Are teachers’ continuing education and national training useful?

Applying a sentence from the evaluation of "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms", it can be said that: 30% useful, 70% useless?!

The state’s continuing education and national training for teachers is mainly to promote the updating of teachers’ knowledge, keep up with the pace of the times, and learn advanced educational and teaching concepts and methods to improve the level of education and teaching. The starting point is very good. One part is useful for gaining new knowledge, two parts is useful for changing ideas, and three parts is useful for learning methods. It can be said that continuing education and national training can give hard-working teachers on the front line a change of fresh air and broaden their educational horizons. For example, in the big data computer training last year, the teachers learned independently, flexibly controlled their time, and took exams while learning. The teachers were very fruitful.

But why do most teachers feel disgusted with normalized teacher training? There's no need for formality at all. As a work with hard targets, training is often just a formality. It is common for every training to be carried out with great fanfare, posting slogans and shouting slogans, followed by the "opening ceremony", leaders' speeches, and taking photos. In order to make up for the training hours, a lot of documents were drafted and a lot of forms were filled out. Two points doesn't cut it across the board.

It stands to reason that training has various contents, including teacher ethics training, class teacher training, teaching training, etc. The training objects should also be different. However, in order to complete the training tasks, all employees are often required to participate. Regardless of age or target, it becomes a pot of porridge. There's no point in hiring an expert. Youdao is a "foreign monk who chants sutras". Every year, the training becomes a "expert" exhibition. Some come from areas with developed education, and some come from universities. They have profound theories and a wide range of topics, but they are far away from the actual teaching.

There is no need to listen to the official talk for four points. In some schools, training has become a training session for leaders, from senior to middle levels, which is nothing more than reciting the responsibilities of each department. Five points is useless for vacation. Winter and summer vacations are originally a time for teachers to rest and adjust, but they have to train for three or four days before each holiday or the start of school. The teachers' already exhausted bodies and minds feel horrified and miserable when they hear "training".

Six points is useless and too rigid. The training format, in addition to meetings, consists of listening to reports and lectures, which makes people feel sleepy. The teachers said they would rather attend class than suffer this pain. Some people are sitting in their seats, but they are secretly playing with their mobile phones. Seven points is useless and impractical. Although some of the ideas in the training are very novel, such as what? How about the future school? What? Passionate and efficient classroom? What? Micro-course production? etc., which make people yearn for it, but it is not grounded. Is teacher training necessary? Of course it is, but what teachers need is training that is novel in form, scientific in approach, practical, and practical. What they need is training that reasonably arranges training time and can stimulate learning enthusiasm.