I'm coming from the secondary education side, as a former teacher, former principal, former teacher-of-teachers. In that last role, I found the thing most pre-service (intern) teachers wanted most was to engage meaningfully with students in the way their favorite teacher had done with them. There is a little bit of hero-worship there (this, admittedly, is what drew me to the classroom), but its of the healthy kind. We all remember these teachers, and I am fairly certain that new and veteran teachers hear the voices of their master teachers everyday. The desire to be good, the intent to help, the belief in the necessity of education for all, these are a tiny portion of what is actually true about good teaching and why it is so difficult for us to have or experience more of it. Heroic Intent might inspire one to enter the classroom, but it burns out quickly under the sheer difficulty of the task of guiding learning.
What is obvious: Good teachers are usually good humans: they are not weaponized adults filled with the tentative authority of their position or indifferent to the power that comes with grades, status, and the transactional nature of school. I say usually because some teachers are assholes, some have branded themselves this way, and sometimes that brand works when all can agree that beneath the hard outer shell of a character is a soft and loving person in touch with the dilemmas of being a student. Students will put up with an asshole who is also invested in them as learners, as novices, and as humans.
What is not obvious and what I think separates the good from the rest: Good teachers are constantly negotiating with their curriculum. They are clear first about what role the curriculum will have, its displacement value, its authority, its malleability. They negotiate where they stand in the relationship with curriculum, apply this when deciding on pedagogy, and consider how students will interact in this ensemble, often with student input. These teachers see curriculum as a coequal-participant in the classroom whose value is open to rational inquiry. They bring curriculum to life not like a PBS special does, but as space to exercise agency, explore phenomena, and test for proof-of-life. It is becoming a tired expression, but its all in the relationships, and this must include the evolving nature of the student/curriculum/teacher dynamic, and the responsible regard for their mutual evolution in the learning process.
Why is this important? Especially in K12, and the teacher induction and development fields, the value and description of learning has been reduced to standards, defined almost universally as what students should know and be able to do. Standards dictate design, assessment, text selection, learning progression, measures of progress, and indirectly, teacher quality. There is nothing inherently terrible about having standards as part of the curricular matrix, but as a measure of the richness of learning, especially in what we would consider generally as "understanding", they barely scratch the surface. While standards can do much more than delimit learning, there is very little in teacher education programs and PD that acknowledge the standards as low calorie propositions and procedures. To adhere to standards means believing these non-negotiable statements should be enough. Worse, as legislated guidelines for how schools and teachers will be evaluated, they ignore the very experience and skill that animates the best teachers we know.
Good teaching is not magic, but neither is it a set mechanistic descriptions or best-practice punch lists. The good teachers we remember, even the good assholes, did not hide within or behind the curriculum. They embodied it and coaxed us safely to do the same.
While "What makes a good teacher?" is too big of a question to answer in any sort of concise, exhaustive, airtight manner, I feel like there could be a few pithy, right-enough answers. Perhaps, the drive to earnestly help a student think independently and deeply enough about a given subject is what makes a good teacher? Or maybe it is the intention and ability to help other human beings rise to their full potential that makes a good teacher...I can think of a few other answers depending on the kind of student I have in mind.
An optional, auxiliary rant below, lmao:
The more interesting thing about this essay was that I have almost identical experiences like the ones you have listed growing up (India-side, not Stateside) but a pretty different take on the whole. I feel like the current assault from the technology side as well as the political side is things coming a full karmic circle. We are here precisely because on the whole, for far too long, there haven't been enough good-enough teachers, on aggregate. Which is another way of saying that educational institutions and universities, for all their awesomeness, have basically been failing in their larger purpose quietly for a long time. The fact that the people who are baying for their blood are ALSO products on that same system just as you and I are, suggests that the system has on average, been failing rather than succeeding. If there had been enough good-enough teachers, this kind of idiocy wouldn't have found so many takers.
