Its not technique its Transformation

The measure of teaching is not technique it is transformation: That is -- the person who was the focus of effort becomes something else. Transformation -- where the individual alone and parents and other teachers -- is the measure of the power of the teacher.

Power is undoubtedly a necessary measure of the teacher. But there is another dimension that we seek in teaching. Goodness.

Goodness in the transformation, at least civility in the process of teaching.

What's the measure of goodness in the transformation? That the transformation is worthwhile to the individual in society. That the transformation is a worthy expression of self. That it gets the individual a job? Ok , family and society are happy in some abstract sense. Fewer workers on the dole (home or state), right?

That it is empowering, ennobling, good ? Or on the path to good. From the individual's point of view. That is what is sought.
Somehow this transformation feels good to the individual at the time and in retrospect.
----------

It is with this as a back drop that I say that our competency measures which ultimately license teachers should relate to their focus of approach and effectiveness of delivery of good transformations, one student at a time, that we should define and measusre competence.

Technique is but an hypothesis about what will be successful. Good transformations are the measure of success.
As to what per cent of transformations must be good before we define the teachers as effective? I'll leave that to another entry, perhaps by another person. But obviously, since learning is the hope, even with difficult-- even very difficiult -- students. Then we've got to say there better be transformations as the measure. Otherwise why call it a school with such an assignment. We'll call the process hypocritical and the institution a holding cell, jail or -- anything but a school.