Reply to comment

I found this article to be very provoking.  It definitely raises thought on the issue of preparing teachers and what it means to be an effective teacher. Green's use of the word "better" teacher I think is misleading and lends a lot of scrutiny to the credibility of the article.  Although this was a very well written and articulated article, it was very self-serving, elitist, and clearly had an agenda to "sell" someone's new buzz word (or phrase in this case).  I think what this article leaves out is individual creativity and innateness in reflection, presentation, and flat out desire to help students reach their potential.  I think what we need to realize is that in this world, there are no definite descriptors of an effective teacher, or in Green's words, "better" teacher.  Merit pay will not inspire nor implant an ability to instill learning in students. I find it hard to believe that many of those that are not as effective in teaching, would be motivated by monetary gestures and that they are not truly trying. That being said, I think this corporate take over of education would not only be a flash in the pan, but would encourage the withdraw of professional communication, misdirected competition, and a corruption of teaching practices.  We must not forget that education is a service not a commodity.  The issue is how to improve on the strengths that exist within the individual who is not reaching the students before the motivation is lost. 

I also found it somewhat concerning that isolated cases were used to describe what a "better" teacher is.  In the instance of a teacher teaching word problems and confusing which number was to be the dividend and which was to be the divisor is not enough to say "bad teacher."  I do not argue that this can be an important issue that will mislead the students on that particular type of problem. But it hardly renders her ineffective.  I think one issue that is rarely, if ever discussed, is the role of a consistent mentor in the development of a teacher.  Too often, the effectiveness of a teacher is solely based on standardized test scores and/or 1-3 formal observations done by an administrator which, let's be honest, posses a whole new set of variables when presenting instruction.  In almost any case, this presence on a classroom has an effect on the instruction itself.  What I suggest is that we must find a way to improve teachers based on their strengths and positives as this article suggests we do for the students.  However, Green fails to acknowledge this and presents an argument which says "here are 49 prescribed antidotes for ineffective teachers. Take them and zaaaaam!  All fixed."  I must also acknowledge that I have not had the chance to read Lemov's Taxonomy, so I am not attacking his ideology.  In fact, I really liked (and will be "borrowing" some mentioned in the article this year) several from the article. But the article seems to suggest that making some mistakes in class or in terminology makes one a bad teacher.  I would also like to know if the teacher ever rectified her mistake, did anyone step in and advise her on her error, or did she have a chance to reflect on the video herself.  Sometimes "creating a better teacher" is not the responsible of the individual, but of the institution of education itself to pick each other up and build one another instead of labeling and pointing fingers.