3 ms·

Let's fire the bad teachers! That's a great idea. Except, how do you define bad teachers? I've been a teacher for many years. I'm an average teacher. Not g

Let's fire the bad teachers! That's a great idea. Except, how do you define bad teachers? I've been a teacher for many years. I'm an average teacher. Not great, not horrible. Some students really like me and others not so much. As far as I can tell society wants three things: 1. Almost everyone to have access to a great education. 2. Almost everyone to pass. 3. Almost everyone who passes to know the material. The fact is, you can have any two of these but not all three and society is not willing to come to grips with this reality. Society is also not willing to come to grips with the fact that the truly great teachers are, well, truly great. A rarity and it will always be this case as long as truly inspirational people can better be fulfilled doing something other than teaching. Think you know the answers? Then get into a classroom and lead the way. What? The low pay, lack of respect, long hours, emotional stress aren't worth it? I see.

schmittz 16y ago
Can you elaborate on why you can only have two of those three things? They seem very subjectively defined and I don't see why you can't have all three. I'm not a teacher (I have tutored and TA'd), so I'm curious where this opinion comes from.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  It is my belief that not everyone is capable of mastering each topic. That there aren't enough potential great teachers to make this possible unless you do some sort of selection method. Harvard gets great results but they select who enters the university. If you want almost everyone to pass and to know the material then some sort of pre-selection criteria must be met.
  - schmittz 16y ago
    Your conclusions from your example are factually not true, because there are schools where everyone gets a "good education" that do not have pre-selection criteria. I would also agree that not everyone is capable of "mastering each topic," but why do you need to master them and why do they need to know each topic? I'm sorry, I just don't feel like you answered my question. I don't think you need great teachers to have everyone learn material. The onus of learning should be on the student and our goals for what students should learn are maligned with this concept. The fact that there isn't a definition for bad teachers doesn't mean there aren't bad teachers (you have to agree with this) and that something shouldn't be done about them. The way that I look at the three points you have numbered is that the first one follows from the other two. By working to redefine classroom expectations to closer align with placing responsibility on students for doing the learning, we can realize that more people can effectively learn appropriate material to a satisfactory comprehension level.
    - yequalsx 16y ago
      Yes, there are schools where everyone gets a good education without a pre selection criteria. They do not, however, posses the property that almost all of the students pass and almost all of the students know the material. You can't get all three conditions to be true simultaneously. Of course there are bad teachers. The onus of learning should be on the students? Sure. But then you aren't going to get almost everyone knowing the material because most people don't want to learn.
      - schmittz 16y ago
        I'm sorry, I still don't understand how these three things can't be filled simultaneously, you just keep saying they can't without giving me any more reason. Feel free to respond by explaining or not, I'm just curious why that's the case. I agree that a large number of students don't want to learn, but a lot of those students also just don't learn, in which case why are we paying to "teach" them?
        yequalsx 16y ago
        By definition, if a large number of students don't want to learn then it is trivially true that we aren't going to get 2. Almost everyone to pass. 3. Almost everyone who passes to know the material. unless we exclude them from the system. Property 1 was that almost everyone goes to school.
        calibraxis 16y ago
        In my experience, children are very curious. I'm very skeptical when teachers claim otherwise, despite them having experience with many children, since they're often the ones pummeling that curiosity out of them as part of the job. (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm)
calibraxis 16y ago
I think the whole "If only we could fire bad teachers!" argument is an absurd talking point. The educational institution as a whole is a failure, not just a bunch of incompetent teachers somehow ruining an otherwise top-notch educational system. The same entity which routinely hires appallingly bad teachers is now trusted to competently fire them? People are fired because some boss decides to fire them. We're given no reason to assume that this is the same thing as firing based on incompetence. But it is clear that the bosses want their subordinates to have less job security and decisionmaking power. That's why bosses understandably go on offensives against unions. Teachers' bosses for some reason go unnoticed. Teachers have managers ("administrators"), and the top bosses are the government (meaning we look at the distribution of power in society, to see whose interests are likely served by the educational system). I'm certainly not a fan of most schoolteachers I've met. Being admitted into an unhealthy institution, and thriving within it, is not a hopeful sign. But they're better than their bosses, and the real flaws of the system lie elsewhere...

schmittz 16y ago

Can you elaborate on why you can only have two of those three things? They seem very subjectively defined and I don't see why you can't have all three. I'm not a teacher (I have tutored and TA'd), so I'm curious where this opinion comes from.

yequalsx 16y ago
It is my belief that not everyone is capable of mastering each topic. That there aren't enough potential great teachers to make this possible unless you do some sort of selection method. Harvard gets great results but they select who enters the university. If you want almost everyone to pass and to know the material then some sort of pre-selection criteria must be met.
- schmittz 16y ago
  Your conclusions from your example are factually not true, because there are schools where everyone gets a "good education" that do not have pre-selection criteria. I would also agree that not everyone is capable of "mastering each topic," but why do you need to master them and why do they need to know each topic? I'm sorry, I just don't feel like you answered my question. I don't think you need great teachers to have everyone learn material. The onus of learning should be on the student and our goals for what students should learn are maligned with this concept. The fact that there isn't a definition for bad teachers doesn't mean there aren't bad teachers (you have to agree with this) and that something shouldn't be done about them. The way that I look at the three points you have numbered is that the first one follows from the other two. By working to redefine classroom expectations to closer align with placing responsibility on students for doing the learning, we can realize that more people can effectively learn appropriate material to a satisfactory comprehension level.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    Yes, there are schools where everyone gets a good education without a pre selection criteria. They do not, however, posses the property that almost all of the students pass and almost all of the students know the material. You can't get all three conditions to be true simultaneously. Of course there are bad teachers. The onus of learning should be on the students? Sure. But then you aren't going to get almost everyone knowing the material because most people don't want to learn.
    - schmittz 16y ago
      I'm sorry, I still don't understand how these three things can't be filled simultaneously, you just keep saying they can't without giving me any more reason. Feel free to respond by explaining or not, I'm just curious why that's the case. I agree that a large number of students don't want to learn, but a lot of those students also just don't learn, in which case why are we paying to "teach" them?
      - yequalsx 16y ago
        By definition, if a large number of students don't want to learn then it is trivially true that we aren't going to get 2. Almost everyone to pass. 3. Almost everyone who passes to know the material. unless we exclude them from the system. Property 1 was that almost everyone goes to school.
        calibraxis 16y ago
        In my experience, children are very curious. I'm very skeptical when teachers claim otherwise, despite them having experience with many children, since they're often the ones pummeling that curiosity out of them as part of the job. (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm)

calibraxis 16y ago

I think the whole "If only we could fire bad teachers!" argument is an absurd talking point. The educational institution as a whole is a failure, not just a bunch of incompetent teachers somehow ruining an otherwise top-notch educational system. The same entity which routinely hires appallingly bad teachers is now trusted to competently fire them? People are fired because some boss decides to fire them. We're given no reason to assume that this is the same thing as firing based on incompetence. But it is clear that the bosses want their subordinates to have less job security and decisionmaking power. That's why bosses understandably go on offensives against unions. Teachers' bosses for some reason go unnoticed. Teachers have managers ("administrators"), and the top bosses are the government (meaning we look at the distribution of power in society, to see whose interests are likely served by the educational system). I'm certainly not a fan of most schoolteachers I've met. Being admitted into an unhealthy institution, and thriving within it, is not a hopeful sign. But they're better than their bosses, and the real flaws of the system lie elsewhere...