee-jerk anti-union sentiments, although there is a hint of that in the article.

I think that what they're doing in this article is expecting teachers to be miracle-workers and saints, who spend a lot of their own money, and a lot of unpaid time, making up for all the things that society does not provide for these children.  Who pays for that bacon-and-egg breakfast that Mr. Taylor feeds the kids on the morning of their standardized test?  My guess is, Mr. Taylor, who also cooks it on unpaid time.  Which is fine if you aren't a single parent with your own kids at home to look after and feed on your own time.

The pedagogical stuff is very, very interesting, though.  I think a lot of attention should be paid to that.

The other thing about this article is that I can understand the teachers' unions feeling threatened by this idea that their teachers could be fired if their students underperform on standardized tests, as long as it's not completely clear WHAT teachers need to do to help students facing overwhelming social issues that cause underperformance, or as long as schools and governments refuse to compensate the "miracle-worker" teachers who use tons of their own money and time on teaching and becoming substitute parents.

The whole article was talking about how Teach For America was completely stumped about what creates a good teacher, and how teachers' colleges don't teach new teachers the kind of pedagogical methods that will include all students.  So how on earth are teachers supposed to know how to become a bunch of Mr. Taylors, if even Teach For America still isn't sure what goes into making a Mr. Taylor? 

Are they going to fire everyone except for the occasional superstar like Mr. Taylor until they all somehow magically figure out his secret?  Are they going to compensate every teacher who spends hours of their personal time (most teachers do this anyhow) and tons of their own money on their classrooms?

Tommy_Paine

 

The whole problem, I think, is reification, that is, trying to quantify an abstract or subjective thing.    And, no doubt teachers and teachers unions would be against this, as the goal posts constantly shift from one new ground breaking study to the next-- which will appear next year in another magazine. 

Which is not to say that the current way we do things is right, or okay, or couldn't be done better.   Just that we can't react to every study or idea that comes along-- in fact, I'd say that would probably be the biggest problem in education today, that the sands keep shifting.   We want parent involvement, but yet when simple terminolgy changes according to fashion,  it has a way of isolating parents from the process.    Teacher's communications home, text books, all seem to change for the sake of change, or to impress the province instead of communicating to the parent.

In Ontario, whenver one party has held office for over a decade, the party replacing it can't wait to get in there and change the whole system to bring it in line with the problems as they see it, and, of course, their party dogma.

 

Enough of this shit.

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

Michelle, what I found most interesting about the article was what happens even before an individual becomes a teacher (i.e., the focus TFA puts on screening applicants for certain personal characteristics which TFA has found, over time, to be closely correlated to classroom success).  In other words, rather than just focus on what to do with the bad teachers that are already in the system, also focus on the type of individuals coming into the system in the first place.

Skinny Dipper

Speaking as someone with a BEd and supply teaches at many schools at the elementary level, I will state from personal classroom obwervations and officially recorded EQAO standarized test results that there is very little correlation between individual teaching and test results.  There is a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the test results.  This does not mean that an individual teacher can't make a difference--far from it.  It just means that a great teacher may get the students to move up one grade level but still be below the provincial average.  Great teachers work in challenging classes where the students may get lower than average test scores.  Other great teachers work in classes with students from middle or upper income families.  The students' families place a high value on education and expect the best from and for their children.  They also have the time and financial resources to give their children and added advantage.  A home computer with internet access makes a difference.

Ontario's EQAO standardized tests may appear fair.  However, these tests only measure a small part of the students' curriculum.  Also, based on my observations, classes that spend weeks in preparation for the tests will perform better than those who briefly go over the rules of taking the tests.  Students learn the APE method of answering questions--answer based on rewriting part of the question in the form of an answer; prove based on the evidence in the text; and expand based on their own knowledge to show that they understand the meaning of the text.

One can transplant a great teacher from Upper Canada College and place him/her in a Regent Park school.  That teacher may do no better and may achieve less from the students than the previous teacher who may have better understood the needs of the Regent Park students.

Tommy_Paine

 

I suspect that great teachers get shuffled over to schools in higher income neighborhoods.

