Ted Sizer describes classroom practices as the result of implicit and explicit negotiation between students and teachers. I think it is better to think of the hole in that context, rather than simply oblivion.

The hole is a sign that things are NOT OK, but it may be more “somewhat over his or head teacher decides that Johnnie sitting quietly boring a hole in is desk is the best he or she is going to get from Johnnie at this point, all things considered” than “teacher is completely oblivious.”

It’s an interesting point, and an interesting conclusion. I’d perhaps question your idea that the type of situational awareness you discuss cannot be taught, though it probably cannot be taught in the “traditional” lecture-based instruction that comprises the majority of teacher education at the moment. More experience? More preparedness? (The theory being that if a teacher is concentrating on what they’re going to say next, they’re going to miss what’s going on in the rest of the room, but if they’re comfortable with it, they’ll be able to see other things.)

(Minor comment: That hole looks pretty straight and even. I seem to recall several of those on desks at school that went right along where a bolt would normally go, but the bolt was missing. I have no idea if that’s the case here, but it looks pretty similar.)

As a student, I used to do full size murals on the desks and floors of classes I was bored in. One teacher in particular was amazed and wanted to know when I did one particularly large Mr. Clean image on the floor. She could not believe I did it while she was teaching.

I found this message bored into a desk in Colorado classroom and while not as deep as your example, it’s pretty good.

I don’t think of teaching as a “religious” calling either but I do believe you have to have some innate traits to be really good. In some ways I see it as a scientific art. Your technique, skills, technical details can be flawless but without the rapport with your students you never reach that next level.

I’m not sure how you teach people to make things interesting if they don’t really understand what interesting is to their students. A lot of it has to do with empathy maybe and it seems the worst teachers may be borderline psychopaths obliviously killing through boredom.

@Dan: To respond to your question, I am going to back up a step. I think the important piece is understanding how these processes are determined currently (across a number of institutions). While there are a number of criteria in place, how do the personal beliefs and backgrounds of the people making these decisions influence the outcome? For instance, do reviewers favour or privy: particular religious or ethnic background (either through prejudice, tokenism, or affirmative action programs)? What importance is placed on academic criteria, and why? Is the applicant known to the reviewer, or a father/son/niece/nephew/cousin/roommate of another known educator or contact? How does a reviewer’s philosophical and epistemological influences affect application decisions? What are the current market influences for the “low-end” of a successful application? What are the perceived needs of the local school districts/divisions? How does gender play a role in decisions (e.g., male applicants are often more successful applying for elementary than secondary)?

So I guess, to me, I think it’s more important to understand how the system may be flawed because in terms of criteria, we can create wonderful lists of personality traits, but will it work out that way?

Then, as you suggest, “you can’t stare into an applicant’s soul”. So, many programs take the following approach: a) good grades, b) entrance essay, c) interview.

a) I do not think I have to debate that good grades alone will not determine one’s effectiveness as a teacher. In fact, some of the best teachers I know, had horrible grades and barely got into a program, or had to upgrade first. In some cases, the experience of difficult learning can be a tremendous asset in the classroom in terms of student empathy.

b) With a little help, especially if you know a teacher in the field, it is not difficult to answer a few questions regarding “why I want to become a teacher”. In fact, MANY new teachers want to be teachers because their parents were/are. Having parents that are teachers for 18 years certainly helps with writing that essay.

c) With enough practice, a 10 year-old can learn the lingo and tell the changes that need to happen in education (e.g., See Dalton Sherman).

And, on a personal note, I’m lucky to be in this profession at all. Through my entire B.Ed process, from application to completion, I never wanted to teach. I was just killing time, wanted a degree, but had hoped to get into business. However, when I was complete, I was offered a coaching (Hockey) position that happened to come with a teaching position. I reluctantly moved to a First Nations reserve, coached hockey, and began to teach. It was in those first, VERY difficult months that somehow, someway, I fell in love with teaching. It was the first time I had left my isolated, homogeneous, white community, and had actually been given a chance to do something worthwhile. I fell in love with the people. I fell in love with the community. And I fell in love with teaching. This was all unexpected, and something that would have never happened had the reviewers caught on to my early, negative attitudes.

So, I am sure I didn’t answer your question, but here’s a summary of what I think I said (and a couple of additional points I think):

1) We need to better understand the processes involved in determining who is privileged enough to teach in our communities. There is often a huge difference between our policies and practice in admittance to teacher education programs.

2) We need better approaches to assessing teacher applicants, but the rigor of the program itself must be sound. There needs to be checks and balances within the program, and mechanisms that would support students in determining alternative vocations (e.g., We think you may want to consider becoming a ” “)

3) Students need alternative, life changing experiences. What if students actually ‘experienced the world’ before even being eligible to get into a program? Would that make a difference?

4) It’s not too late to become something you never expected to be, and there countless junctures for change. Schools need to determine their “duds” quickly, and go beyond reallocating people to different areas. There is nothing worse than a “bad teacher” becoming a consultant or an administrator because a district no longer wanted that person in a classroom. Think Zappos … what if we told these teachers, if you leave right now, we’ll give you x dollars never to come near a school again? Hmmmmmm.

Wow, that was a rant. Thanks for the opportunity, Dan.

