People who Do Not Teach, Telling Teachers How to Do it Right

One of the best teachers I had in college did not have a doctorate, but she had taught in a classroom for 30 years. The other professors in my teacher education program were certainly excellent, but this woman differentiated herself by giving more practical advice than inflated theory.

As for people who are entirely outside of the education field, one of my colleagues had a very apt metaphor for relating the situation of politicians dictating how we should teach. A politician saying that he/she is qualified to make wide-sweeping educational reform because he/she went to school is like another person saying that because one eats and enjoys food, one is qualified to be on a farm board and make decisions regarding agricultural policy and practice.

Our district, a few years ago, hired a "talking head", for lack of a better word who has good ideas, but lacks the ability to relate them to his audience - namely teachers. I think this is greatly due to the fact that he has never actually had his own group of kids.  Instead, he has done "demonstration lessons" (although he, interestingly enough makes a point of saying that he doesn't do "demonstration lessons like the 'other' presenters" our district has brought in (all of which are actively practicing teachers). Interestingly enough, he never really brings any of his work to closure, instead he practices the "pigeon principle" - he flies in, "poops" on what we do, then flies away without leaving anything truly of use.  The most unfortunate bit of all is that his message is actually really good and makes complete pedagogic sense, but, because he isn't "one of us", the message is lost. It's akin to the difference in being an art critic and being an artist.

I read the recent article on Lemov with interest and excitement, then Googled Lemov's taxonomy and watched a few videos of the techniques he identified being used by classroom teachers.  I have pre-ordered the book of techniques, which is due out in April.

I have only been in this field seven years, and I remember vividly how very inadequate my pedagogy courses seemed when I first entered the classroom.  I had not been taught how to plan, how to think through to the outcomes I wanted, nor had I been given concrete techniques for classroom instruction or management.  I was told that classroom management would not be a problem if my lessons were creative and engaging enough.  As I found out, that was a disingenuous dodging of the program's responsibility to equip me with the tools I needed to succeed.  I had some tools of my own, and learned quickly, but my first few years still felt like being thrown into the deep end of the pool without the benefit of swimming lessons.

I still search out tools for my teacher toolkit, and I collect them from my colleagues, from the English Companion ning, from this rich site, and from articles like the one in the New York Times Magazine.  If our own professional training programs are not giving us what we need--and mine did not--I am not looking any gift horses in the mouth when they trot into my awareness!  I want to beware of my tendency to reject whatever is Not Invented Here by folks who are Not Like Us.  If their goals are mine, I will give their tools every chance to improve my practice. 

The article asserted (1) that there are no easy answers in public education and (2) that teachers are THE most important variable.  We are powerful, to the benefit or detriment of our students.  If I am to grow as a teacher, I must myself be teachable.  That implies humility and openness. 

I certainly am interested in hearing what teachers have to say--whether they teach now or year ago. One of my colleagues, probably the best teacher I have ever seen, is 82. Really. She uses tech as required, but her preferred methods are old school. Her classes are always filled, even the electives, and kids fight to get into her AP class. I listen to everything she says about teaching, even though our styles are extremely different.  People who have never taught are not even in the same category. Would I Iisten to them? Of course; they have much to offer. But considering that it seems that most of the world thinks they can do our job better, more quickly and more cheaply than we can, I would not listen to them re: methods. As a high school teacher, most of my interaction with non-teachers is with parents, and they speak from anxiety or impatience, often with their child.

I'm stopping now. I love teaching and I love my students. But the bile rises in my throat when I count all the times someone unconnected to the education process explains it to me and provides me with the answer to MY problems. And then they tell me that it is an easy job because I do nothing all summer.

I would be wary of advice from those who have not taught in a classroom setting (particulary someone who also touts him/herself as an "educational professional").  Lemov apparently had " ... a successful career as a teacher, a principal and a charter-school founder" prior to moving into educational consulting, so he does not really fit the profile stated in this topic.  While this gives him a more equity to speak into classroom "techniques" (why do I dislike that word ... ?), who decided that he was successful as a teacher himself?  This is one of many instances of circular reasoning (or, at least, unsupported statements) in the article.  Here is another:  "William Sanders, a statistician studying Tennessee teachers with a colleague, found that a student with a weak teacher for three straight years would score, on average, 50 percentile points behind a similar student with a strong teacher for those years."  What data determined which teachers were weak and which were strong?  The scores?  Circular reasoning, if so.

I'm rather off-topic here, but I think the point I'm making is ... although there could be valuable insights to be gain from observations such as Lemov's, the attempt to quantify, based on statistics, the "49 most successful techniques to this ..." or the "19 best norms for that ... " can be limiting, at best, and misguiding or unfair, at worst.

This part bothered me (emphasis mine):  "When Doug Lemov conducted his own search for those magical ingredients, he noticed something about most successful teachers that he hadn’t expected to find: what looked like natural-born genius was often deliberate technique in disguise. “Stand still when you’re giving directions,” a teacher at a Boston school told him. In other words, don’t do two things at once. Lemov tried it, and suddenly, he had to ask students to take out their homework only once.  It was the tiniest decision, but what was teaching if not a series of bite-size moves just like that?"

Ummm ... no ... teaching is not a series of bite-size moves.  What if natural-born genius just looks like (or produces) deliberate technique?  I don't think we can reduce "successful teaching" to a series of executable processes.  I had a high school teacher who commanded attention by his dramatic way of moving.  Which is "correct"?

To be honest, I did find some of the observations in the article to be useful, for me at least.  But it is one thing to say "here are some things that other teachers have found to be effective" and quite another to imply that "these are the discrete elements that define or produce a successful teacher."

(I suppose I'd be happy to receive advice from anyone, if I found it to be helpful or useful.  But I have no need seek it from those who have little or no classroom experience when there are so many others who do and who are willing to mentor me.)