- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just curious… Has anyone here been involved with any training from their stake about the new Teacher Council Meetings being rolled out? What is your take? For those who are not aware what the format of these meetings are, check out this link for a brief definition:
https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-in-the-saviors-way/teacher-council-meetings?lang=eng I am a counselor in the Sunday School presidency of my ward and the stake had a training meeting on it a couple weeks ago that I attended and felt pretty good about. Most of the audience there were Bishopric members with just a smattering of Sunday School presidency members from the wards. The stake presidency was there and there was discussion about how to teach better and build more meaningful bonds with class members. It did not strike me as the old “Teaching, no better calling” training either. I made comments like how important it is to allow people to give the non-Sunday School answers to questions without getting worked up among a few other things.
I am cautiously optimistic about what the Church is doing here and how the timing of all of this is unfolding. I mean, the essays are now readily available on the LDS library that virtually every attending adult in my ward has on their phone. That seems like step one. Now, they are introducing these meetings which virtually ALL teachers will attend at whatever time the ward can arrange during the three hour block – they are not some weekday meeting, so I am confident they will be attended. That seems like step two.
The final step seems to involve people like me and many in this group who have chosen to be involved in Church. We have a sincere interest in bringing about positive change, I’ll say is related to “modernization”, in spite of the challenges we may face trying to encourage the change. The role we could play in meetings like this is to help the orthodox teachers loosen up a little. By sharing our experiences in thoughtful ways, including our learning of the essays and other things we can broaden the thinking of members and help them become more accepting. Thoughts?
We had our first discussion about it in stake council recently. I had looked at the online stuff previously. I too am cautiously optimistic. I think the concept is great (not perfect) but I worry about the implementation because it’s going to be done by people with varying levels of experience and commitment. Like all change, some will resist simply because it’s the way they are. I have been “called” to facilitate these discussions. I haven’t held one yet. I am optimistic about them. 80% of our experience at church is involved in teaching and learning. Yet few if any resources are ever committed to improving the quality of teaching. This has been a bee in my bonnet for years and years, as a recipient of often ill-prepared, repetitive teaching in the lecture and discussion format we use every single Sunday. I now sit in regular meetings disengaged, reading a kindle or something on my phone.
I used to be a Teacher Improvement Coordinator, and it was only marginally successful Many people don’t want to improve as teachers — many are teaching out of a sense of duty. I didn’t even feel welcome when I would go to their classes (asking if it was OK in advance) to give them feedback on their teaching. I had one teacher who started out, gave me the manual, and left me to teach the class!
When I would hold teacher improvement meetings quarterly, people who were not currently teachers would come — they were passionate about teaching and wanted to improve, but no one currently in teaching positions would even come to the meetings, held during the week.
This new model is much better. First, people don’t have to make a trip during the week. Second, there is a facilitator, but the discussion is driven by the teachers who attend. There are topics to discuss, but I believe that, as a facilitator, I will let the people who attend drive the agenda of the meeting. New teachers are supposed to go through orientation as well.
Although I like the concept, I have two concerns:
a) Primary teachers there. It is a huge burden to get the primary teachers covered with substitutes when they leave their classes to meet in their assigned block. Further, if you mix them in with youth or adult teachers, it makes for a less focused meeting. The issues of teaching children, youth and adults are often very different. Further, I’ve heard no evidence that Inservice Training for Primary teachers is going away, so there is a bit of duplication there.
b) HP/RS/Aaronic Priesthood/YM teachers all meet during Sunday School. This again, mixes teachers of various age-groups which makes for less meaningful discussion focused on issues that face each age group. The manual DOES say that you can hold a separate meeting for age-focused discussion, and I think this is the way to go.
I will learn more as I do it, but I think it’s a step in the right direction. I would like to see other initiatives like an “ask a teacher” discussion forum on LDS.org where you can get advice from seasoned teachers, perhaps a self-study course online for people who want it.
I really like the approach and am cautiously optimistic – especially since we have a good Stake Sunday School President. Old Timer wrote:I really like the approach and am cautiously optimistic – especially since we have a good Stake Sunday School President.
Overall, I think its’ a good starting point for a volunteer teaching organization to start learning about how to improve teaching excellence.
SilentDawning wrote:Old Timer wrote:I really like the approach and am cautiously optimistic – especially since we have a good Stake Sunday School President.
Overall, I think its’ a good starting point for a volunteer teaching organization to start learning about how to improve teaching excellence.
I agree. The problem (and what brings on the cautiousness of my optimism) is that I’m not sure most members recognize what teaching excellence is. I am a trained/certified teacher. I’m not saying that to boast, but I can recognize good and bad teaching. As pointed out here, most of what passes for instruction at church is poor. (FWIW, I think most university professors also don’t have a clue how to teach.) There are exceptions. I think most people at church teach the way they do because 1. they have seen others do this their whole (church) lives and think that’s the way it’s supposed to work and 2. they have never been trained how to do it properly. I think these councils are an opportunity to train, and I think the discussion topics outlined in the program are good. But, if you don’t have people like SD in the mix it’s a bit of the blind leading the blind. How can bad teachers or those who just don’t know any better teach each other to teach? That part just doesn’t make sense.
