[HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles LONG

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 147846

On 9 Feb 2006 at 4:27, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> Right, that is what I thought. And really if by "methods do not 
> work" you mean that children simply do not perform well, small 
> minority of children, I mean, I guess I could see your POV, but if 
> by "methods do not work" you mean that teacher is actively harming 
> physically and /or emotionally three, two or even one child in the 
> classroom, I would never call him a good teacher, so I guess we are 
> in significant disagreement.

Shaun:

No, not necessarily. It's that scenario that is one reason why I said 
'almost certainly' a good teacher above, rather than definitely. 
Because yes, I do agree that if a teacher is actually harmful (at 
least significantly harmful - because 'harm' can be defined very 
broadly at time) - to that minority it does change the equation.

*But* for that to be the case in my view, the harm has to be 
reasonably significant in my view and has to be reasonably 
predictable and has to be the teacher's fault - not something that is 
primarily a problem for the child.

Frankly, I don't believe there is a single teacher on Earth who could 
claim they'd never harmed a child. Children are complicated people 
and there's no way you can guarantee that something you try as a 
teacher won't backfire sometimes. There's no universally successful, 
universally safe methods of educating them. If you want to teach 
kids, you're accepting a a great deal of power - and you're accepting 
that sometimes you may get it wrong. That's the way it works.

The same is true of any job involving human beings in the loop - but 
when it comes to teaching you're explicitly trying to mould children 
and that is a process full of inherent risk. If you label teachers as 
bad teachers simply because they might have harmed a child at some 
stage of their teaching, then I doubt there is a single good teacher 
on this planet. It's an impossible standard.

Now, of course, there are limits. And, maybe, Snape does cross those 
limits. I don't think so - but he's certainly nowhere near perfect. 
But I certainly think a 'do no harm' standard is unrealistic and 
overly perfectionist.
  
> Alla:
> This is actually a VERY good example of what I would find to be not 
> very problematic mismatch. I mean I have problems with Trelawney as 
> teacher for different reasons, but IF her method did not work for 
> just Hermione, I would NEVER call her a bad teacher. She was not IMO 
> actively harming Hermione in any way, shape or form. I mean, she was 
> damaging her chance to learn Divination well, who knows maybe she 
> would have performed better under a different teacher, but as you 
> said - it happens.

Shaun:

Well, I *really* disagree with you on this. Not about having problems 
with Trelawney's teaching (I would be much more inclined to call 
Trelawney a bad teacher than Snape) but with the idea that she isn't 
harming Hermione.

I work with profoundly gifted children - and I actually think 
Hermione is an example of an exceptionally or profoundly gifted 
child, and so a lot of other advocates for these children and many 
experts. And I would say, most definitely, that Hermione is harmed by 
Trelawney's classes.

Did Hermione walk out of Lockhart's worthless DADA classes? Did 
Hermione walk out of Umbridge's utterly worthless DADA classes? Did 
Hermione walk out of Hagrid's fairly worthless CoMC classes?

Hermione is the uber-student (-8 She is very single minded when it 
comes to her education - I don't think most people would argue for 
that. She is the type of student who would put up with something 
unpleasant to learn. She has a high tolerance for such things, I 
would say.

So for her to decide to walk out of a class - and presumably accept a 
failing mark for that class - I really do believe that she *must* 
have felt that staying in that class had become utterly untenable.

Hermione acts completely out of character in Divination classes:

"'Well, they do,' said Hermione. 'Everybody knows about Harry
and You-Know-Who.'

Harry and Ron stared at her with a mixture of amazement and
admiration. They had never heard Hermione speak to a teacher like
that before."

(PoA)

>From the first class (echoes of Snape and Neville in my view) 
Trelawney says some rather mean things to Hermione, and she does it 
because she dislikes Hermione (echoes of Snape and Harry):

"Professor Trelawney surveyed Hermione with mounting dislike.