What I find interesting is that I have had my share of mediocre teachers as well, and the one thing that was starkly obvious and common across every single one of those experiences was the palpable awareness that if this experience was to miraculously disappear, it would definitely be a net positive. A bad teacher is a net negative on an individual, societal, civilizational and every other level...because the cynicism, disillusionment, and disenchantment that sets in after being on the wrong end of what is supposed to be a hallowed dynamic can get irrationally visceral. Extrapolated far enough along, that results in idiotic ideas like wanting to burn the whole thing to the ground. While that absolutely sucks for society on the whole, you could look at it as a kind of comeuppance for an establishment that basically wasn't holding itself accountable.
But all that aside, I feel like what's going on right now is something entirely different. The stated reasons for this assault are ALL BS in my opinion. What we are seeing and hearing is just messaging that seems good enough to find traction. What univs are suffering is just collateral damage. Anatomically very similar to the climate change conversation where the planet is just collateral damage. Every denier at this point knows on some level that their position is full of shit. But it works to hold that position anyway. Also, everyone alive probably agrees that the world isn't going to end while we are still alive. Kinda like the Lindy effect with universities. So for those of us who are short-sighted enough, might as well cash in on some grift right now, huh?! That's what I think we're seeing with univs too...entertaining stated arguments seriously is to be playing a losing game. The only way to win is to exit this game, find and start a different game that has a smaller surface area for assault but an outsized potential for attracting good teachers. I guess the "Exit or Bypass" quadrant in your 2x2?
Is 'what makes a good teacher' really the right question? Or should it be stretched a little wider to include makes a good learning environment (with teachers a key part that environment) or what makes a good learning process (with teachers steering and nudging along the way). Many years ago, I ran a design school in a small UK University and introduced a common module across all years of all the degree programmes called 'Learning about learning'. It required students to reflect on their emerging professional practice in a learning journal and then to consolidate these reflections into summative conclusions for termly submissions that were assessed, graded and contributed (modestly) to their honours degree classification. For some students, they were arduous, meaningless and hated. For others they were utterly transformative. In retrospect, I feel the main thing we didn't invest enough in was up-skilling the teaching staff so they were better at teaching / coaching Learning about learning and were hence able to deliver more uniform outcomes across the student cohort.
My point, however, is that I would put at least as much emphasis on the systems, tools and processes that enable students to learn as I would on the teachers. A contemporary 'learning about learning' module could also be framed explicitly around protocols. What is it that you learned this week / term / year / that you believe you could apply again to different challenges and circumstances? How would you describe that learning to make it was useful for you to apply again ... or to enable others to apply what you have learned? When you do apply that learning again, what reminders do you want to leave for yourself to make sure you advance your learning even further next time around?
Loved this. Your experience in school was quite similar to mine. In high school, our programming teacher was far worse than us. We'd actually play just play games during class instead. 😅
As for the question: my favourite teachers were ones that treated us (teenage boys in an all boys school) as far more mature for our age. It was not a condescending preach but a guide that showed us a new map to explore. It's teachers that treated us full people with agency. The worst teachers were teachers who saw the experience as a one way conduit: that teaching is a download. Great teaching I feel is like great leadership. An invitation to join them in a new realm or world.
In university, it was the same. A simple desire to cultivate curiousity and agency.
I guess. It's like a good story. A good story is a constant invitation.
what is your standard for a good teacher? let me take one dimension. what % of your students do you need to make a real difference to (as compared to a textbook or self-paced course), if you want to be considered a good teacher?
The Jesuits definitely offer an example of good teaching... One might even say that a strong dispositional prior to evolution and reform rather than revolution is a Jesuit perspective par excellence. Barts and Lisa's lost cousin was a Jesuit in fact :P
Overall I do have to say I greatly enjoyed this post. I wasn't able to read too much of the March book club on hermeticism. I am very much excited for this month. All signs point to an excellent suggestion, particularly for myself where this fills a known whitespace in my mental map.
(Note the top says March reading though that should be April. The March one was the hermeticism dense thingamajig.)