I have a teacher in my department that I HAD to take as he was downsized from another school. The man had never taught, in 20 years, at a comprehensive high school but rather at these made-up alternative schools where the teacher/student ratio was 1/2 or 1/3, so when he came to a school where he had large (30) classes, he couldn’t manage to control the ensuing chaos. It has not been a fun time. His students destroy the equipment, leave their trash, steal items from rooms. The rest of us in the department do not have these issues. He is clueless as to why these things happen to him.

Screening applicants for education (or many other disciplines) is always going to be an inexact science. Some people have poor grades, but have excellent teaching skills. Others do really well in interviews and but flounder in the classroom. Terrible applicants can sometimes get glowing recommendations.

What we can do better is to provide our future teachers with really good training by good teachers. Our pre-service teachers should not not be learning how to teach in a lecture hall with 100 other students. They should have teachers who practice what they preach. They should have teachers who are good role models.

We can also provide better support for our pre-service teachers when they are doing their practica. We should place all pre-service teachers with good mentor teachers and good advisors. There are lots of situations where a sub-par teacher often gets a student teacher because they are favoured by the admin, or if s/he doesn’t get a student teacher they’ll be off on stress leave *again*.

When our new teachers get their first teaching assignments we need to support them their too. We have to stop the insanity of sticking the new teacher with the most difficult class. We have to stop expecting the new teacher to coach their first year. When we are overtaxed we often revert to a ‘stand and deliver’ / fight or flight style of teaching. First year teachers need to have at least some time to reflect on what they are doing.

I guess what I’m saying is that maybe withitness isn’t nature vs nurture.

“My question is this: is there any reason why I can’t sit you down in an interview and determine if you have the raw, unrefined stuff of good teaching. What questions do you ask? Do you have that person teach a lesson (to the best of her ability)?” This is a great question, which no one seems to have addressed. Many of us seem to be hung up on what is wrong with the system.

What does that raw, unrefined stuff look like? Did the truly wonderful teachers that I’ve had the privilege of knowing have glimmerings of their greatness before they entered teacher training? If so what did those glimmerings look like? Is it like great athletes where the talent is evident from a very early age (think Wayne Gretzky, Sidney Crosby, Tiger Woods…) Do we need to start training talent scouts who can pick out the future teaching stars? Who are our top talent scouts right now and what are they looking for. (I really hope that some school administrators chime in on this discussion; after all they’re the ones trying their best to pick teachers right for their students.)

An aside; am I just late in noticing that Dan changed his tag line? Anyone else worried?

“Such a macroscopic lens is unhelpful here.”

Actually Dan, I’d argue that we need an even BIGGER macroscopic lens that what you (in your previous comment) have identified.

Think systems of influence of power beyond teacher ed … think in our greater society. Think of these in (small ‘e’) education. What I am saying is that these small changes that you identify merely scratch the surface when we are just trying to predict who will be a “good teacher”. Whatever definition we come up with is meaningless when the entire system in which we identify “good teachers” is not good enough.

And, think about it. I’ve come to visualize what kind of teacher YOU are over the past couple of years. What you have shown all of us is exemplary; not only the quality of resources you have shared, but the reflective and innovative qualities you have demonstrated. But, even with how open you have been, I (we) do not see everything. We do not *truly* know how good of a teacher you are, how “effective” you are in the classroom, we can only guess by what you give us. Interviews, essays, or any other particular measurement given throughout an interview process is very much the same: selective pieces chosen (mostly) by the candidate. So no matter what measurement, it comes down to at these issues: what answers/responses/data are given by the candidate, and what questions/measurements/data are requested by the interviewee (the latter already heavily influenced by one’s own world view).

So back to my thesis: we can improve/tweak things to an extent, but if that’s all we are doing, we aren’t doing enough to change the things that will be important in the future.

p.s. We probably have more points of agreement than are immediately apparent, I’d love to discuss face-to-face if the opportunity ever arises.

Cheers.

Dan,

You say, “Teachers are paid to be engaging.”

On that point, we are in complete agreement.

On a related point (working to avoid non-sequiturs), I have no memory of any pre-service teaching class ever going over this point.

On a slightly tangential note, I’m thinking poor hiring choices on the part of school districts is the unfortunate result of universities churning out poorly trained teachers by poorly designed curriculum delivered by ‘been-there’ educators.

My anecdotal evidence (gathered over the last 13 years) seems to indicate over and over again that my coworkers view ‘engagement’ as trendy a concept as ‘tech integration’.

This week’s Education Gladfly spotlighted a recent study “Can You Recognize an Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?”. (The link’s an abstract. You have to pay to read the article elsewhere.) It seemed too related not to share.

I haven’t read the article itself, but from the abstracts and reviews “it examines content knowledge, cognitive ability, personality traits (like conscientiousness and agreeableness), feelings of self-efficacy, and scores on a teacher pre-screening evaluation, which measured level of organization and planning, among other areas” correlate with student achievement.

Their measures seem traditional, looking at people’s background to predict their teaching ability. The model to have new hires provide evidence they can teach (and that they can reflect on and improve their lessons) makes sense.

Again I’m wondering, how does that evidence of actual ability correlate with training? How early can you realistically make predictions?