In “Building A Better Teacher,” Elizabeth Green presents cases personifying two perspectives on teaching effectively—one we often hear referred to as “classroom management” and the other regularly called “good content.” She uses Doug Lemov and Deborah Ball, respectively, as her exemplars of the cases.
Professor Ball, dean of the University of Michigan’s school of education, is widely noted for her studies of teachers’ content knowledge in mathematics. Mr. Lemov, a consultant and promoter of charter schools, has a forth-coming book documenting concepts about teaching practices that span content areas.
To her credit, Ms. Green doesn’t cast one or the other as the winner. She accentuates the positive in each. Sadly, she does not take the critical step of reporting about trustworthy research examining each of their methods. Have either shown scientifically that employing their methods produces more effective teachers? If so, Ms. Green doesn’t tell about that research. What are the actual, documented consequences of employing each’s methods, especially when compared to methods such as Direct Instruction or Success for All?
And, to her credit, she dings some of the pop ideas (e.g., higher pay will attract more capable humans into teaching—I think teachers should be paid way better, but just jacking up the pay won’t make kids learn more). See the article for more examples.
Ms Green is right about the research question: It should be, “How do we engender effective instruction… build a better teacher?”
She does describe some of the observational (i.e., correlational) research showing that some practices are associated with better outcomes. Shoot, she even goes so far as mentioning the data about the deleterious effects of having puke-producing teaching for a few years in a row. But the positive exemplars in her universe of methods for building better teachers are not reported.
What is more, she leaves out some critical elements. There’s virtually nothing about curricula and detailed lesson plans, for example. Does Ms. Green’s analysis align with the view that, for example, each science teacher should channel Archimedes and invent effective lessons for teaching the upward force of fluids that keeps things afloat? I hope not, and I hope that the space limitations on her article deterred her from including curricular contributions to what makes an effective teacher.
Ms. Green is a Spencer fellow in education who is affiliated with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Read her article, Building A Better Teacher.
I had rather liked the article, but I realize that it suffers somewhat from that pendulum syndrome: it emphasizes a perceived deficit, and disregards the value of the status quo.
However, I wouldn’t wish wading through educational research on *anybody.* There is so much chaff to wade through! I also think that the process by which we “build” teachers *does* deserve a fat spotlight. Let’s face it, the “you’re lowest on the totem pole so you get the most challenge – pay your dues!” and the basic islands teachers are too often sent to don’t make a lot of sense. I’m hoping things have evolved a bit since my days, but not holding my breath. (Having a mentor to cry to when sleep deprivation takes over is helpful… but heavens, there’s a better way.)