I do remain optimistic, however. We also have a good stake SS presidency, and in our other stake leaders are also supposed to take part in the discussions, and there are some good teachers on the high council. I do worry about my own ward, our SS president is a warm body who is only there about half the time and his one counselor has dementia (seriously). I’m hoping for a change there, but our ward also tends to be very slow at such things.
DarkJedi wrote:I agree. The problem (and what brings on the cautiousness of my optimism) is that I’m not sure most members recognize what teaching excellence is. I am a trained/certified teacher. I’m not saying that to boast, but I can recognize good and bad teaching. As pointed out here, most of what passes for instruction at church is poor.
I agree. It’s also different though, teaching at church — a church teacher not only makes the class more knowledgeable and smarter (sometimes by his own lecture/discussion, sometimes by other means), there is a spiritual boosting/motivational component that you don’t have to effect in the educational system. That is a dimension you don’t see in secular teaching.
I have to confess, I get frustrated when I have talks about how “anyone can teach”. “Whom he calls, he qualifies”. I recognize the need to bolster the confidence of people, particularly in a volunteer organization. But statements like this seem to me to perpetuate the kind of teaching I often see at church, which I find very repetitive, often mechanistic, and boring. people come into the position with little or no training and are expected to hold everyone’ interest. They are not qualified, many are not good — what they need are resources to help them become better, as well as the desire to improve.
Quote:(FWIW, I think most university professors also don’t have a clue how to teach.)
Not sure on this one. I have met some who can’t do it well. Often it is because they are arrogant, or dismissive of their students due to their lack of knowledge. I found this to be true at the university I attended for one of my graduate experiences.
On the other hand, those of us who have made it our life to teach at a purely teaching university, tend to get so much practice, we SHOULD be good. The school I’m at now, every single person is good. If the students aren’t happy, it’s normally because they are upset with the finance office, the registrar etcetera….The new teachers, like visiting professors and adjuncts — they often have little experience and can engender complaints, but this can be mitigated through mentoring.
As it used to say in the Teacher Improvement Manual, the improvement coordinator should be an experienced teacher. I think that if there isn’t one a the Ward level (even within the new Teaching the Savior’s Way program) having a few at the Stake level would really improve the quality of teaching.
Quote:How can bad teachers or those who just don’t know any better teach each other to teach? That part just doesn’t make sense.
That is why it’s important to bring on mentors and Teacher Council Facilitators who are professionals. I will admit — I don’t feel I have a clue about how to teach younger primary classes. I plan to have an experienced teacher of elementary school kids or Early Childhood Education to help me when it is time to help people who teach that group.
Quote:I do remain optimistic, however. We also have a good stake SS presidency, and in our other stake leaders are also supposed to take part in the discussions, and there are some good teachers on the high council. I do worry about my own ward, our SS president is a warm body who is only there about half the time and his one counselor has dementia (seriously). I’m hoping for a change there, but our ward also tends to be very slow at such things.
So do I. I feel that for an “inspired organization” the outright neglect of the teaching quality has been a huge thorn in my side. I am glad they are doing something, and I hope to learn from this experience about how to teach volunteer teachers to be excellent.
If you were to define “excellence” in Sunday, church teaching, how would you define it? What are the outcomes?
SilentDawning wrote:If you were to define “excellence” in Sunday, church teaching, how would you define it? What are the outcomes?
Great question. I agree there are differences in teaching in a church setting and teaching in an academic system, but there are also similarities. I’d love the definition of excellence in teaching to be a discussion topic in one of the councils (I don’t recall if something like that is actually on the suggested list).
Just off the top of my head, I’d say the best teachers I have seen at church engage their group by encouraging discussion and asking for more than the standard Sunday School answers; express belief in the concepts they are teaching in some way (or testify, but not necessarily in the “I know…is true….” way; demonstrate that they have prepared and have other information at their disposal; don’t rely on lecture as the primary means of teaching (this can be different outside church); demonstrate some connection/concern/love for those present; and validate the contributions of each class member.
I’d really like to hear how others see excellence in teaching at church.
If you focus on outcomes, here they are from the manual: Quote:“The goal of every gospel teacher—every parent, every formally called teacher, every
home teacher and visiting teacher, and every follower of Christ—is to teach the pure
doctrine of the gospel, by the Spirit, in order to help God’s children build their faith in
the Savior and become more like Him”
So, truly excellent teachers
a) teach pure doctrine of the gospel
b) teach by the Spirit
c) build faith in the Savior
d) help class participants become more like Him.
