Get real, man. The whole post is premised with "these are the first things you learn on the job when you try and innovate the classroom." I'll repeat myself again saying that any educator who actually is going to try and change parts of the protocols, procedures and practices for the better (rather than just say it can't be done every-time an idea crosses their path) are either going to learn the hard way and waste time, or take into account posts and experiences like this blog post lays out and not waste time trying what's been proven to fail.
Your argument, if it has any relevance to what I wrote, is that these teachers shouldn't innovate because they don't have experience teaching. Okay, well you can spend twenty years running a classroom in all the old ways you like, and you still won't have gained much valuable experience when it comes to new procedures, considering you haven't tried any. When it comes to innovating or experimenting, the most valuable experiences are those related to attempts at innovation and experimentation, so its quite obvious the opening moves and results to those attempts are invaluable to anyone trying to change things.
And yes, like it or not, people sharing their wisdom like in this blog post will make new teachers in general much wiser than the generation of teachers the author was in when they first started - that's the point of sharing knowledge graciously. Teachers, new or old, who have first hand experience or who take writing like this to heart absolutely are better equipped to innovate the classroom than those who have not. The experience only mantra is ironically enough antithetical to pedagogy in general.
> Your argument, if it has any relevance to what I wrote, is that these teachers shouldn't innovate because they don't have experience teaching.
Haha okay, if you want to read my post that way there’s not much anyone can do for you.
If you can’t understand why “visionaries trying to reform education need to read this entry level blog post, and having read it I will now do the exact thing it warns against” gets eyes rolling there isn’t a whole lot else to say. I get that TFA seemed really exciting and innovative to you. It isn’t. It’s a surface-level précis of things any practitioner knows. Which is fine! Because, once again, it’s written for laymen.
You seem to be veering. I don't even know what TFA is, and I certainly wasn't talking about it - get a grip man. Are you seriously trying to tell me that information about opening moves that don't work isn't going to be useful to new teachers? Get your act together.
Your argument, if it has any relevance to what I wrote, is that these teachers shouldn't innovate because they don't have experience teaching. Okay, well you can spend twenty years running a classroom in all the old ways you like, and you still won't have gained much valuable experience when it comes to new procedures, considering you haven't tried any. When it comes to innovating or experimenting, the most valuable experiences are those related to attempts at innovation and experimentation, so its quite obvious the opening moves and results to those attempts are invaluable to anyone trying to change things.
And yes, like it or not, people sharing their wisdom like in this blog post will make new teachers in general much wiser than the generation of teachers the author was in when they first started - that's the point of sharing knowledge graciously. Teachers, new or old, who have first hand experience or who take writing like this to heart absolutely are better equipped to innovate the classroom than those who have not. The experience only mantra is ironically enough antithetical to pedagogy in general.