Effective Teacher vs. Effective Teaching

I was once again inspired to blog after reading Tim Shanahan’s (www.shanahanonliteracy.com) recent blog post, Why I’m Not Impressed with Effective Teachers.  He has a way of grabbing the reader and then selling the related point. I have always thought that I was a good teacher, but Shanahan has made me rethink that.  It is not that I am a good TEACHER, it’s that through a lot of personal dedication to my craft, high quality professional learning opportunities, and working with other dedicated teachers that I was good at TEACHING.

For decades we have heard that great teachers help create great students. In fact, we have been told that research shows that an inspiring and informed teacher is the most important school-related factor influencing student achievement, so it is critical to pay close attention to how we train and support both new and experienced educators.  This is all true, but its really not the TEACHER as Tim Shanahan states, it's the TEACHING.

If it were really the teacher that was the most important factor, then issues faced in education and the achievement gap would be easily solved by attracting smarter, nicer, just plain better people to the position.  It would also mean that those teachers who have been in the profession longer would be better than those new to the profession. Obviously, this is not the case.

Someone can’t be taught to be a good teacher, but they can learn the practices of good teaching. For example, effective teaching employs instructional time more wisely.  It is teaching that gets started right away—no 30-minute circle times, no large portions of class time devoted to getting a head start on the homework—and such teaching keeps kids productively engaged throughout the day.

Observational studies have long showed that effective teaching avoids long wait times by the kids; avoids disruptions; encourages more interaction per instructional minute; follows a sound curriculum intelligently; gets a lot more reading into a lesson; explains things better; notices when kids aren’t getting it and does something about it.

The truth of the matter is… the research is very clear on what good teaching really is.  If a teacher chooses NOT to employ those practices that we identify as good teaching, then it's malpractice on the teacher’s part or up to the school and or district to provide opportunities for that teacher to understand and implement those practices.   If a school or district chooses NOT to provide those opportunities to the teachers who need it, then its malpractice on their part as well.

Good teachers are not born that way- they are made.

Are We in the Midst of a “Ghettoization in Education”?

While listening to a recent interview with the legendary journalist and news anchor, Tom Brokaw, he was discussing the “ghettoization of America”.  He claims that because of our affinity to social media and other internet applications, we mostly expose ourselves to thinks we “like” and issues we subscribe to.  Our Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram feeds are driven by people that we are fiends with and most likely share similar ideals, beliefs, etc.  When we visit news websites on our phones, tablets, or computers, they are likely the ones that we tend to agree with politically, socially, or economically. Brokaw explains that because of these trends, we are not exposing ourselves to ideas outside of our own umbrella.  And because of this, we only deepen our affinity and opinions to those ideas under our own umbrella.  The effect of these trends are that we don’t expand our thinking and push alternative ideas.  Brokaw wonders how these trends are affecting society as a whole. 

This got me thinking about education.

Are we in the midst of a “ghettoization in education”?  As educators, are we broadening our ideas and thinking beyond our own umbrella?  While there are certainly those educators that are of a growth mindset, they are continually striving to be better at their craft and to make changes to positively impact student achievement.  However, with the ongoing implementation of Common Core and other standards, I have been noticing a portion of educators that want to be “left alone”, don’t want to do “another new thing”, that feel “this too shall pass”, and “if its not broken, why fix it” mentality. As Carol Dweck calls it, they are of a fixed mindset and believe that where they are- under their umbrella, or in their ghetto- is adequate and nothing new needs to evolve.

As educators, we have the social and moral responsibility to our students to continue to seek out better and more effective ways to build content knowledge and life skills. If we are not continually striving to develop our craft, it is the students who lose in the end. As comfortable as it may be in our ghetto and under our umbrellas, we need to push ourselves to go beyond our comfort zones.

Reciprocity of Reading and Writing

There is a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing.

In any discussion of a processing system for reading, we must remember that we are really talking about a larger literacy processing system, one that includes both reading and writing of continuous text. While reading and writing are different processes, they are complementary. Readers and writers use the same sources of information and integrate them:

• In reading – to recognize written signs (visible information) and connect them to the invisible information.
• In writing – to use invisible information in a constructive way, producing a text of visual signs that will communicate to others or to self.

The process is not even as separated as those two bulleted points make it seem. Readers often think like writers. They notice how writers use language or give attention to new words and remember them later while writing. They may take notes or extend their understanding through writing. Writers reread what they have written so they can experience it another way and often revisit texts for ideas or to notice the writer’s craft. Through instruction, we can take advantage of this reciprocity, achieving higher-quality processing in both reading and writing.

Adapted from Teaching for Comprehending and Fluency: Thinking,

Talking, and Writing About Reading

Reciprocity of Reading and Writing

There is a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing.

In any discussion of a processing system for reading, we must remember that we are really talking about a larger literacy processing system, one that includes both reading and writing of continuous text. While reading and writing are different processes, they are complementary. Readers and writers use the same sources of information and integrate them:

• In reading – to recognize written signs (visible information) and connect them to the invisible information.
• In writing – to use invisible information in a constructive way, producing a text of visual signs that will communicate to others or to self.

The process is not even as separated as those two bulleted points make it seem. Readers often think like writers. They notice how writers use language or give attention to new words and remember them later while writing. They may take notes or extend their understanding through writing. Writers reread what they have written so they can experience it another way and often revisit texts for ideas or to notice the writer’s craft. Through instruction, we can take advantage of this reciprocity, achieving higher-quality processing in both reading and writing.

Adapted from Teaching for Comprehending and Fluency: Thinking,

Talking, and Writing About Reading