I'm coming from the secondary education side, as a former teacher, former principal, former teacher-of-teachers. In that last role, I found the thing most pre-service (intern) teachers wanted most was to engage meaningfully with students in the way their favorite teacher had done with them. There is a little bit of hero-worship there (this, admittedly, is what drew me to the classroom), but its of the healthy kind. We all remember these teachers, and I am fairly certain that new and veteran teachers hear the voices of their master teachers everyday. The desire to be good, the intent to help, the belief in the necessity of education for all, these are a tiny portion of what is actually true about good teaching and why it is so difficult for us to have or experience more of it. Heroic Intent might inspire one to enter the classroom, but it burns out quickly under the sheer difficulty of the task of guiding learning.
What is obvious: Good teachers are usually good humans: they are not weaponized adults filled with the tentative authority of their position or indifferent to the power that comes with grades, status, and the transactional nature of school. I say usually because some teachers are assholes, some have branded themselves this way, and sometimes that brand works when all can agree that beneath the hard outer shell of a character is a soft and loving person in touch with the dilemmas of being a student. Students will put up with an asshole who is also invested in them as learners, as novices, and as humans.
What is not obvious and what I think separates the good from the rest: Good teachers are constantly negotiating with their curriculum. They are clear first about what role the curriculum will have, its displacement value, its authority, its malleability. They negotiate where they stand in the relationship with curriculum, apply this when deciding on pedagogy, and consider how students will interact in this ensemble, often with student input. These teachers see curriculum as a coequal-participant in the classroom whose value is open to rational inquiry. They bring curriculum to life not like a PBS special does, but as space to exercise agency, explore phenomena, and test for proof-of-life. It is becoming a tired expression, but its all in the relationships, and this must include the evolving nature of the student/curriculum/teacher dynamic, and the responsible regard for their mutual evolution in the learning process.
Why is this important? Especially in K12, and the teacher induction and development fields, the value and description of learning has been reduced to standards, defined almost universally as what students should know and be able to do. Standards dictate design, assessment, text selection, learning progression, measures of progress, and indirectly, teacher quality. There is nothing inherently terrible about having standards as part of the curricular matrix, but as a measure of the richness of learning, especially in what we would consider generally as "understanding", they barely scratch the surface. While standards can do much more than delimit learning, there is very little in teacher education programs and PD that acknowledge the standards as low calorie propositions and procedures. To adhere to standards means believing these non-negotiable statements should be enough. Worse, as legislated guidelines for how schools and teachers will be evaluated, they ignore the very experience and skill that animates the best teachers we know.
Good teaching is not magic, but neither is it a set mechanistic descriptions or best-practice punch lists. The good teachers we remember, even the good assholes, did not hide within or behind the curriculum. They embodied it and coaxed us safely to do the same.
While "What makes a good teacher?" is too big of a question to answer in any sort of concise, exhaustive, airtight manner, I feel like there could be a few pithy, right-enough answers. Perhaps, the drive to earnestly help a student think independently and deeply enough about a given subject is what makes a good teacher? Or maybe it is the intention and ability to help other human beings rise to their full potential that makes a good teacher...I can think of a few other answers depending on the kind of student I have in mind.
An optional, auxiliary rant below, lmao:
The more interesting thing about this essay was that I have almost identical experiences like the ones you have listed growing up (India-side, not Stateside) but a pretty different take on the whole. I feel like the current assault from the technology side as well as the political side is things coming a full karmic circle. We are here precisely because on the whole, for far too long, there haven't been enough good-enough teachers, on aggregate. Which is another way of saying that educational institutions and universities, for all their awesomeness, have basically been failing in their larger purpose quietly for a long time. The fact that the people who are baying for their blood are ALSO products on that same system just as you and I are, suggests that the system has on average, been failing rather than succeeding. If there had been enough good-enough teachers, this kind of idiocy wouldn't have found so many takers.
