Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results

One thing that's true of the Mr K's out there is that they define their success entirely in terms of the success of _all_ their students. While a help-you-get-creative teacher will allow you fail because you "want" to (who really does?), a teacher who delivers tough love would make sure you succeed. In this permissive era where parents allow their kids to while away time in front of televisions and computer doing basically nothing, it's only great if teachers could act _in loco parentis_ and instruct not only in science and math but also in discipline and self-control

> The implications in this article that strict = effective are flat-out stupid.

Perhaps you're right. But what about honest = effective. How often do teachers change a grade because parents call in, or because the student complains? Too often. Whether it's from parents or the institution, there are a lot of outside factors that pressure teachers to give good grades even when they are not deserved.

No matter which way you put it, getting a bad grade always hurts, especially when good grades are being given in other classes. I think that's one of the reasons that teachers who are "tougher" are looked down upon. People think they're mean, but sometimes they're just being honest and want you to succeed so much that they wouldn't dare give you a grade that doesn't reflect your actual progress. For the same reason, teachers don't want to have this label, so they resort to being "easier" and less honest.

This certainly happens at the high school and middle school level, but recent news has looked at grading practices at Harvard. There was a grader who admitted to giving out As that were undeserved, and although I couldn't find that article this one talks about how A is the most frequently given grade at Harvard (while A- is the median) [1].

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04/harvard-grade-infla...

I think that it depends on what exactly are you tough about. You can have teacher that is strict and tough and happen to insist on less important things.

Made up example would be math teacher assigning two hours a day of exercises and worksheets on simple equations, while other teachers already moved on and successfully teach "difficult" equations.

Made up over the top example would be teacher that checks your notebook every other day whether it is nice, organized and colored. He would assign three hours of work of cutting and pasting and coloring and what not every day and make you rework historical diorama five times.

However, that teacher could still miss that you have no idea what happened during historical period he is teaching and do not remember single name or date.

This is a Malcolm Gladwell-esque article/book in the worst sense; a mismatch of famous studies (I believe I've read about all of them before; many have shown up in HN) that are used or abused to drive a narrative or idea of something that sounds plausible. Too long to comment on all the mistakes she's making.

> Yes. The question is how do you encourage curiosity and creativity in kids?

I'm working on this now, and should be ready to talk more openly soon. More useful data than test scores can be measured in classroom, and I'm currently experimenting with ways of visualising mood and personalities in classrooms. It makes it much easier for teachers to know how much energy/encouragement they need to provide (or calm the class down, if necessary). It's exciting stuff and it's starting to come together nicely.

> "I can't thank you enough for coming into my life." He's proud of his students and we're proud of him too.

I've had two teachers like this personally, one was a bit gruff and was more on the 'strict' side of the continuum. He brought history to life for thousands of students at my school. The other was so passionate about teaching that he would bounce around the class like a big kid when he taught.

The things they had in common was passion and a willingness to demonstrate how hard they would work for their students. I would say that your teacher would also have displayed these qualities.

> If you agree, can we just return to common sense?

My point was that the article tried to twist observations that are more or less common sense to further an argument that harsh teachers are effective. There's not always a lot of value in simply stating common sense. Finding ways to apply it is a different thing.

On a side note, I've only brushed the surface of economics (particularly from a psychology point of view) and I've found it anything but common sense, or even logical for that matter.