Cool Cherry Cream

I've been doing a lot of reflecting on my high school teachers lately, since I've realized that so many at my school are totally lame. And I mean really lame. I took a look at every teacher I've had, trying to determine who was the best (or who, at least, wasn't terrible). Turns out there are actually a few who were not only adequate, but possibly even… good. But, keep in mind, I did say few.

Further examination showed me exactly four teachers who I would say with some certainty were good teachers. There are another three teachers who I would like include in this grouping, but I decided not to count the "cool" teachers, as their coolness may have overshadowed their flaws. Now, I know, I know. Teachers are people too and everyone has flaws. But these are some pretty damn major flaws in the people we are entrusting to educate our children!

Studies (okay, a study) have shown that out of thirty teachers, just over one third of them would be classified as "clueless" and/or utterly disorganized. These teachers generally did not know their subject well and/or did not have clear or thought-out lesson plans. Of those eleven, six were new teachers and you may wish to discount them (of those six teachers, four did not return for another year. The one that did would be classified as only slightly clueless, and the remaining teacher is still in their first year). Another grouping of six of those eleven are classified as Arts/Languages teachers, while the remaining five teach within the subject of Math/Science. Approximately 63% of these teachers are female.

[Arts/Languages includes: Dramatic Arts, English, Family Studies, Geography, History, Languages, Music, Physical Education, Visual Arts
There were 18 A/L teachers in this study (60% of total)
There were 8 males and 10 females]

[Math/Science includes: Business, Computers, Mathematics, Technology, Science
There were 12 M/S teachers in this study (40% of total)
There were 4 males and 8 females]

Teachers who were not clueless generally fell into the category that we shall call "mothers" — that is, those who treated their students like grade school children to an unnecessary extent. Of the 30 teachers, 5 fell into this category, with only 1 overlapping into the "clueless" category as well. All of the teachers had been staff members since before I had been in their class, and 4 of the 5 are females. In terms of subject, the ratio is 3:2 in favor of Math/Science teachers.

The remaining teachers will generally fall into one of two other categories, the first being "absentees". Three teachers fall into this category and all 3 are Arts/Languages teachers. While all teachers in the study were often in the school, these three were not necessarily always in the classroom in order to pursue more important ventures. The ratio for this grouping is 2:1 in favor of female teachers.

The final category may seem childish, but the criteria for entry into this grouping was strict. For lack of a better name, the final category is "meanies". Once again, 3 teachers fall into this category, with 1 overlapping into the "clueless" category, and once again, the ratio is 2:1 in favor of females. To gain entry into this category, the teachers were excessively intolerable of student behaviour — behaviour that was much the same in any other class where the teachers handled the situation much better. Two were Arts/Languages teachers and the other a Math/Science teacher.

Many teachers share other characteristics as well; many are excessively opinionated, emotional, and hypocritical. While the first two characteristics are by no means always negative, the amounts exhibited by some teachers goes much too far. There are three teachers unaccounted for by the four broad categories. Two could be placed into emotional, the other, I suppose, forgettable.

I've neglected to mention names or specific subjects taught by these teachers. With the good teachers I feel the situation is different, and so I shall be more specific. Mr. M, an English teacher; Mr. S, a history teacher; and Ms. K, a computer teacher were the three "cool" teachers referred to in the beginning. Just like anyone, they had flaws, but none, in my opinion, so overpowering as most of the others. To avoid bias however, I left them out of the study.

The four teachers who are not necessarily considered "cool" and who I believe do not fall into the above categories are: Ms. L, an English teacher; Ms. S, a gym teacher; Mr. P, a math teacher; and the teacher I would choose as the best teacher, Ms. M, my grade 10 math teacher.

I don't remember much about most of my teachers. I remember how I felt about them, and with Ms. M, I remember that when her class was over, I was relived. It was tough, for sure. I don't think a lot of people like her, certainly at the time I know people in her class didn't, but that was mainly because the course was difficult. We'd never heard of parabolas before. But she introduced us to Mr. Parabola, and we learned. I can't speak for everyone else, but I can speak for myself. I distinctly remembering thinking "yeah, that class was tough, but I got it. She taught it well". So thanks for that, Ms. M.

Raw data

This study should be cited as follows:

MLA

Monxuaf, J.. "A Study of HP Teachers." Cool Cherry Cream. 22 May. 2008.
<http://www.coolcherrycream.com/2008/05/22/a-study-of-hp-teachers/>.

APA

Monxuaf, J.. (2008, May 22). A study of HP teachers. Cool Cherry Cream. Retrieved [today's date] on the World Wide Web:
<http://www.coolcherrycream.com/2008/05/22/a-study-of-hp-teachers/>