Why is it wrong to say that "there are no students who can't teach, only teachers who can't teach"? I don't know when, educator Chen Heqin's famous saying that "there are no students who can't teach well, only teachers who can't teach well" seems to be an unbreakable truth. The author thinks that the reason why Chen Heqin said this is to emphasize the responsibility and belief of educators to children. It is because of this responsibility and belief that educators are strict with themselves, and it is not easy to lose confidence and give up on any student. In fact, this sentence is just that educators are strict with themselves, not an evaluation standard of education. Just like Mr. Ji Xianlin, a master of Chinese studies, he disapproves of people calling him "a master of Chinese studies" or "an academic model". He thinks he is not even a "little teacher". He thinks he hasn't done enough. In fact, this is the master's modesty. We admire Ji Lao's personality charm, academic skill and academic attitude. But can we use Ji Lao's own standards to measure and demand others and criticize others? Ji Lao calls himself a "little teacher", but how many people deserve the name of "master"? Many things have a certain background, and nothing is absolute. Chen Heqin said that "there are no students who can't teach well, only teachers who can't teach well". If absolute, as a creed, or even become a blatant reason for anyone to accuse the teacher, it is really ridiculous, and our teacher is really wronged. Imagine, how many people have a higher education level than Kong? But Confucius also lamented that "rotten wood can't be carved, and the wall of dirt can't be polluted." It is said that there are 3,000 disciples of Confucius, but there are only 70 sages and many unscrupulous people. What about us? I don't know if those who criticize teachers with "there are no students who can't teach well, only teachers who can't teach well" have ulterior motives or other intentions. I don't believe that one day they will have such great ability to teach all kinds of people well. Here, the author does not exempt educators from the responsibility of poorly educated students. The author does not deny that the same students and different teachers often get different results and receive different results. There are indeed some teachers who can't teach. They are not dedicated, have professional ethics problems and have low professional standards, but we can't blame other teachers for their abilities and standards. What's more, we can't blame the problems existing in students on the teacher's "inability to teach". From the perspective of teachers' personal development, "can't teach" and "can teach" are also relative, and it is a long process of self-denial from "can't teach" to "can teach". In this sense, some teachers will not teach. So, is there really a "student who can't teach well"? I don't deny that some masters have the ability to teach some students that ordinary people can't teach well. Didn't Miss Sullivan turn Helen, who was blind and deaf, into a famous writer and educator? The mother of Edison, the great inventor, was able to cultivate Edison, who was regarded as an "imbecile" by the school, into a great musical instrument. Zhou Zhou is a mentally retarded person, and his father trained him as a conductor. Aren't these successful cases a powerful proof that there are no students who can't teach well? But if we generalize from this, I am afraid it will be irregular. The author believes that these cases are only accidental and extreme, and they are not universal. We call on people not to infinitely amplify the role of some arguments, let alone generalize, and regard a few accidents as universal truths that are "universally applicable". There are many factors that affect people's growth, and students' personal potential varies widely. It is unrealistic for each of our teachers to become a master (if everyone becomes an educator, then the educator is worthless, and there is actually no educator). At present, are we allowed to undertake the task of educating one or two students like Sullivan? If not, how can we take care of dozens of students with different personalities in all aspects? Unless you are the Monkey King. Besides, after ten years of school education, it is difficult to compete with one or two pornographic videos. Don't you know that some respectable "public servants" practice all their lives and often fall at the feet of pink pomegranate skirt in an instant? What about teenagers in the critical period of youth? In addition, the formation and growth of a person's personality are influenced by various factors, and it cannot be decided by education alone. Besides, under the current system, what is education if you meet unreasonable students or parents, or arrogant officials and wealthy businessmen? When education meets these people, it looks so pale and powerless. Have you noticed that teachers often encounter unfortunate cases? No matter how stubborn students are (especially in compulsory education), as long as there is a contradiction with teachers and schools, it must be the fault of teachers and schools. In education, they have to condescend to bear all the "responsibilities" that they should not bear. Anyone can take it out on education and make irresponsible remarks about teachers. Why is education so fragile and timid? Whose fault is this? "There are no students who can't teach well, only teachers who can't teach well" is not a big problem in itself, but it can't be used to criticize teachers. Teachers should not be accused of "not being able to teach" just because students have problems. Are all the problems of students really caused by teachers? In addition, some people's habits are not formed overnight, and correction is also true. "Old habits die hard" is the same as "a leopard cannot change his spots, but a leopard cannot change his spots". So, how can we expect education to save everyone? Even if a student is mentally retarded, or has a distorted personality, inner obstacles and different thinking from ordinary people, you should teach him well, otherwise, you are a "teacher who can't teach". What logic is this? Besides, "there are no students who can't teach well, only teachers who can't teach well." What are the criteria for teaching well and not teaching well? If every student can make progress and gain something through education (and the degree of progress and the size of gain are uncertain), this is "teaching well" in a broad sense. I don't deny that this standard is too easy to achieve, and I believe all teachers can meet the requirement of "teaching well". If you can't give it, this sentence is equivalent to not saying it. Can I paraphrase: "There are no teachers who can't teach, only the society that can't serve the sacred cause", "There are no teachers who can't teach, only parents who can't raise" and "There are no teachers who can't teach, only leaders who can't mobilize the enthusiasm of teachers". Of course, the phrase "there are no students who can't teach well" is reasonable in a sense. To some extent, it also embodies the basic concept of quality education, that is, it emphasizes that everything is student-oriented. Teachers are required not to give up any students, fully care for students, understand students, respect students, truly be student-oriented, fully reflect students' main role, fully pay attention to students' individual differences, fully respect students' potential, better teach students in accordance with their aptitude, and make every student improve and progress in different aspects. In short, look at the problem and do things absolutely. Under the guidance of certain thoughts and theories, specific problems should be analyzed and treated concretely. We can't treat what is reasonable in a particular context as an eternal truth and abuse it everywhere. In a word, "there are no students who can't teach well, only teachers who can't teach well." As our teacher, we can encourage ourselves and say to ourselves, yes; Others, especially some irresponsible people, make irresponsible remarks about the teacher. We should resolutely and bravely say, "No!" "