> One time I heard someone praised as a good teacher. Not knowledgeable, but a good teacher. I objected that if someone is ignorant but a good teacher, does that mean they’re effective in conveying their ignorance? Wouldn’t that be a bad thing? No, all that mattered was that he was a good teacher.
I recently started volunteering with an organization that works to build CS programs in schools that don't have them[0]. The typical way that CS programs get started is a teacher of some other subject is given the CS curriculum and told to teach it. They typically don't know anything about CS, often have not taught a related subject (e.g. math), and yet they're expected to teach it effectively. Why? Because they are teachers. They are trained to teach, and the smart ones are smart /at that/. Note that for a new CS teacher, they typically use an existing curriculum developed by someone else (e.g. Code.org), so aside from the teacher's own internal biases, any ignorance comes from someone else.
I've always had respect for teachers as people who do something that try to build up other people, but seeing how a teacher goes from zero-to-teaching has opened my eyes to how and why great teachers are real multipliers.