'You'll forgive me for saying so, my dear, but I perceive very
little aura around you. Very little receptivity to the resonances of
the future.'"

(PoA)

Note that - from the very first Divination class, a teacher who is 
acting out of dislike publically seeks to tell a student there's 
something wrong with them.

I really don't see a real difference between this and the first class 
with Snape.

And it does affect Hermione:

"'Professor Trelawney said you didn't have the right aura! You
just don't like being bad at something for a change!'

He had touched a nerve. Hermione slammed her Arithmancy book down
on the table so hard that bits of meat and carrot flew everywhere."

(PoA)

It touched a nerve.

In the very first Divination class, Trelawney - out of dislike for 
Hermione - publically tells her that there is something wrong with 
her. And that does upset Hermione - I hesitate to generalise but 
there's relatively few things a teacher could say to most gifted 
perfectionists (and I think Hermione is one of these) which is more 
likely to cause distress.

Incidentally - Harry also dislikes Trelawney's classes:

"Harry was also growing to dread the hours he spent in Professor
Trelawney's stifling tower room, deciphering lopsided shapes and
symbols, trying to ignore the way Professor Trelawney's enormous
eyes filled with tears every time she looked at him. He couldn't
like Professer Trelawney, even though she was treated with respect
bordering on reverence by many of the class." 

(PoA)

Harry *dreads* his Divination classes because of the way his teacher 
treats him. Does this meet the standard of harming a student 
sufficiently to make her a bad teacher?

I mean, after all, I'm sure Neville dreads Snape's classes.

But this:

"Parvati whispered something to Lavender, and they both glared
at Hermione too. Professor Trelawney stood up, surveying Hermione
with unmistakable anger.

'I am sorry to say that from the moment you have arrived in
this class my dear, it has been apparent that you do not have what
the noble art of Divination requires. Indeed, I don't remember ever
meeting a student whose mind was so hopelessly mundane.'

There was a moment's silence. Then -

'Fine!' said Hermione suddenly, getting up and cramming Unfogging
the Future back into her bag. 'Fine!' she repeated, swinging the
bag over her shoulder and almost knocking Ron off his chair. "I
give up! I'm leaving!'

And to the whole class's amazement, Hermione strode over to the
trapdoor, kicked it open, and climbed down the ladder out of sight."

(PoA)

Trelawney - out of dislike and anger - publically tells Hermione in 
front of her friends, her classmates, her peers that she has the most 
hopelessly mundane mind of any student Trelawney has ever 
encountered.

I doubt you could deliberately design a more hurtful thing to say to 
Hermione Granger - a girl to whom her mind is obviously very 
important.

If Hermione isn't harmed by this, it's only because she is a very 
resilient girl by that stage of the books.

To rephrase something you said he about Neville and Snape in a 
previous post: 

The fact that Hermione found inner strength to deal with the abusive 
teacher (my opinion of course, nothing more) does not make the 
severity of Trelawney's actions any less to me.

And I restate my position on that:

Abuse is abuse. The fact that some students may be better able to 
deal with abuse than others, doesn't change the seriousness of 
genuine abuse. If something is abusive, then it is abusive, no matter 
how the student deals with it. It doesn't cease to be abuse, just 
because a student is better equipped to deal with it.

People really do seem to me to hold Snape to a much higher standard 
than other teachers. Now I can understand why people feel Snape is 
abusive - but it seems to me that there should be a consistent 
standard - and if Snape is abusive because of the way he treats 
Neville, then so is Trelawney.

I don't think either of them are abusive, personally. I think both 
show poor judgement in dealing with particular individual students, 
but that is a different matter.

But I think we need a consistent standard. 
 
> Alla:
> 
> See above - I would maybe agree with you if the minority of students 
> is not performing well, but not HARMED. If one student in Snape 
> class ends up being permanently hurt because of him, I absolutely 
> will call him a bad teacher because of it, IMO of course.

