The Expert vs. The Charmer: Who's the Better Teacher?

Call it veteran teacher’s intuition. I suspected that the reported rise in student behavioral issues was having a transformative impact on what schools were now prioritizing in their new teacher hires. 

So, for the purpose of testing this theory, I recently posted the following hypothetical question to high school principals on a social media group page:

“You have to choose between the following two teacher candidates for a required core course that includes a high-stakes exit exam devised by your state. Candidate A is extremely strong on content knowledge, skill modeling, and instructional methodology, but struggles with behavior management - basically a brilliant scholar who demonstrates and explains things well, but is likely to have some difficulties with the more – let’s just say – challenging students. Candidate B has a commanding classroom presence, natural charisma, and a unique ability to make authentic connections, but has significant deficiencies in terms of content expertise and delivery - a solid classroom manager who’s entertaining and engaging, but struggles with actual instruction. Which one would you hire?”  

Now, I readily concede that this poll has flaws. In addition to presenting an exaggerated either-or contrast, it has sampling and data collection issues that probably compromise the survey’s reliability.

It’s also worth noting that there are very few well-rounded, finished products coming out of even the best teacher education programs, and good administrators understand the need to  “coach up” new faculty in areas where they may be lacking following their initial hire.

Still, the survey results struck me as extremely revealing. 

In addition to several responders expressing outright shock that there would actually be two candidates for an open position during a time of widespread teacher shortages, Candidate B - by a final tally of 270-8 - was the overwhelming choice. 

What’s more, when I presented this question to several personal administrator acquaintances, the decision was unanimously also in favor of the style-over-substance, content knowledge lightweight. 

In the final analysis, almost nobody wanted to hire the expert in their subject area.  

“Sorry, brilliant science professor who was a budget cut casualty at the local university. But, for our high school Biology position, we’re going with the C average education major who reminds us of The Rock.”

An unlikely false binary? Perhaps. And, in fairness, several participants did stress that they use a “hire for attitude, train for skill” approach when assembling their faculty.

But while reasonable educators can have honest disagreements about whether it’s easier to professionally develop content expertise or connection capabilities, there seems to be little question as to which of those two skill sets is currently more highly valued.  

Indeed, most schools today - regardless of their unique populations, challenges, and teacher recruitment guidelines - are devoting far more time and resources to addressing the social and emotional health of students. 

So, stated bluntly, have academics become a secondary function of schooling, perhaps even a low-priority afterthought? 

Many educators rightly bristle at the all-too-common characterization of teachers basically being glorified babysitters. But is it any less professionally insulting to claim that simply caring about kids should be the foremost consideration - regardless of subject matter or grade level - when choosing faculty? 

Sure, some degree of daycare-style warehousing has always been part of our public education arrangement. But many teachers today seem to be getting hired and retained based primarily on their perceived ability to corral the most apathetic and unruly students through a system of compulsory schooling they don’t even want. 

Meanwhile, district mission statements make grand references to academic excellence and an unwavering focus on learning.

As a retired high school teacher who always believed that depth of knowledge and instructional acumen were foundational to the job, I absolutely understood that effective teaching also meant caring and connecting. My students knew I was serious about covering content, but we also often went off topic and just talked.

However, rather than being a means-to-an-end tool in promoting student achievement, the increasing emphasis on relationship-building so common in schools today is becoming the end in and of itself. Student well-being certainly matters, but often feels now like the overriding focus of education. 

There’s a popular education catchphrase that claims students don’t learn from teachers they don’t like. That’s probably debatable. But permit me to pose a question to those so reflexively inclined toward Candidate B. 

Do students learn - as in achieving satisfactory levels of measurable academic success and closing persistent achievement gaps - from teachers who were hired primarily for their proxy nurturing abilities by school leaders who understandably feel they often must prioritize student wellness and behavior management over actual academics? 

Caring about kids, and about truly educating the whole child, requires an honest answer.