Sven Sven's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

The whole problem, I think, is reification, that is, trying to quantify an abstract or subjective thing.

From our own school experience, we all know, subjectively, that there are both excellent and poor teachers in the system.  For the sake of the students (and, after all, that's the whole purpose of having an educational system), I think we can all agree that we want to minimize the number of poor teachers in the system.

The question is: How do we evaluate teacher quality?

Quality can be evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively...or (more likely) by a combination of qualitative and quantitative factors.  But, teacher quality can -- and must -- be evaluated (followed by actions based on those evaluations) if we want to improve educational quality.

al-Qa'bong

Every year we receive invitations to attend the Great Teachers Seminar.  I never apply; I just don't feel comfortable with the name of the conference, as it sounds arrogant to my ears.  When someone comes up with a "Pretty Decent Teachers Seminar," or a "Not Bad Teachers Seminar" I'll consider attending.

Sven Sven's picture

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Speaking as someone with a BEd and supply teaches at many schools at the elementary level, I will state from personal classroom obwervations and officially recorded EQAO standarized test results that there is very little correlation between individual teaching and test results.  There is a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the test results.  This does not mean that an individual teacher can't make a difference--far from it.  It just means that a great teacher may get the students to move up one grade level but still be below the provincial average.  Great teachers work in challenging classes where the students may get lower than average test scores.  Other great teachers work in classes with students from middle or upper income families.  The students' families place a high value on education and expect the best from and for their children.  They also have the time and financial resources to give their children and added advantage.  A home computer with internet access makes a difference.

The thrust of the article was not a comparison between teacher performance in low income schools versus teacher performance in high income schools.  TFA focuses on serving poor, inner-city school districts.   And, what they have found is that within those schools, there are individual teachers who produce phenomenal results and other individual teachers who produce poor results -- but all of the teachers are working with the types of students and student backgrounds.  In other words, the only meaningful variable is individual teacher performance.

Skinny Dipper

Ah, Sven, so all the teachers at one school perform poorly while all the teachers at the other school perform well.  If that is the case, one should focus on the administration leaders who set the direction and tone in each school.  Yes, teachers belong to a professional community.  However, if the administration is not favourable to new ideas from the teachers, then things may stagnate in a school.  In Ontario, while the administration members are teachers, they do not belong to a union.

I would also be wary of checking the standardized test results for one year.  There may be lots of variances between years even if the same teacher is in the same grade classroom.  Also, in Ontario, the school results may be skewed in that students who do not write the tests are recorded as scoring zeros.  A few are from parents who refuse to have their children write the tests.  Others children who do not write the tests may be some in special education who are unable to write these tests.  Their scores are recorded as zeros.

Sven Sven's picture

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Ah, Sven, so all the teachers at one school perform poorly while all the teachers at the other school perform well.

Who is making that claim?

In fact, you'll find good and bad teachers in the same school.

Tommy_Paine

From our own school experience, we all know, subjectively, that there are both excellent and poor teachers in the system.  For the sake of the students (and, after all, that's the whole purpose of having an educational system), I think we can all agree that we want to minimize the number of poor teachers in the system.

 

And, from our own school experience, we know too that you and I found some teachers really good, while other students found the same teacher not so good. 

 

I don't think we want to minimize the number of poor teachers in the system.  I think we want to maximize the benifits of education to as many students as possible.  Minimizing the number of poor teachers in the system is perhaps a factor in that, but making that the thrust, and assuming that improvement to education will follow isn't an assumption I'd make.

First, one has to start at the start, and ask what we want the purpose of education to be, and then move on from there.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Okay, I know this site is vehemently pro-union.  But teacher's unions tend to protect teachers who are not only not very good at their jobs, but abusive.  They balk at any kind of attention being given to performance.  This is wrong. 

Case in point:  The teacher who not only refused to use the recommended adaptations that were given for our daughter, she verbally and emotionally abused her for the entire year, and then in the end got physical with her.  We were in there, pointing out the problems at every turn, watched our kid go from a bright, advanced learner who loved school to a shell-shocked little girl who wouldn't even try. 

