I would say the reverse is true though - great teachers are able to spark interest on a subject that students may otherwise not care about. But I agree that that expectation shouldn't be the baseline.
Except making a subject interesting, at least for K-12, should be a baseline, no? (With success in early years making it easier to maintain high interest in later years.)
The most important thing you can teach about anything is an interest in it - otherwise what is retention going to be?
Or to turn it around, introducing subject after subject that students find boring, confusing, stressful or frustrating is a fantastic way to ensure they avoid anything to do with the fields, knowledge and skills we deem most important for a well prepared life.
I do agree that this isn’t a baseline to apply to each teacher in isolation, without the rest of the ecosystem supporting them. Textbooks, other materials and class aids, all supporting the emotional highs of learning, not just prioritizing a material to be covered on a test, etc.
At the university level, professors should be able to expect an opt-in self-selected and self-motivated level of interest for subjects.
Especially if grade school has prepared highly curious excited to learn students. As apposed to subject avoidance or apathy.
I agree, and I may have downplayed the importance a pedagogy a bit too much. I’ve experienced first hand, and also see with my kids, the profound difference that a great teacher or coach can have on the pupils.
But a great teacher is not necessary to find a topic interesting, nor sufficient to spark interest in everyone who lacks interest.
