High school principals prefer to hire teachers who are good with kids over those who are content experts, writes Richard Ullman, a retired social studies teacher.
He tested his theory by posing a hypothetical on a social-media page. He asked high school principals who they'd hire for a core course leading to a high-stakes exam.
“Candidate A is extremely strong on content knowledge, skill modeling, and instructional methodology, but struggles with behavior management -- basically a brilliant scholar who demonstrates and explains things well, but is likely to have some difficulties with the more – let’s just say – challenging students. Candidate B has a commanding classroom presence, natural charisma, and a unique ability to make authentic connections, but has significant deficiencies in terms of content expertise and delivery -- a solid classroom manager who’s entertaining and engaging, but struggles with actual instruction. Which one would you hire?”
By a vote of 270 to 8, the principals chose Candidate B, who "struggles with actual instruction," Ullman reports. He asked some administrator friends, and they agreed. Several said they use a “hire for attitude, train for skill” approach.
He fears schools are focusing so much on the social and emotional health of students that academics have become secondary, "perhaps even a low-priority afterthought."
While mission statements talk of "academic excellence," Ullman writes, many teachers are hired "based primarily on their perceived ability to corral the most apathetic and unruly students through a system of compulsory schooling they don’t even want."
These days, it's popular to say that "students don't learn from teachers they don't like." Ullman thinks that's debatable. He wonders if students learn -- that is, achieve satisfactory academic success -- from teachers told to "prioritize student wellness and behavior management over actual academics."
In my long-ago school days, I learned from competent, demanding teachers and intelligent classmates -- or I ignored the teacher, read books surreptitiously and educated myself. Of course, I was a motivated student from a stable, supportive family. I didn't need a new parent or a coach.
I learned more history, geography, political science and economics from my parents than in school. (I'm quite sure I knew more economics -- including why the government can't just print more money, price controls and rent controls -- by the age of 10 than Kamala Harris.) Most teachers liked me a lot, but a few social studies teachers were a bit scared of me because I knew more than they did.
Comments