Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Good Teaching?

Nicholas Kristof, of the NY Times, has written a good column on "good teachers." Here is a link to it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/opinion/kristof-the-value-of-teachers.html?_r=1 I think it's a first-rate article, citing an impressive study that followed more than 1 million students through to adulthood.

The premise is that "good teachers" make big differences in people's lives. There are advantages of having "good teachers" that show up in marked increases in lifetime earnings. That isn't as impressive to me as it might be to others. Yet, there are other advantages, too. One is attendance at colleges. But, the study was conducted by economists, so I see where the income is the focus. I'm pretty sure, though, that other good things can be extrapolated.

It's a timely and thoughtful column, but leaves me with one question: What is it that makes a "good teacher?" Kristoff and the study seem to imply "test results." I still have a lot of problems with such reliance on "test results." I was remarking to students yesterday how every day I thank my lucky stars that I went to Amherst, where I encountered so many outstanding teachers. Oh, there were some dogs, but the number/percentage of really great ones is, in itself, astounding. I imagine it's hard for some folks to picture/realize that, but I do. And, I recognize that without any "test results." In fact, often it's not "what" they taught me, but "how" they taught me. How measurable is that? And, that instilled in me a love of learning that may or may not have been in me, but is now and has been for 40+ years. How testable is that?

Conversely, according to Kristoff and the study, having a "bad teacher" is the equivalent to an absence rate of 40%! While parents should have bake sales, car washes, or just chip in for $100,000 to keep a good teacher from leaving when their kids are in that teacher's class, they should also raise $100,000 to get a bad teacher to leave. That says a lot! And, the "investment" in terms of long-range gains by students is well worth it, more than paying itself off.

So, then, what makes a "good teacher?" I'm finishing up my 41st year in this business and have thought a lot about it. I'm still not certain, but have some ideas. Here are a few thoughts.

First, I think all teachers or prospective teachers should read "Teaching: What We Do." It's a compendium of essays written by Amherst professors (there I go again!) of several decades ago. One essay in particular, written by one of my physics professors, Prof Romer, is nothing short of brilliant. It's a lesson plan for a physics lesson, yet spelled out so clearly it's a model for thinking about how to teach in any discipline. I think that highly of the book and, particularly, Prof Romer's essay. I've read the book more than once!

Not every teacher, despite what the teachers' unions and their lackeys and the schools themselves constantly tell us, is good. There are some rotten ones out there. I think they can be identified, but that would take some attributes not often found among administrators, unions, or other teachers. And, that's not the scope of this posting (thanks, Aaron!).

And, let's differentiate "good teachers" from "favorite teachers." I once had a discussion with a guy who's "best teacher" was not really "best," but "favorite." He wasn't going to graduate without a passing grade in this second-semester senior class. He didn't deserve, by his own admission, to pass because he had done nothing. Yet, the teacher let him write a report, copied right from an encyclopedia, and he passed and graduated. That constituted "best." I guess I strongly disagree, although, obviously, others don't. I have often said I don't really care if I was students' "favorite" teacher; I wanted to be their "best" teacher. Again, I am not saying I was either; I'm just making my point.

Good teachers must know their subjects. How can one teach, say history, and not know history? Well, of course, that happens and far more than many people, including parents and administrators, realize. Obviously, a teacher can't know everything (although I'm pretty sure my Amherst professors did!), but should have a firm knowledge of it. "It" does not mean merely the "facts." Teachers also need to know the nuances, again to use history as an example, the hows and whys and that answers often have to be speculated.

Good teachers must also have standards, demanding a modicum of work and effort. What many don't or refuse to realize is that standards also require achievement. Of course, it's not enough to merely say this, but to enforce it. That requires that teachers actually know their subjects. How can they judge/evaluate if they don't? And it requires courage, courage to stand firm in the face of students, parents, other teachers, and, yes, administrators. They have to reject what one of my colleages, a good teacher!, used to say of parents, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it." That, too, is echoed by students, other teachers (who often give out easy grades--note grade inflation at all levels of education), and administrators. (On a personal note, each of the four principals under whom I worked, at one time or another, in one way or another, questioned me about my overall low report card grades. Why do I suspect those teachers who gave all As and Bs--"A+, 1, J"--were never questioned, but, conversely, won the "teacher-of-the-year" awards?)

There is a place for compassion, but care must be taken in that regard. For instance, some of my current students have full-time jobs, are parents, etc. They may be struggling, not only academically. Working hard, trying in these circumstances might well deserve some compassion. But, to repeat, "A+, 1, J" is not compassion. The ubiquitous "We're there for the kids" of "It's for the kids" is misunderstood and misapplied. Teachers are not there "for the kids." They are employed by society and that's who they are "there for." To best serve students and thereby society, they need to teach them, demand effort and achievement. Giving students easy grades is not in students' best interests; it's an even bigger disservice to society. Education, as the Founding Fathers held, as Enlightenment thought holds (and it's the ideas of the Enlightenment that separate us from the Islamists' world, among those of other tyrants), is what makes freedom work. Ignorant people are more easily controlled, their freedoms taken away while distracting them with other things.

I don't think good teachers need to constantly change, to keep up to date with current trends. For the most part, that's what so-called "changes" are, merely trendy. With the next gust of wind, they will be replaced by some other guru's ideas that will make someone a lot of money, but not make teachers any better. How many administrators jump on those bandwagons? But they do need to be constantly thinking about their subjects, how to present them, how to evaluate them.

There are good teachers out there, probably more than I realize. There are even a few "superstars," as K calls one. Not everyone can be a superstar. But there are more bad ones out there, too, again more than one might realize. Kristof, to close, noted that if merely the 5% worst teachers were replaced by average ones (and there is nothing wrong with average teachers!), each student in those classrooms would have a cumulative increase of $52,000 over the course of his or her lifetime--that's each student! So, those whose bottom lines are always about money, there's something to think about.

Perhaps more later....

2 comments:

guslaruffa said...

Very Good. I will pass this along to my sister and sister-in-law who are 50 something teachers. I'm sure they share you views. My sister teaches in Cheektowaga, my sister-in-law in East Point

matt said...

Re: Bad Teachers

Long story short- Our administrators got an email from a trustee who spoke with a student's grandparents. They were concerned their granddaughter was not learning enough/getting enough from her education. Our principal called in one of our Sped teachers to contact them. The teacher did and arranged a meeting. She then reported back to our principal and told her of the meeting and said, "Her Teacher of Record is Mr. Aquino. So I'll just hold the meeting myself and wont tell him about it." Our principal responded by smiling and saying, "That's probably a really good idea."
(Teacher of Record is the term for the teacher who handles a Sped student's IEP).

So, because she cannot do anything to fire/discipline this bad teacher(apparently the process requires a ridiculous amount of paperwork and can take months), he gets out of having to do things.