It pisses me off that the reward for experience is teaching smarter, easier kids, and that I'm going to take that reward, before long.
— Michael Pershan (@mpershan) February 13, 2013
Some people agree:
@mpershan Not only will be "easier", but you'll get paid more for it too.
— Jim Adamson (@GlenviewMath) February 13, 2013
@jybuell @mpershan I agree! Most tchrs of honors kids are fully convinced they are fabulous tchrs. It's a long day tchg all "low" classes.
— s reilly (@reilly1041) February 13, 2013
@mpershan @jybuell I teach both. Smarter kids are easier and more fun; needier kids are more rewarding.
— Chris Shore (@MathProjects) February 13, 2013
@mpershan I agree with you about this 100%. Behavior is NOT achievement.— CheesemonkeySF (@cheesemonkeysf) February 13, 2013
@mpershan Didn't we have a big discussion about this a while back? It's incredibly difficult teaching weak kids. How is this not a given?
— EdReal (@Ed_Realist) February 13, 2013
But, tons of folks disagreed:
@mpershan @ddmeyer "Smart kids are easy to teach" is more teacher prejudice than classroom reality, and a disservice to "smart" kids.
— Patrick Honner (@MrHonner) February 13, 2013
@mpershan the reward is "choice". Don't think it's easier, but probably easier to fool yourself into thinking you're doing a good job.
— Jason(@jybuell) February 13, 2013
@mpershan I also hate that people view "smarter" as "easier".
— Greg (@sarcasymptote) February 13, 2013
@sarcasymptote @mpershan Compliant kids are less "trouble" which makes for an "easier" classroom. That has nothing to do with teaching.
— Andrew Carle (@tieandjeans) February 13, 2013
@mpershan Teaching honors is awesome! But teaching weaker students can be, too. Take a step back. All they need is a different approach.
— Adrienne Shlagbaum (@shlagteach) February 13, 2013
@sarcasymptote @mpershan At my sch, diff. behavior issues with diff levels. More cheating at higher levels, more class disruption at lower.
— Fran Poodry (@MsPoodry) February 13, 2013
Can someone explain what's going on here?
Can anyone explain how there's a disagreement this wide across the profession? Why does it seem straightforward to me that teaching students of low ability is harder, more challenging than teaching students of high ability? Why does it seem straightforward to others that this is a pernicious belief that ought to be challenged?