In order to reach any conclusion on whether a teacher is or not effective, one must first proceed to an evaluation of the teacher's role. Is a teacher not required by norm to be effective? Should not the act of teaching in itself imply effectiveness? According to the Oxford Dictionary for Advanced Learners, teaching is simply defined as the work of a teacher. That is, teaching is an act that seems to not imply any successful aftermath. However, does effectiveness require only positive effects? If one again relies on the Oxford Dictionary definition, it might be put forward that a more definite solution is in reaching distance. According to it, something that is effective is something that is capable of "producing the result that is wanted or intended; producing a successful result". That means that for anyone or anything to be considered effective (which means not only teachers or teaching) it must produce positive results that may be objectively evaluated.
             Then, if one examines the Oxford definition for teacher, will one not discover that same necessity for positive results? It might be assumed that, while teaching might be merely an act of imprinting facts on the individuals being taught, one could expect that a teacher in their own right would be required to be effective. Nevertheless, teacher is also simply defined as " a person whose job is teaching, especially in a school".
             It seems that a teacher merely holds an official position that he or she might fulfill with varying degrees of effectiveness. Therefore, effectiveness is not a requirement. Effectiveness is the label of the good professional, and it would seem obvious common sense that there will be good and bad professionals in every area. Aside from that, one must also decide if Frank's alleged effectiveness will refer only to Rita or to the totality of Frank's students, since what we can see of his behavior towards the latter dif...