>In article <01bc3bdb$55b170e0$LocalHost@good>, "Greg Goodknight" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > >|> Whether you have a "good" teacher or a "bad" teacher you had better figure >|> it out and remember. Since the student is the only one who is truly helped >|> when the student learns, and is the only one directly harmed if no learning >|> takes place, I suggest only the student (and their parents if they are >|> children) can be said to be responsible. It follows that if a student is >|> not learning (by their own metric) they should be free to enroll in another >|> class or another school.
This is dangerous logic. It is equivalent to saying that if the teacher's methods injure a student, the student is responsible.
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Charles J. Masenas) wrote:
>When it comes to inspiration, some teachers have it, some don't. It is not OK >for a teacher to be uninspiring. Those that can't inspire should find another >job.
You're right. But it should also be said that the ability to inspire can be *learned*, unless a person is defective. I'd sure like to see teacher training courses put some emphasis into teaching teachers to make learning fun.
================================================================== | Steve McGrew, President | email@example.com | | New Light Industries, Ltd. | Phone: (509) 456-8321 | | 9713 W. Sunset Hwy | Fax: (509) 456-8351 | | Spokane, WA 99204 USA | http://www.iea.com/~nli | ==================================================================