Why John Wooden Is Wrong When He Says "You haven't taught until they have learned

Is learning the true measure of teaching? We see quotes like this all the time:

“You haven’t taught until they have learned.” —John Wooden

It sounds great—obviously true—but let's think for a minute:

Should we evaluate teachers based on whether their students learn?

Well...what are some reasons students might not learn?  They're absent They didn't pay attention They didn't put forth any effort

We want teachers to do everything in their power to maximize learning...

...but not everything is in their power!

Teachers can strive to get students to pay attention, sure. But they can't teach students who are absent.

They can call parents, but they can't make parents unblock their number or answer the phone.

And here's the unintended consequence: When we demand that teachers do things they can't actually do, distortions emerge.

Good judgment gives way to fear.

Good practice gives way to desperate measures.

And this happens not just in classrooms, but across whole schools and districts.

This is why some kids are spending 4+ hours a day on Chromebooks.

Not because anyone really thinks it's a good idea...but because we're holding people accountable for things they can't actually do.

So let's step back and focus on what we can control.

Let's hold people accountable for good practice. For sound judgment.

Results should follow...and if they don't: We can treat it as a system failure rather than a personal failure We can carefully try something else, and monitor the results We can avoid blaming people for factors beyond their control

Of course, that brings us to the thorny issue of evaluation rubrics.

Danielson is notorious for including factors beyond the teacher's control, especially in Domains 2 and 3—those we directly observe.

I adore Charlotte Danielson and admire her work deeply, but we've got to talk about this issue...

Sure, Domain 1—Planning & Preparation—is full of factors under the teacher's control (assuming an appropriate degree of professional autonomy), like:

"The teacher’s knowledge of resources for classroom use and for extending one’s professional skill is extensive..."

No problem.

But look in Domain 2—this is 2a, Level 4:

Classroom interactions between the teacher and students and among students are highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth, caring, and sensitivity to students as individuals.

Students exhibit respect for the teacher and contribute to high levels of civility among all members of the class. The net result is an environment where all students feel valued and are comfortable taking intellectual risks.

That's not a reality the best teacher in the world can guarantee. It depends on the students, their families, and the school environment.

Teachers can act in a manner worthy of students' respect, sure...

...but they can't actually make students treat them with respect.

In fact, in many school environments, teachers are forced to tolerate high levels of disrespect from students. That's not a teacher problem.

So how should we think about this issue of responsibility? Some great quotes from several giants in our field: 

So I think it's worth focusing on the teacher's instructional purpose and professional judgement—not just their outcomes.