While a more qualified teacher might know more new techniques and programs for teaching, I believe that at a certain point, teachers focus more on getting qualified than teaching the children. They are tired and focus on their work and tests for qualification more than grading papers, and identifying problems a child might, etc. I am not a teacher but a lot of my friends are and they say this is a major problem they have.

false. I don't care how much education that teacher has if a student doesn't want to learn, he/she won't. They won't listen to the teacher's lessons, and advise--they will NOT learn. If you take a student who wants to learn than that is true. So it could be yes and no.

False - - a student must develop an intrinsic motivation to want to learn and improve his/her own performance. A teacher may help a student develop a student's intrinsic motivation but it is not the teacher's responsibility to "make" the child want to learn. Further teacher qualifications for effective teachers has little to do with it, actually, in my opinion. Effective teachers are effective. And more qualifications for ineffective teachers makes even less sense to me. +5

True. It is like coaching sports. Assuming equal talent on the field, the better coach will usually win more games. Assuming equal talent, motivation, etc. in classrooms, a better teacher will produce better student performance. A classroom full of unmotivated sociopaths has a better chance of limited success with a good teacher, than with a poor teacher.

False! Just because they have more qualifications does not mean that they do well with the students. I have seen it too many times where they actually act like they cannot stand their students and are just there for their money. It has happened to my son.

False. The only thing that will make student performance improve is holding the student and his parents responsible for his/her learning.

&lt;<Buzzer>> Wrong answer! There are a variety of things that could lead to better student performance. (I assume THAT'S the word you meant?) "Proper" home-training of the student--for starters. If the student does NOT have respect for "authority", how will the teacher begin to teach? How about a teaching curriculum that is actually conducive to teaching? The "breeze-thru-school-subjects-then-force-students-to-do-the-work-at-home" approach to teaching, is failing miserably!!! And, the budget allocated for "operating" schools, particularly teachers' salaries and educational supplies, could stand a bit of a boost. Just a few things for consideration...

I would say that the statement is false. The statement doesn't take into account so many other factors that goes on in both the students' and the teachers' lives that contribute to either better or poorer performance in the classroom. Some of the issues even come from a district or state level. A student's home life, personal motivation, sense of responsibility and respect, and the potential that he/she believes that he/she has all plays a part in his/her performance. The same holds true for the teacher as well. Districts can dictate the pace at which teachers teach material. The district I worked in did this. The theory behind that is that those guidelines would provide the correct pace for the teacher to present material in order to get through everything they need to before the year was over. However, the pacing guide left very little (if any) time to reteach a subject that students were having trouble understanding. Student performance dropped because students who didn't understand a concept were left in the dust and told to move on. Later concepts that built on the one they couldn't grasp further brought down their performance. The quality of teaching that a teacher provides is important, but there are many other factors that play into this idea of "improved student performance."