Monday, August 06, 2012

By His Own Definition, This Guy Could Be A Teacher

He's Australia's education minister?  Really?
TEACHERS don't need to be smart or gifted as long as they are passionate, federal School Education Minister Peter Garrett says.
I hope his kids get the dumb, passionate teachers.

I don't even need to write about all the ways this guy is wrong. I just post this so that others see what a maroon he is.

Hat tip to Joanne Jacobs.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Passionate but not smart certainly worked for Robert Scott when he was competing with Roald Amundsen to get to the south pole first ...

In fact, I can't really think of any fields where smarts are more valuable than passion ...

:-)

-Mark Roulo

Anonymous said...

If you'd actually read the article, you'd be able to figure out that he didn't actually say that. You're getting all worked up over a paraphrase written by a journalist intended to get attention - and you fell for it.

Happy Elf Mom said...

Well, we've all had one or two teachers who are brilliant people but can't teach well.

But I suppose within the "acceptably smart enough to teach range," that quote is true.

I've been to public school in Australia in one of the more ritzy suburbs of Sydney. The teachers were overly strict and employed corporal punishment, but they knew their stuff.

Darren said...

Anonymous: I did actually read the article, and the paraphrase was close enough for government work.

"I don't think education should necessarily be the province of the particularly smart or gifted."

I'm not sure how else you could take this. But hey, if you feel better attacking me, have at it. I'll just pity you for having nothing better to do with your life.