Did we demand her head on a platter?  You bet your ass we did.  Guess what?  She's still teaching.  All they did was get her to move schools.

I applaud the role unions play in the reasonable protection of their members.  Teaching is indeed a tough job.  But when they extend those protections to incompetent abusers, they lose my sympathy.

A teaching degree is not enough.  They need to examine these people far more rigorously before they let them work with children - in terms of personality in addition to teaching style.  There are great teachers out there, but they aren't being done any favours under the current system.

Tommy_Paine

 

I wouldn't say I'm vehemently pro union when it comes to teachers.  As a union guy, I find the role teachers play as part of the union movement-- if they are part-- a perfidious one indeed.   

When I was a union rep at our plant, my job-- and legal requirement-- was to represent the workers or worker to the best of my ability.  It was not my job to do management's work.   You know what is behind every "bad" worker?  a lazy supervisor or manager who didn't want to deal with that person when they should have, or didn't deal with them in a way that left me no room to manouver-- when they damn well could have.

 

Perfidiousness of teacher's unions in the union movement aside, you can't blame a union for not managing properly.  That blame is with the administration, Timebandit.

 

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

I think what Tommy says has a lot of truth to it.  It's not the job of the teacher unions to improve educational results.  The job of the unions is to protect union members -- even if that objective may be contrary to educational objectives.

I also think that it doesn't make sense, with a broad brush, to "blame the teachers".  Instead, I think the blame is on the system which allows mediocre teachers to remain in the system and which does not recruit top candidates to the profession.

Basically, the system needs to be changed (despite the objections of the unions -- after all, the purpose of schools is to educate students, not to provide and protect teacher jobs): Reward the good teachers based on performance, get rid of poor teachers, and recruit (and pay) for top candidates into the profession.

Sven Sven's picture

Although there are "only" 700 teachers occupying them in NYC, what other profession would tolerate the idiocy of [url=">http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/2008-05-04_teac..."rubber rooms"[/url]?

Tommy_Paine

 

The teaching profession has no monopoly on idiocy.   

 

I also think that it doesn't make sense, with a broad brush, to "blame the teachers". 

 

Um.  Then why do you continue to do it?

Sven Sven's picture

Sven wrote:

I also think that it doesn't make sense, with a broad brush, to "blame the teachers".

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Then why do you continue to do it?

Are you deliberately misreading what I said?

The only way your question makes any sense is if you view the classification called "teachers" as a homogenous monolith.

I said:

Sven wrote:

I also think that it doesn't make sense, with a broad brush, to "blame the teachers".  Instead, I think the blame is on the system which allows mediocre teachers to remain in the system and which does not recruit top candidates to the profession.

Blaming a system which allows a subset of teachers to remain in that system (i.e., those teachers who are mediocre) is far different than this broad-brushed statement: "Teachers are the cause of the failures in schools," which is what your question implied I was asserting.

Tommy_Paine

 

Because I think you are asserting that with your implications.  

 

Sure, in a perfect world there'd be a way to ferret out poor teachers, or identify them satisfactorily for improvement.   And that undoubtedly does go on in some fashion.

But does it merit the focus you are putting on it?   I don't think it does, and I think the only reason to focus on that is to, in fact, blame the teachers and go after what many on the right currently think is the biggest baddest union of them all.

I've seen this idea and that idea in education come and go in my time.  They seem to change with the hem lines on Paris fashion runways, so while the article in the Atlantic is interesting, and merits some thought, it's well, yet another idea in a long line of ideas.

 

 

 

jfood

From my own experience, it was a desire to talk to students, not to teach them. The latter will come surely if you can communicate and engage people, even wee little people, in matters you care about.

 

In the spirit of the article and naming the good, I just wanted to send a giant amount of love and respect to one Jack Miller, who tought at Windermere High School back in the '90s. I never really cared before I met you, I just moved through the system. You helped me find my own path, in education and in life. You have a rare gift.

Michelle

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Ah, Sven, so all the teachers at one school perform poorly while all the teachers at the other school perform well.  If that is the case,

That's not the case in this article.  Seriously, read it - it's interesting.

