Hermione and Snape. Was: Re: Accio 2005 press releaseTrial of Snape

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 128359

Shaun:
Ah, but you see, for some of us who had Snape like teachers who 
taught us very, very effectively, and to whom we may me extremely 
grateful for that (even if sometimes, we may hate their guts at the 
same time!), it's rather hard to sit back and watch a style of 
teaching that worked for us to be dismissed by people based on the 
fact that they see things differently. Of course, they have the right 
to see it however they see it - but that is why I defend Snape. 
Because I really do believe that the way he teaches is a valid way of 
teaching, and I hate to see anyone - even a literary construct - 
wrongly criticised.

I don't think Snape is a good person. But I do think a valid case can
be made for him being a good teacher - and he has to little else
going for him, I don't like to see people strip that away as well (-8
<snip>
That doesn't make it a bad style. Just because a particular child's
learning needs are in the minority, doesn't make them any less
important than the needs of the majority.


SSSusan:
At what point do we draw the line and say, "This teacher reaches 
*enough* students that we can consider him a GOOD teacher"?  

I think there is plenty of evidence that Snape's style is not 
effective with Harry & Neville, and I believe that Hermione learns in 
spite of him.  It may be that Snape's methods work well with some of 
the members of his class.  The students are passing and getting 
decent marks on their exams, indeed.  But what I always come back to 
is, "Could the students be doing BETTER with someone else?"  

For this, I often find myself comparing Snape to McGonagall.  Both 
are strict, both are stern, both brook no monkey business, both are 
quite competent in their disciplines.  But which one REACHES more 
students?  

*IF* the answer to that question is McGonagall, then I have to 
quibble with calling Snape a good teacher.  To me, if Snape's methods 
only work extremely well with a few, if they only bring out the best 
in 1 or 2 or 3 students, then I think Snape would make an excellent 
*tutor* -- for those students – but it does not make him an excellent 
teacher for a whole class.  IOW, while we shouldn't neglect the needs 
of the few, we shouldn't neglect the needs of the many either.

Of course, to answer all these questions, we would need assessment 
tools and evaluative outcome results
 and we don't have much of 
that. ;-)


Shaun:
But Hogwarts as presented in the novels is a highly traditional
school - founded on highly traditional teaching methods and
traditional educational ideas.

*Within that context*, there is considered to be no need for a
teacher to be nice, kind, or stable. These things were not considered
important in the type of schools that Hogwarts is based on.

SSSusan:  
I fully agree with you that a teacher doesn't need to be nice or 
buddy-buddy with students.  OTOH, there is a big difference between 
being nice or kind and being cruel and humiliating with students.  
McGonagall is not particularly *nice,* but she is also not cruel.  
Snape is.  And I would argue that cruelty and humiliation can 
*interfere* with students' ability to learn in a way which firmness, 
strictness, even coldness, do not.


Shaun:
Snape is a master of his art. I'm sure he wants to teach - but what
he wants to teach are the best students - he wants to teach the NEWT
students who meet his high standards for entry. To do that he has to
get them through the lower levels. And that is hard, and that is
dull, and that is barely worthy of his time.

SSSusan:
Ah, some common ground!  I addressed this in 128343.  What we see of 
Snape in Advanced Potions should tell us a great deal about whether 
this is true.

Siriusly Snapey Susan