What I find interesting is that I have had my share of mediocre teachers as well, and the one thing that was starkly obvious and common across every single one of those experiences was the palpable awareness that if this experience was to miraculously disappear, it would definitely be a net positive. A bad teacher is a net negative on an individual, societal, civilizational and every other level...because the cynicism, disillusionment, and disenchantment that sets in after being on the wrong end of what is supposed to be a hallowed dynamic can get irrationally visceral. Extrapolated far enough along, that results in idiotic ideas like wanting to burn the whole thing to the ground. While that absolutely sucks for society on the whole, you could look at it as a kind of comeuppance for an establishment that basically wasn't holding itself accountable.
But all that aside, I feel like what's going on right now is something entirely different. The stated reasons for this assault are ALL BS in my opinion. What we are seeing and hearing is just messaging that seems good enough to find traction. What univs are suffering is just collateral damage. Anatomically very similar to the climate change conversation where the planet is just collateral damage. Every denier at this point knows on some level that their position is full of shit. But it works to hold that position anyway. Also, everyone alive probably agrees that the world isn't going to end while we are still alive. Kinda like the Lindy effect with universities. So for those of us who are short-sighted enough, might as well cash in on some grift right now, huh?! That's what I think we're seeing with univs too...entertaining stated arguments seriously is to be playing a losing game. The only way to win is to exit this game, find and start a different game that has a smaller surface area for assault but an outsized potential for attracting good teachers. I guess the "Exit or Bypass" quadrant in your 2x2?
Great article - as thought-provoking as always.
Is 'what makes a good teacher' really the right question? Or should it be stretched a little wider to include makes a good learning environment (with teachers a key part that environment) or what makes a good learning process (with teachers steering and nudging along the way). Many years ago, I ran a design school in a small UK University and introduced a common module across all years of all the degree programmes called 'Learning about learning'. It required students to reflect on their emerging professional practice in a learning journal and then to consolidate these reflections into summative conclusions for termly submissions that were assessed, graded and contributed (modestly) to their honours degree classification. For some students, they were arduous, meaningless and hated. For others they were utterly transformative. In retrospect, I feel the main thing we didn't invest enough in was up-skilling the teaching staff so they were better at teaching / coaching Learning about learning and were hence able to deliver more uniform outcomes across the student cohort.
My point, however, is that I would put at least as much emphasis on the systems, tools and processes that enable students to learn as I would on the teachers. A contemporary 'learning about learning' module could also be framed explicitly around protocols. What is it that you learned this week / term / year / that you believe you could apply again to different challenges and circumstances? How would you describe that learning to make it was useful for you to apply again ... or to enable others to apply what you have learned? When you do apply that learning again, what reminders do you want to leave for yourself to make sure you advance your learning even further next time around?
"If I were graduating undergrad today in India, I would not be looking to head to the US"
Obvious question, but where would you be looking?
Probably stayed in India or looked to Southeast Asia
Loved this. Your experience in school was quite similar to mine. In high school, our programming teacher was far worse than us. We'd actually play just play games during class instead. 😅
As for the question: my favourite teachers were ones that treated us (teenage boys in an all boys school) as far more mature for our age. It was not a condescending preach but a guide that showed us a new map to explore. It's teachers that treated us full people with agency. The worst teachers were teachers who saw the experience as a one way conduit: that teaching is a download. Great teaching I feel is like great leadership. An invitation to join them in a new realm or world.
In university, it was the same. A simple desire to cultivate curiousity and agency.
I guess. It's like a good story. A good story is a constant invitation.
what is your standard for a good teacher? let me take one dimension. what % of your students do you need to make a real difference to (as compared to a textbook or self-paced course), if you want to be considered a good teacher?
The Jesuits definitely offer an example of good teaching... One might even say that a strong dispositional prior to evolution and reform rather than revolution is a Jesuit perspective par excellence. Barts and Lisa's lost cousin was a Jesuit in fact :P
Overall I do have to say I greatly enjoyed this post. I wasn't able to read too much of the March book club on hermeticism. I am very much excited for this month. All signs point to an excellent suggestion, particularly for myself where this fills a known whitespace in my mental map.
(Note the top says March reading though that should be April. The March one was the hermeticism dense thingamajig.)
Looks like ENG 580 Teaching Engineering. What materials do they reference?