Shaun:

Well, I simply disagree - and of course, that is just my opinion. But 
it's coming from someone who suffered long term psychological damage 
because of some teachers, and who can still hold a view that most of 
those teachers weren't bad teachers. They just weren't equipped for 
me. 
 
> Shaun:
> > I do think Snape crosses a line when it comes to Harry, and I have 
> > said so in the past. Snape has a personal visceral hatred for 
> Harry 
> > Potter as a person. This has *nothing* to do with his teaching, 
> > however - it's purely personal based on factors completely 
> external 
> > to his teaching and to his skill as a teacher.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> See, that is another point where I am completely failing to 
> understand where you are coming from. If the person argues that what 
> Snape does to Harry is fine, I can sort of see how then Snape can be 
> called good teacher. Well, I think that calling what Snape does to 
> Harry as "fine" is not supported by the canon, BUT when the most 
> horrific case of mistreatment(IMO of course) is explained away ( 
> together with Neville - I understand you disagree, but that is IMO), 
> then all you have to do is to imagine that maybe Snape is very good 
> to everybody else in school and here we go - he is a good teacher.

Shaun:

No, not to everybody else in the school, just to most people (-8

And it's not a matter of 'imagining' that maybe Snape is a good 
teacher. I (and at least some other people) believe the evidence for 
that assertion is there. It's there in the results his pupils 
achieve, it's there in the statement by an evil inspector looking for 
reasons to criticise teachers that his students are advanced, etc. 
It's not imagination - though I agree it can be argued with,
 
> But you agree that Snape mistreats Harry, that he hates the boy, 
> moreover you agree that Snape brings PERSONAL hatred to the 
> classroom. Don't you think that if he does it to ONE student, there 
> is a danger that he can do so to ANY student? Basically Snape cannot 
> keep his feelings in check, isn't it dangerous to let him teach in 
> the first place?

Shaun:

If you want to talk about dangerous teachers in the classroom - how 
about a werewolf?

"'This time tomorrow, the owls will start arriving from parents... 
They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. And 
after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of 
you... That must never happen again.'"

(PoA)

Any teacher is potentially dangerous to students. Any teacher.

Hogwarts is a school with anywhere from 280 to 1000 students, 
depending on which number you subscribe to. I'm going to go 
with the lowest number - partly because I think it is the number most 
consistent with the canon, partly because it creates 
a 'worst case' scenario in terms of the numbers we have.

Snape teaches a core subject at Hogwarts - one that all students 
study.

Assuming that the school size remains consistent over the years (and 
that is an assumption) by the time Harry is in his 
sixth year (all that we have seen so far) Snape has apparently taught 
somewhere over 1000 students in his fifteen years at 
the school.

Do we have any indication whatsoever that Snape has developed the 
same type of attitude towards any other student that he 
has developed towards Harry?

Well, I can't think of any.

So, because in 1 in 1000 cases, Snape acts in this way, should we be 
worried about him doing it to other students?

I'll take those odds.

Especially seeing we know (or at least we think we know) where a lot 
of the hatred comes from. Snape was bullied by James 
Potter, and that seems to be at the root of his hatred for Harry, in 
my view. So perhaps other children of the people who 
bullied him might be at similar risk.

Who do we know that was involved...

Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Peter Pettigrew.

Are any of those likely to have kids turning up at Hogwarts?
 
> Alla:
>
> What if he decided that parents of , I don't know Lee Jordan 
> insulted him and he has a grudge against him? How about Cho Chang 
> parents? I am just picking the first names that came to mind here.

Shaun:

Well, as *soon* as I saw evidence that he was doing this to another 
student, then, yes, my concern levels would sky rocket. But until we 
see some sort of evidence that Snape is at all likely to treat 
another student in this way, then, no it doesn't concern me greatly 
as a real risk.

I think Harry is a unique case. If evidence emerged that that wasn't 
the case, my opinion would change considerably.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia