by Victoria Nichols
As reluctant as I am to admit it, I enrolled at the Boston University School of Education (SED) approximately seven months ago with, at least in part, the naïve Freedom Writers, Dead Poets Society ideation of what makes a “good” teacher. I had fallen trap to the “natural-born teacher” fallacy which Elizabeth Green (2014) so brilliantly summarizes in Building a Better Teacher (p. 6). Unconsciously I had equated manic energy, hilarity, sacrifice, and other aspects of personality with “good” teaching, but those are not essential characteristics. A brief survey of some of my high school friends uncovered something incredibly revealing. When asked “Who was the best teacher you ever had?” many responded with a question of their own: “Do you mean best or favorite?” And that, I believe, is a truly important distinction. The most energetic, the most memorable, the most loved teachers are not always going to be the “best” teachers.
So what does make a teacher “good?” It is an incredibly nuanced question. At the heart of the issue is that fact that the majority of the stakeholders in education define the term “good” differently. For some, the “goodness” of a teacher is directly proportional to students’ achievement on standardized, high-stakes testing. For others, a “good” teacher is one that “gets” students into the best colleges and universities. For others still, a “good” teacher broadens a student’s horizons, challenging him to become a valuable member of society. But then the question becomes, how do you measure something so nebulous? What individual factors, what criteria, when added up, total a “good” teacher?
I think it is important to take a moment to note that in addition to these definitions of “good” being disparate amongst US stakeholders, this idea of “good” differs from country to country as well. How a culture defines the “goodness” of a teacher depends greatly on that culture’s norms and values surrounding education. As Pasi Sahlberg points out in the article What if Finland’s great teachers taught in U.S. schools?, “In Finland, half of surveyed teachers responded that they would consider leaving their job if their performance [were] determined by their student’s standardized test results” (Strauss, May 2013). This is in stark contrast to the US, where in some areas, 50% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on Value-Added Measures (Jones, Slide 15, October 2014).
Thus, at the heart of the “good” teacher debate in the United States is the question of our culture’s reliance on standardized testing. Given my background with Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory, it may be somewhat unsurprising that I am fiercely weary of standardized testing, especially the ability of these measures to accurately portray a student’s “intelligence.” Consequently, I do not think using Value-Added Measures truthfully determines a teacher’s “goodness.” My definition of a “good” teacher is not one who is able to churn out students capable of acing high-stakes testing. While this is no small feat, and not an achievement that should be ignored given our culture’s perception of academic success, I believe that a “good” teacher is something else, something more.
In my pursuit to find the handful of criteria which I believe comprise a “good” teacher, I decided to peruse the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Overall I found the Framework incredibly extensive, and I definitely agreed with several of the components, but nonetheless I felt that some aspects of effective teaching were still missing. After much deliberation, I drafted my own Framework for “Good” Teaching: 1) Thorough knowledge of content and pedagogy, 2) Passion for content and pedagogy, 3) Dedication to differentiation, 4) Excels at crafting dynamic, engaging, and energizing lessons, and 5) Willingness to continually develop, learn, and adapt as both content and pedagogy continually evolve. While I readily admit this is not a complete list, I believe that if an educator adheres to these criteria, they would be viewed as “good.” In fact, I have seen this in practice.
But before providing an example of a “good” teacher, I want to explain my criteria. It was not until enrolling at SED that I began to truly realize the monumental importance of a strong education and background in both content-matter and pedagogy. I cannot even begin to comprehend how an educator enters the classroom without a background in Lesson Design, or Adolescent Development, or Teaching Text. I strongly believe that, much like Finland’s system, it should be mandated that every future educator should graduate from a Masters-level teacher education program. Were that the case, so many more teachers would have a thorough knowledge of content and pedagogy, a strengthened ability to craft thoughtful lesson plans, an understanding of differentiation, and a flexibility to evolve as an educator. In other words, were everyone to have to graduate from such a program, so many more teachers would meet the criteria I detail above and would be given the foundation necessary for effective teaching.
I would also like to note that, because of my background working with the Good Project, differentiation has been of particular importance to me. The Good Project defines work as “good” when it is excellent, engaging, and ethical. I believe that, in turn, differentiation embodies these “Three Es,” as this practice challenges teachers to teach more purposefully and more thoroughly, with a clear focus on the success of every student. Utilizing differentiation as a guiding principle, I have found myself completely engrossed in crafting some of my most thoughtful lesson plans. But what about the ethics of differentiation, of teaching in general? How can I devote my time to be maximally effective for the widest range of students? That’s a difficult question, but an important one. As a student teacher, I am still practicing this skill, but I have observed a common trend in the master teachers I have observed so far: they are continually adapting their teaching to better respond to each student’s individual skill set. That was particularly true of my 10th-grade English teacher, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson met most, if not all, of my criteria. Most striking, however, was his true dedication to differentiation. One teaching strategy he employed that I hope to emulate in my own teaching was, each semester, instructing students to read one book of their choice and to write a brief paper in response. This brilliant move allowed students to choose readings that would challenge and interest them on an individual level. Above and beyond that teaching strategy, however, Mr. Robinson also identified my personal frustration of not being challenged. Noticing my apathy, Mr. Robinson gave me a suggested college reading list. He instructed me to read as many books as I wanted and informed me that he would grade any additional response papers accordingly. Holding me to a higher standard, he graded me as a college professor would, forcing me to grow exponentially.
Thus, I truly believe that Mr. Robinson was such an effective teacher because of his adherence to my five aforementioned criteria. Mr. Robinson wasn’t an especially lively or energetic teacher, nor did he have us continually bent over with laughter; these fickle aspects of personality were not what made him a “good” teacher. Instead, I consider Mr. Robinson a good teacher because of his knowledge, his passion, his strong lesson plans, and his differentiation strategies. Unfortunately, these criteria better adhere to the education culture in somewhere such as Finland, than they do here in the United States. Which, in turn, raises a striking question: How can I strive to uphold my Framework for “Good” Teaching when my criteria do not align with the educational culture to which I belong?
References
Danielson, C. (2014). The Framework. The Danielson Group. Retrieved from http://danielsongroup.org/
Greene, E. (2014). Building a Better Teacher. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Jones, N. (2014). Teacher Evaluation Research.
Strauss, V. (2013). What if Finland’s great teachers taught in U.S. schools. The Washington Post.