What do you think they mean by “pure doctrine”? This is one that gets me, because I like to pull in secular ideas from all the learning and study I have done these last three decades. They are normally practical suggestions on how to achieve success in a variety of situations (character development etcetera). My take is to keep on doing what I’ve been doing, because these practical suggestions from secular literature do help people meet criterion (d) about becoming more like him.
I look forward to seeing the fruits of this change. I know that our SS presidency has held several training courses using
Teaching, No Greater Call. It was my experience that the course didn’t make any difference, the classes remained the same even after the instruction. That’s really what you’re up against, old habits. Be patient, diligent, and consistent with the new training. Teaching takes practice. The ship isn’t going to turn by doing a brief training once every other year. Ask your teachers questions then listen, even if they just want to vent about how much they hate having a teaching calling.
As for me, I’d rather see a discussion facilitator than a teacher any day. That’s easier said than done. It likely requires training the facilitator and the class members as well. A facilitator in training is going to have a strong pull to go back to the well worn roads of LDS lesson teaching once they hit the expected wall of silence that most of the classes that I’ve attended have become.
Good luck.
That old principle — what you nuture is what grows. Whatever the organization invests in, is what excels. So, let’s compare tithing, to teaching.
For tithing, we attach full tithing to TR worthiness. We have an annual accounting of our tithing in tithing settlement. Many, many talks on it throughout the year. We grant funds for new buildings on tithing-worthiness. We have systems that keep track of tithing. All this means we have made it a priority to collect tithing.
For teaching, what is there? We had a Teaching the Gospel course that was offered sporadically, and a Sunday SChool presidency that normally is staffed with some of the least committed members in the Ward. Rarely do you see them function (at least, in my 30 + years in the church). We tried the Teacher Improvement Coordinator years and years ago, but that fizzled. We do not really invest in teaching excellence.
I am pleased they are trying this concept, which seems to hold promise. But there is so much more than can be done, if only the leaders at the top would place the effort on it like they do on other features of our religion.
I understand your point, SD, and agree completely in theory. However, with the nature of ward, stake, and branch callings, the Church has a revolving door of teachers – and it’s not like leaders can release anyone who isn’t highly effective as a wonderful teacher. Pouring large capital into teacher training would be a never-ending pit of despair in many units, where some of the best natural teachers have to serve in other ways.
I applaud any serious effort to improve teaching and believe it would help solve a lot of the issues we have during our meetings, but reality dictates we use the available human resources in each congregation – and, in most units, there aren’t enough people who are capable of excellent teaching who can remain in teaching callings for long periods of time. Therefore, all organizational efforts are going to be limited by the human resources available at any given time. It simply is the nature of the organizational beast and the effort to limit class sizes in order to maximize participation – which is a noble goal, especially in wards with large Primary and Youth programs, even if it fails often due to inadequate instruction.
Old Timer wrote:I understand your point, SD, and agree completely in theory.
However, with the nature of ward, stake, and branch callings, the Church has a revolving door of teachers – and it’s not like leaders can release anyone who isn’t highly effective as a wonderful teacher. Pouring large capital into teacher training would be a never-ending pit of despair in many units, where some of the best natural teachers have to serve in other ways.
I applaud any serious effort to improve teaching and believe it would help solve a lot of the issues we have during our meetings, but reality dictates we use the available human resources in each congregation – and, in most units, there aren’t enough people who are capable of excellent teaching who can remain in teaching callings for long periods of time. Therefore, all organizational efforts are going to be limited by the human resources available at any given time. It simply is the nature of the organizational beast and the effort to limit class sizes in order to maximize participation – which is a noble goal, especially in wards with large Primary and Youth programs, even if it fails often due to inadequate instruction.
See, here is where I disagree. In very large, well staffed Wards and Stakes, you often have a lot of ex-Bishops, SP members, and talented people. Often it’s hard to find callings for even average people. In these cases, you have an opportunity to put people in teaching positions and leave them there (if they are willing) so they can grow and progress. You could even team teach and have experienced people mentor others as they split the class between themselves, or alternate weeks.
I have served in certain callings for as much as 3 years, repeatedly. This is possible in large, well staffed Wards. This is a great opportunity to give people a chance to teach regularly and grow in their abilities to teach.
In smaller Wards, where most of the really talented people are already serving in leadership, there are opportunities to rely on talented people in stake callings to improve the experience in the Ward. I have often wished we had itinerant teachers called by the Stake who come into Wards now and then to teach and speak in Sacrament — much like High Councilors do. They model good teaching and speaking and uplift the members. They also also simply provide the members with a break from their routine.
