[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Neville's teacher / JKR's sexy men roll call

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 168502

On 10 May 2007 at 8:06, phoenixgod2000 wrote:

>  
> > Shaun:
>
> > Why should the (say) 20% of children who would learn well with
> >  this style of teaching CONSTANTLY have to see their needs sacrificed 
>> for the other 80%?
>
> phoenixgod2000
>
> Because that's the real world?
>
> I sympathize and understand where you are coming from. I do. But I
> made my teaching bones by working in the inner city of the
> California Public School System. I had 40 kids in a class. I had students who
> could barely string sentences together in English.  And I was
> teaching History, the one class virtually no student respects.  A teacher
> does what he can with the situation he is given.  And when you have a
> huge glut of students that all need to be taught, the greatest good for
> the greatest number is the best that a lot of over worked teachers can
> do.
> 
> kids like who you were, gifted, great kids, slip through the
> cracks all the time and every teacher who hasn't had his soul destroyed
> by the bureaucracy of the educational system hates that fact.  We try
> to catch who we can, but no one can get them all.  Every teacher I
> have ever met knows that we don't always do enough for the minority of
> students who, for a variety of reasons don't respond well to
> traditional school, but when you have such huge numbers of students
> it is just not always practical. 

Shaun:

In the real world, it can be very hard, if not impossible, to *always* cater to every single child 
in a classroom - but that isn't what I am talking about. In fact, it is quite *explicitly* not what I 
am talking about. I'm not looking for every classroom being right for every single child. In fact, 
I explicitly accept that not every classroom will be right for every single child by saying that I 
don't think that is the standard we need to meet for a teacher to be a good teacher. It seems 
to me that the people who expect a 100% success rate as the only measure of being a good 
teacher they will contemplate, are those who want to condemn the teaching of Severus 
Snape. They are the people who keep raising specific examples of his supposed failures with 
individual students as if they prove he's a bad teacher. I'm much more tolerant than that - I 
don't expect every teacher to succeed with every single student, and I don't assume that any 
failure cancels out everything else.

The key word in what I said above - and that's I've requoted it is the word 'constantly'. That's 
why I capitalised it - because it is the key word. I can certainly accept that an individual 
teacher teaching one class may find themselves forced into a situation where they have to 
decide to sacrifice the needs of some children so they can meet the needs of others, and *if* 
a teacher is in that situation, it does make sense, all other things being equal, to focus on the 
largest group of children as possible. But while that may be a valid response by an individual 
teacher in one classroom, it's a far less valid response across an entire school or an entire 
system.

If Mrs Jones teaching English uses the same teaching methods as Mr Huan teaching 
Geography uses the same teaching methods as Mr Robinson teaching Mathematics uses the 
same teaching methods as Mrs Bowen teaching Science - then in every single class, the 
same children are getting taught effectively and the same children are missing out.

*If* instead the school has a range of different teachers using a range of teaching methods, it 
becomes *much* more likely that across the whole school and across the whole school day, 
the largest possible number of children will get some real value out of their schooling. Far 
less children will be wasting their time at school. Far less children will be being sacrificed all 
the time for the sake of others.

If anything, a situation in which teachers find themselves limited by lack of resources, lack of 
circumstances, lack of time, etc - that is a situation which calls out for the widest possible 
range of teaching methods being used in that school - because maybe the English teacher 
can't do more than she is doing - but if the Geography teacher uses a different method, 
there's a better chance he's going to be able to plug some of the gaps she's had to miss out 
on. No, it won't do much good in terms of subject content - but imagine the difference it can 
make to the child who has *never* has a class directed at their needs, to instead know that 
for one class a day, that's changed. That alone can make a real difference - far less than any 
potential harm that is likely to be done to other students discovering that instead of six 
classes a day being aimed at them, there's now only five.

No, no one teacher can get them all. No one teacher can be an affective teacher for every 
single child in their classes. *BUT* that is the reason *why* the teacher who does things 
differently and winds up targeting a different group of students from other teachers (and 
therefore has a different group 'falling down the cracks') is a good thing. 