Michelle

Timebandit wrote:

Did we demand her head on a platter?  You bet your ass we did.  Guess what?  She's still teaching.  All they did was get her to move schools.

I applaud the role unions play in the reasonable protection of their members.  Teaching is indeed a tough job.  But when they extend those protections to incompetent abusers, they lose my sympathy.

I hear you and understand your anger.  But if you think of unions like you might think of, say, defence lawyers, it might help.  Everyone in a union has the right to representation by their union, no matter how in the wrong they were, no matter how guilty they are, no matter what.

It is the job of the manager to set the rules at work and enforce them, and to document it when rules are not followed, give warnings, giving correction, and then ultimately, apply progressive discipline until firing.  If the principal was not documenting and applying progressive discipline, then this is not the union's fault.  The union can't save someone who commits a firing offense.  They can only demand that the employer provide reasonable proof that the teacher did it, and that they refused or were incapable of improving.

If your daughter's school or school board refused to do that, this is not the fault of the union - they are in the role of ensuring their members' rights are respected by the employer.  For all they know, that teacher could have simply been someone who was being persecuted and lied about, unless the employer provided iron-clad documentation to support their contention that the teacher is abusive.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Michelle wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Did we demand her head on a platter?  You bet your ass we did.  Guess what?  She's still teaching.  All they did was get her to move schools.

I applaud the role unions play in the reasonable protection of their members.  Teaching is indeed a tough job.  But when they extend those protections to incompetent abusers, they lose my sympathy.

I hear you and understand your anger.  But if you think of unions like you might think of, say, defence lawyers, it might help.  Everyone in a union has the right to representation by their union, no matter how in the wrong they were, no matter how guilty they are, no matter what.

It is the job of the manager to set the rules at work and enforce them, and to document it when rules are not followed, give warnings, giving correction, and then ultimately, apply progressive discipline until firing.  If the principal was not documenting and applying progressive discipline, then this is not the union's fault.  The union can't save someone who commits a firing offense.  They can only demand that the employer provide reasonable proof that the teacher did it, and that they refused or were incapable of improving.

If your daughter's school or school board refused to do that, this is not the fault of the union - they are in the role of ensuring their members' rights are respected by the employer.  For all they know, that teacher could have simply been someone who was being persecuted and lied about, unless the employer provided iron-clad documentation to support their contention that the teacher is abusive.

 

It goes much further than that.   A union has a legal obligation to represent their members.   If they don't, the member can lay charges against their union for unfair representation.

 

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
A teaching degree is not enough. They need to examine these people far more rigorously before they let them work with children - in terms of personality in addition to teaching style. There are great teachers out there, but they aren't being done any favours under the current system.

Your're right a BEd is not enough. Of the 1000s of teachers that Ontario schools will graduate this year a very, very small fraction will find employment as a teacher. Most of those will be supply, long-term occassional or teach outside their subject of interest/specialty. They will all need to rely on their personal connections with administrators to get those jobs. Teaching in ontario has become extremly competitive.

 

i think that when Michelle mentioned the fact that "great teachers" are those that spend countless un-paid hours working and countless dollars of their own money on students she hit the issue on the head. If it is only these teaches, who go well beyond the job description, who are able to make an improvement on student's "performance" than there is a systemic problem, not a problem with teachers.

 

Not to mention, if we start grading teachers on their ability to get students to parrot the right answers on these anti-intellectual standardized tests than we will see a new era in crappy education of young people.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

radiorahim wrote:

Michelle wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Did we demand her head on a platter?  You bet your ass we did.  Guess what?  She's still teaching.  All they did was get her to move schools.

I applaud the role unions play in the reasonable protection of their members.  Teaching is indeed a tough job.  But when they extend those protections to incompetent abusers, they lose my sympathy.

I hear you and understand your anger.  But if you think of unions like you might think of, say, defence lawyers, it might help.  Everyone in a union has the right to representation by their union, no matter how in the wrong they were, no matter how guilty they are, no matter what.

It is the job of the manager to set the rules at work and enforce them, and to document it when rules are not followed, give warnings, giving correction, and then ultimately, apply progressive discipline until firing.  If the principal was not documenting and applying progressive discipline, then this is not the union's fault.  The union can't save someone who commits a firing offense.  They can only demand that the employer provide reasonable proof that the teacher did it, and that they refused or were incapable of improving.

If your daughter's school or school board refused to do that, this is not the fault of the union - they are in the role of ensuring their members' rights are respected by the employer.  For all they know, that teacher could have simply been someone who was being persecuted and lied about, unless the employer provided iron-clad documentation to support their contention that the teacher is abusive.

 

It goes much further than that.   A union has a legal obligation to represent their members.   If they don't, the member can lay charges against their union for unfair representation.

 

In this province, the teacher's union (Sask. Federation of Teachers) is also the teaching profession's disciplinary body. 

Conflict of interest? Oh, yeah.  See, if they have the duty to represent their members, and also the legislated duty to discipline their members, who do you think loses?

My kid, that's who.

Pardon me if I don't think of the SFT in the same light as other unions.

Cheers.

lovewillthink

I'm not a big fan of directly disagreeing with people online. I think its much more productive to just build on what you agree with and let everyone else decide what they believe/don't believe. I think this conversation is going a little off topic too, so I'm just going to put in my two cents about what makes a good teacher.

Simply, a good teacher propels students to move up in life. This can be done within the curriculum and just as importantly outside of it.

Teachers can inspire by modeling (this is probably why teachers who were active extracuricularly themselves tend to be good teachers), they can create good classroom environments with their emotional tone and by saying the right things at the right times, they can be caring people which will tend to get students to open up to them, they can spend tons of time preparing awesome lessons catered to the students in the class, they can be patient...

My point is some of these things can be measured, others can't. I can go in an interview and say I am caring, patient, foster a good learning environment... and even tell stories about how I've done this. Regardless of what is claimed in this article, many of the most important qualities of a good teacher are not readily measurable.

If you want to reform education, you need to reform society, so that we make people who are caring, compassionate... all those good immeasurables. No amount of standardized testing and luring with money will ever do the trick.

Sven Sven's picture

Le T wrote:

Not to mention, if we start grading teachers on their ability to get students to parrot the right answers on these anti-intellectual standardized tests than we will see a new era in crappy education of young people.

How would you evaluate teacher performance?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Other than an article in the right wing "Atlantic" .. what inspired you, Sven, to pose this question?

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

 .. what inspired you, Sven, to pose this question?

Because I have an interest in education.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

So you couldn't be bothered to put your own views forward first? Why  is that, if, as you claim, you have "an interest" in education?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

OK, ive obviously stumped you. That's fine. Instead of quoting some shit bag right wing article out of Atlantic, with the usual ideology of testing fundamentalism and the idolatry of the Fraser Institute, I'm willing to offer the following:

 

Great teachers typically view their work in one of the following 5 ways:

 

1. Teaching as a way of being.

2. Teaching as a creative endeavour.

3. Teaching as a live performance.

4. Teaching as  a form of empowerment.

5. Teaching as an opportunity to serve.

 

Comment?

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

OK, ive obviously stumped you.

Why, because I didn't respond to your question within 12 minutes?

N.Beltov wrote:

I'm willing to offer the following:

Great teachers typically view their work in one of the following 5 ways:

1. Teaching as a way of being.

2. Teaching as a creative endeavour.

3. Teaching as a live performance.

4. Teaching as  a form of empowerment.

5. Teaching as an opportunity to serve.

Comment?

I would add perserverence and an ability to creatively solve prolems.

But, that all being said, the purpose of education, of course, is to actually deliver results.  So, a "great teacher" delivers results.  Period.

The question that TFA is trying to answer is: What are some common, and key, characteristics that are shared by great teachers (i.e., those teachers who deliver results)?

That does not mean that every new teacher who exhibits those characterists is automatically a "great teacher".  Instead, by identifying those characteristics shared by teachers who actually deliver results, we can better screen potential new teachers so as to increase the probability that any particular new teacher will be a great teacher.