Smaller Wards that have no professional or natively talented teachers could rely on Stake teaching mentors and orienters. These Stake Mentors travel around the stake and hold orientation or even one on one mentoring with new teachers when the Ward lacks sufficient talent or resources to do so. This could be for multiple Wards that are short on talented people, or don’t have professional teachers who can provide a solid mentoring experience. Rather than have the Stake weakening the operations of Wards by taking their best people for Stake callings, invest in the day to day operations by helping multiple Wards simultaneously that are short staffed.
You could also implement some kind of Teaching Medallion (like a YW’s medallion) to encourage people to meet certain criteria to achieve the medallion. It is voluntary, not required, but something a person can pursue if they want. Many people cite church teaching experience when applying for jobs and wanting to get into education career paths — this would be a great thing to put on a resume, heightening motivation (co-missioning).
With online resources, and again, a Stake or Ward person who helps people progress toward the achievement of the medallion. I hesitate to call it an Award (like the Duty to God Award), but some formal outcome for progressing through various levels of training in gospel teaching. We had one such approach in my mission.
The fault I see in your reasoning, Curt, is that your counterpoint seems a bit like hand-wringing. Sure there are obstacles, just like getting members to pay enough tithing was a problem before they attached tithing to the recommend status.
But organizations that prioritize solving certain problems, and put resources into them (and it doesn’t have to be massive financial resources either), solve their problems eventually through learning. And we have not learned in a systematic way in the LDS church on this quality of teaching issue the LDS experience over the last 30 years. We had a blip with the teacher improvement coordinator, and some increases in the use of technology, but that’s it.
Although I’m happy with the new program (even if I thought it was terrible, I’d be happy they are at least trying and learning from it), I think we barely getting started here. There is so much more we could have done over the 30 years given how much of our Mormon experience is in classes. The people at the top have not prioritized it like they have other parts of our religion.
I honestly believe we can draw a parallel here between Mcdonalds and the LDS Schurch. McDonalds is in the business of hamburgers. The church is in the business of leading others to Christ. If you show up at a McDonalds and the menu is the same, boring menu, the hamburgers are not good quality, people don’t come back. In our church, when the experience is boring, repetitive, one-way communication, teachers are not inspiring, there is no spirit there, people don’t want to come. When the “product” is good, you not only keep your attendees without complaint, you attract more new ones. I can’t tell you how hard it is to get certain youth to church because their teachers are boring. But if you throw a good teacher in there, I know from watching good teachers that these youth not only start coming, they start bringing all their friends.
Heck, I remember an Ensign article years ago called “How to Make Sacrament Meeting Interesting” (for attendees, not speakers). The premise of the article was that Sacrament meeting can be boring. And the church’s approach is to try to condition the attitudes of the bored members who sit there listening. The experience or teaching, speaking and learning needs a massive shot in the arm. And simply telling the membership its their fault if we’re bored is not the solution.
I would feel prouder to bring non-members to church if I knew they were going to get a good experience. How many times have you heard missionaries and members say they are not willing to bring non-mems to Testimony meetings?
Regarding the revolving door — even if you can’t provide a stable teaching complement, people go in and out of teaching assignments throughout their whole life — so even 3 months in a teaching position, complemented with good training and mentoring can provide skills and resources people can use the next time they are in a teaching situation. Or if they are called upon to teach at the last minute, or even on home teaching or in priesthood meetings where they lead.
I am not harping on this because I’m a teacher myself, and I hope this doesn’t come off as arrogant. I also mean no disrespect to the teachers who give their best. As W. Edwards Demings (father of the quality movement said), 80% of the quality problems are with the system. So I don’t fault them.
And If teaching and learning represented only 5% of the experience of a Mormon, I probably wouldn’t be making this post. But I still remember the incredible boredom I have faced over the years, well before I started my career as a teacher. And first hand, there is the hard time I’ve had getting my own son to church because the Sunday experience is simply not rewarding and fulfilling.
I am glad I am part of this initiative. But I disagree that we have to accept mediocrity because we are a revolving door of volunteers. AS the manuals say ALL positions involve some form of teaching, from home teachers, to priesthood leaders, etcetera.
I actually agree with everything you just wrote, SD – except that my comment constitutes hand-wringing. What I said is that many units will never solve the issue of excellent teaching, but I applaud every attempt to address the issue in a solid educational way. I also am a teacher by nature and training, and I see this issue as one of the weaknesses of the Church – so we don’t disagree fundamentally about it. It’s very, very different than tithing, however – since emphasizing tithing requires almost no human capital, other than a talk and lesson now and then.
SilentDawning wrote:I am glad I am part of this initiative. But I disagree that we have to accept mediocrity because we are a revolving door of volunteers. AS the manuals say ALL positions involve some form of teaching, from home teachers, to priesthood leaders, etcetera.
I’m glad you’re a pert of it too, SD. Knowing you as well as I do (which is only on this forum), I just hope you’re not setting yourself up for more disappointment and disillusionment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.