> Shaun:
>
> > If a school is teaching 80% of its students well, the other 20%
> > can be ignored?
> > 
> > I don't think anybody would call that good teaching.
> 
> phoenixgod2000
>
> Its not perfect teaching but I think if you are reaching most of
> the students most of the time you are doing a pretty good job.

Shaun:

I deliberately said 'school' above, not teacher. I happen to think if a particular individual 
teacher is reaching 80% of their students, they are probably doing a sterling job.

But if a school is only teaching 80% well - and *ignoring* the other 20%, that is not a good 
job. The 80% success rate isn't necessarily a problem in itself. In some circumstances, with 
particular populations, and particular issues, 80% might be quite a reasonable success rate. 
But it's when they decide the 80% is enough, and they give up on the 20% - that's what I am 
talking about.

And a school which has students who it is failing, and refuses to try different methods for that 
20% because they are a minority, and "We serve the majority" - that's not a good situation.

You're never going to get all the kids, perhaps. But by deciding that a teaching style that 
could *work* for even some of them isn't acceptable because it doesn't work for everyone 
else - then you are sacrificing them for no good reason at all.
  
phoenixgod2000:

> Just because I don't chew nails and spit bullets doesn't mean we
> spend
> every class period sitting in a circle talking about self esteem
> and
> gazing at our navels.

Shaun:

Of course not, and I would *NEVER* suggest that you do. Personally I have *nothing* 
whatsoever against 'touchy-feely' methods of education, even for those teachers who *do* 
use them - they most assuredly didn't work for me, but I have seen kids for whom they do 
work - and that's great.

But like you, I also don't think they are the only two options - there's a massive continuum in 
between, and I happen to think a *lot* of the methods on that continuum are good methods, 
and a lot of them are bad. And I don't think you can judge 'good' or 'bad' they are based on 
how close they are to the extremes. There are good and bad methods across the entire 
continuum.

I happen to think Snape's 'old school' teaching methods are valid - but I don't teach that way 
personally. I can't. It doesn't match my personality. That's not who I am as a teacher. I 
happen to think the way I teach is a pretty good method, as well.

I think there are a lot of different good methods.

phoenixgod2000:
 
> There is a vicious personal element to the Harry/Snape
> relationship
> that goes beyond simple classroom philosophy that I think can be
> characterized as abusive.  That is not wholly Snape's fault. 
> Dumbledore should have reigned him in and never does.

Shaun:

Yes, but that's not what everybody is talking about. Many link the teaching method very 
closely to their views of abuse.

I happen to think Snape's treatment of Harry is personally reprehensible - he holds a grudge 
against a child based on the boy's father - I just don't think it has much at all to do with his 
teaching.
 
> Shaun:
> 
> > But that is *not* the situation that exists at Hogwarts. Not all
> > the teachers are Severus Snape's.
>
> phoenixgod2000
> 
> But he is the only potion teacher.
>
> Shaun:

The same is true of every other subject (except, eventually, unusually, Divination). If we allow 
that to be an excuse for never letting its children experience anything other that a majority-
aimed teaching style, we are making things even *worse* for any child who isn't part of the 
majority.

Yes, overall, it may make sense to cater to the majority over the minority - but in *EVERY* 
single class? *Every* single time?

Even if you decide the minority only deserve a minority of consideration, there's a lot of 
difference between a 'minority' and 'none at all'. I'm asking for one class out of seven - the 
structure of the school doesn't allow me to ask for anything less except *nothing* at all.

phoenixgod2000:

> Nothing is wrong with that. But that means that every other student
> is getting a much worse education in a core subject that seems pretty
> darn important.  I don't think that's all right either.   When you
> are the only teacher of your subject at your school--and it's a
> required class, I think you have a duty to be a little more accessible than
> a teacher teaching a niche elective.