And, the teachers who actually turn out to be great teachers should be paid very well.  Middling teachers should be paid at a middling rate.  Poor teachers should be fired.

Sven Sven's picture

Unfortunately, too many people think that as long as a teacher is “qualified” then that teacher is just as good as any other “qualified” teacher.  And, regardless of what results a particular “qualified” teacher actually delivers, that teacher should continue to earn more money simply by occupying the position for more years than the teacher’s other “qualified” colleagues.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Quote:

I would add perserverence and an ability to creatively solve prolems.

But, that all being said, the purpose of education, of course, is to actually deliver results.  So, a "great teacher" delivers results.  Period.

... Poor teachers should be fired.

 

Absoute right wing shit. Not that Im surprised. There's a whole range of non-testable things that teachers do. and, ... going by your above fundamentalist view, such things are irrelevant.

 

its just as i thought. this is simply a platform for you to spout garbage. no wonder you quoted the Atlantic article.

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Absoute right wing shit. Not that Im surprised. There's a whole range of non-testable things that teachers do. and, ... going by your above fundamentalist view, such things are irrelevant.

How would you evaluate a teacher?

ETA: I think the answer may be found in post #36.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Anyone genuinely interested in what makes a great teacher, I would suggest checking out the BCTF website.

 

maybe start with ONE TEst Does not fit all

And never mind the crap on this thread. its practically hate propaganda. HTFG.

Fidel

I remember a teacher in college who inspired a couple of us who were somewhat stumped as to how to do analog to digital(and vice versa) conversion of a sound wave in software. He sat down with us and pointed out a few things about the oscilloscope and our method. And before we knew it we didn't have a clue until sometime after he left the room. One of us remembered something he said, and the next thing we knew were on our way to finishing the assignment. He prodded us in the right direction but didn't actually solve our little problem for us. And it was because he knew that he would have spoiled that moment of joy that had us learning something new on our own that day had he intervened with all the answers. Learning should be fun not a labourious task, and good teachers know how to instill a sense of wonder in their students and at the same time making them work for the rewards.

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

And never mind the crap on this thread. its practically hate propaganda. HTFG.

Do you basically agree with the view I criticized in post #36?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

incidently, for those who want ammunition to blow the testing fundamentalists out of the water, try over here ...

 

Testing, testing, testing

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Here are some solid left wing education sites.

 

The little education report

 

The Rouge Forum

 

And, of course, here in Canada, and connected to the CCPA is Our Schools, Our Selves

 

oh yea.

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

Sven wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

And never mind the crap on this thread. its practically hate propaganda. HTFG.

Do you basically agree with the view I criticized in post #36?

I guess you don't want to touch that question with a 10m pole, do you?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Who cares about right wing propaganda. So you hate seniority. whoopie shit.

Sven Sven's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

Who cares about right wing propaganda. So you hate seniority. whoopie shit.

I'll take that as a "Yes" that you agree with the view that I criticized in post #36.

Thank you.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Actually, that remark says a lot more about you than it does about me. And what's the point of spouting this shit on a left wing site like rabble?

Poisoning the well?

Sven Sven's picture

Teacher A: Been in the job for 20 years and students leaving his class are generally at a slightly lower reading level than they were at when the school year started.

Teacher B: Been in the job for 5 years and students leaving her class are generally two levels above the reading level they were at when the school year started.

According to N.Beltov, Teacher A should be making more money than Teacher B (and if there have to be teacher cut-backs, cut Teacher B).

The question I have is: Is the purpose of schools to keep teachers employed (regardless of results actually delivered) or is the purpose of schools to educate students?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

It's a well established fact that the results of the work that teachers do is notoriously unpredictable. Teaching is an activity that involves not only the teacher but the students as active participants as well. 

Anyway, this propaganda is simply posed as a way to cut someone's salary based on such unpredictable results.

 

nice try, loser. What do you do for a living, by the way? ha ha

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Why don't you try to define education in some way other than by the results of some fundamentalist testing ideology? Then we might have something to talk about.

Pages

Topic locked