Shaun: 

It really doesn't mean that, though. Just because a particular class now *targets* 20% of the 
students instead of *targeting* 80%, doesn't mean that all of the 80% are now going to be 
worse off. In fact, it would be very surprising if they were.

A fair proportion of the 80% probably learn pretty much as well with both methods - the kids 
in the middle between the two extemes. Some may even learn a little better. Some will 
probably be a little worse off - but it won't be the whole 80%.
  
phoenixgod2000:

> That makes absolutely no sense at all :)  if it was his teaching
> style that responded to so well, why would changing classes matter at
> all?

Shaun:

Largely because of my attitude to the different classes. One was Latin, and one was Ancient 
Greek. Ancient Greek was meant to be an elective, and I chose Drama over it. After a month 
or so, I was moved against my will from Drama (and part of that was that she was a very 
fluffy teacher and we had a 'personality conflict' - in actual fact, I was close to having 
flashbacks to my hellish experiences of the past - and she *wasn't* a bad teacher, just 
completely wrong for me - she reminded me too much of the one *truly* bad teacher I ever 
really think I had) into the Ancient Greek class and forced to drop drama.

I did well in Latin - I did absolutely apallingly in Ancient Greek for a long time.
   
phoenixgod2000:

> True, but we were specifically talking and Hermione and Harry
> responding to Snape's teaching methods. You said you thought Harry
> responded to Snape's class. I disagree. If Harry had responded, he
> would have had a fire lit under him. A fire to learn everything he
> could about potions.  And he doesn't get that fire.  Instead,
> Potions
> becomes a class to be endured and to do what he can to pass. He has
> no
> love, no desire for the subject--which if Snape were a great
> teacher
> he would have.  If Harry didn't absolutely have to take the class
> he
> would drop in a minute.  Not what I would call overwhelmingly
> successful.

Shaun:

Harry's OWL results:

Astronomy: A
CoMC: E
Charms: E
DADA: O
Divination: P
Herbology: E
History of Magic: D
Potions: E
Transfiguration: E

One 'Outstanding', Five 'Exceeds Expectations', One 'Acceptable', One 'Poor', One 
'Dreadful'.

Harry's marks reveal he is an 'E' standard student. What mark did he get in Potions? An 'E'.

Harry did as well in potions as his marks give us any reason to think he should have done. To 
me, that seems a pretty clear indication he was taught to a reasonable standard in that 
subject. He may not have enjoyed the experience - but he seems to have been as successful 
as he had any right to expect.


phoenixgod2000:
>
> > I'm sure it would have - but you're not the archetype for all
> > students. They didn't break the mould after you started school.
> 
> Now be nice ;)

Shaun:

I think I am being nice - I was just trying to emphasise a point in an amusing way. I apologise 
if that didn't come across.

phoenixgod2000:
>  
> We are having an argument about whether or not Snape is a good
> teacher and I have to wonder if it matters to him in the slightest. Is he
> using his methods because he believes that they work or because
> they fit his general disposition as an evil sourpuss and thus the path
> of least resistance?
> 
> Seems to me like he only has that job because Dumbledore needed
> him close by.  If he were a truly free man would he be a teacher?  Does
> he have the calling?  I don't think he does and ultimately that's
> what bothers me about him. I don't think he cares about the students and
> I don't think he cares if they learn anything or not.  He's just
> marking time and I think he's doing it at the expense of the students of
> Hogwarts.  As someone who thinks of teaching as his calling that
> offends me.

Shaun:

I really don't think he is marking time. I think he is passionate about his subject, and, yes, I do 
think that's why he teaches the way he does.

It's not his only passion - DADA obviously appeals as well. But it *is* a passion:

""You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking," he began. He 
spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word - like Professor 
McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort. "As there is little 
foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don't expect you will 
really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the 
delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the 
senses . . . I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death - if you aren't 
as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach.""   

To me that is a man who *loves* his subject. And who wants to teach it - to students who are 
capable of learning it.

But that's just my interpretation.


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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]