NPR Radio Times hour long show on teacher training and teacher education programs

[Momof3littles]

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/

 

I have not listened to this in its entirely yet.  I heard the intro while running an errand and it sounded interesting.  The intro discussed the number of students in the bottom half of their high school classes admitted as education majors in college, whether there are too many education majors, whether the programs are rigorous enough, etc.  I heard a bit of the end where callers were calling into the show with questions and comments.  I unfortunately haven't had time to listen to the bulk of it, but from the intro, it sounded interesting.

 

 

 

 

[displace]

Thanks, it does sound interesting.

[shawthorne44]

Still the lack of rigor is a huge problem.  Everything I have ever heard about education classes is that they are a joke, and that any learning is basically independent after-learning.  Which means that the teachers with an education degree have just a tiny bit more education than a competent high school graduate.  

 

For me, I think the class rank is important in that if learning was important to you, and you don't have a learning disability then you aren't going to be in the bottom half.  

[City Mouse]

I have not listened to the program, but I do think that there is a misconception that not having "rigorous" content in teacher education is a problem. It is kind of like what I face sometimes as an elementary level teacher when high school teachers think what I do is "easy" compared to high school teaching.

 

The actual content of the teacher education program isn't as academically challenging as say engineering or biomedical research, but it takes its own special kind of knowledge. I have not met many engineers that would make good kindergarten teachers.

 

That being said, there were many, many years when college students were encouraged to peruse teaching as a fall back or guaranteed job if they were not successful at their "real" career choice. I think that is where a lot of the issues have come from. I actually corrected my mother when she was encouraging my dd to peruse art or music education in such a manner. My dd does not have an interest in teaching and doesn't have the right personality for it. Working in public school is such a challenge that, I would discourage anyone from perusing teaching unless that was what they were really, really interested in.

 

Like many careers, college cannot prepare you fully for teaching. There is a lot of on the job learning. No one expects a doctor to come straight out of medical school and be ready to perform brain surgery. So why do we expect teachers to be ready as soon as they get handed a diploma? Perhaps a longer post college training program is necessary?

 

The problems with public education are so much bigger than teacher training programs in colleges. The problems go back to the very beginning to the actual purpose of public education which was to educate a workforce not to provide the best education possible.

[fairfarmhand]

 

 

I had a brilliant teacher for alg 1.  She was useless to me.  She couldn't grasp why I needed to have it explained to me .  She could only explain it one way. 

 

 

 

oh. yes.

 

I read somewhere that the intuitively smart teachers don't understand the poor dumb schmuck for whom math just doesn't make sense. They can't figure out alternate ways to explain the concept because they just intuitively grasp it and they are not intimidated by it.

 

My dh is like that. He just intuitively understands numbers and mathematical reasoning. He would be a terrible teacher. Any time we have a problem, and we ask him, he goes, "Oh, that's easy. You do this this and this and there's your answer."

 

I think certain teachers don't need to be brilliant, but they do need to at least be bright and hard working.

[fairfarmhand]

I have not listened to the program, but I do think that there is a misconception that not having "rigorous" content in teacher education is a problem. It is kind of like what I face sometimes as an elementary level teacher when high school teachers think what I do is "easy" compared to high school teaching.

 

The actual content of the teacher education program isn't as academically challenging as say engineering or biomedical research, but it takes its own special kind of knowledge. I have not met many engineers that would make good kindergarten teachers.

 

Ha! Being married to an engineer, yes, I whole heartedly agree with that!

 

That being said, there were many, many years when college students were encouraged to peruse teaching as a fall back or guaranteed job if they were not successful at their "real" career choice. I think that is where a lot of the issues have come from. I actually corrected my mother when she was encouraging my dd to peruse art or music education in such a manner. My dd does not have an interest in teaching and doesn't have the right personality for it. Working in public school is such a challenge that, I would discourage anyone from perusing teaching unless that was what they were really, really interested in.

 

I agree with this, and I think that is why there are poor teachers out there. Young people are unsure about what they want to do, so they go into teaching. The women think like the fact that they will be home when their kids are home. I think too, that some believe that they can't make a living doing what they really want to do so they teach.

 

The problems with public education are so much bigger than teacher training programs in colleges. The problems go back to the very beginning to the actual purpose of public education which was to educate a workforce not to provide the best education possible.

Totally agree with the bolded.

[MarkT]

Still the lack of rigor is a huge problem.  Everything I have ever heard about education classes is that they are a joke, and that any learning is basically independent after-learning.  Which means that the teachers with an education degree have just a tiny bit more education than a competent high school graduate.  

 

 

I agree - one of the issues is the whole education certification nonsense - which is crap for high school level topics - subject matter knowledge with an ability to convey that information to the students is what is important

 

for example let's say an Engineer or Scientist who retired early wants to teach a couple of courses part-time - this is almost impossible at the high school level in a bricks and mortar school with all the bs that needs to be done

 

 

 

 

[Tranquility7]

I'm eager to listen to that, thanks for sharing!

 

And I agree with the PP who said intelligence is a critical component to being a decent teacher. Kindness is a nice add-on, but not actually necessary.

 

And while a debate can be had about “rigor†(yes, teaching is not as rigorous as engineering), a fundamental issue is simply low standards for acceptance and graduation of teachers.

 

I got my Masters at Vanderbilt University back in the 90s.  I was not in the School of Education, but our dept taught a Masters level Statistics class in which half the class were Masters students from the School of Education. I befriended some of the Ed students (who all, by the way, claimed they were “not good at mathâ€) and several of them later asked me to proofread their research papers to make sure they did the math correctly before they turned them in.

 

I will never forget how utterly appalled I was at the papers they produced. Forget decent logic and accurate statistical calculations – even just the grammar and word usage were unbelievably poor! To say I was shocked is a huge understatement. And if they were not good at math (by their own admission) and this was the best writing and logic they could produce, exactly what were they good at?? And what (and who) were these people going to be teaching in the classroom? (And btw, they all had many years of classroom experience already - I shudder to think of how many kids they had taught!)

 

And if Vandy doesn’t have high standards for their School of Education (and I’m not even talking undergrad – I’m talking Masters level!!!), who does?

[Momling]

I did a fifth year multiple subject teaching credential in the evenings through an internship program and found that it was very much a waste of time. What I wanted were practical tips and advice for addressing classroom management problems, making interesting lesson plans that engage the students, meeting standards, grouping students, talking with parents and administrators, etc... That is, I wanted practical instruction on the vocation of teaching. What I had to sit through instead was a year of classes taught by people who had not been in the public schools for years, did not understand our population at all, did not recognize the standards and testing burden we had to achieve.

 

It was like the entire department was yearning to be a real academic field, so they did their best at trying to pull other fields' latest theories into a pedagogical context without truly understanding the point. They adored using jargon unnecessarily, as if to create the feeling they were truly academics. They all had what they saw as progressive and new ideas (promotion of whole language, constructivist math, etc...) that were unrealistic in the current schools, but they promoted them with activist zeal while entirely losing sight of the purpose of meeting students' academic needs. It was hard to focus on my students when being asked to jump through absurd hoops.

[Tranquility7]

The idea that kindness is optional in a person who is helping you rear your kid is MIND BLOWING.

 

Really? Huh. I have had many teachers over the years, some kind, some not. I certainly wouldn't say the kind ones were better teachers. Sometimes quite the opposite.

 

I would not describe my son's piano teacher as kind. She is not warm, and seldom praises much. However, she is an amazing piano teacher and has transformed him from being a tone-deaf four-year old into an eight-year old musician. Would it be nice if she were kind also? Absolutely. But the fact of the matter is, she has made my DS a wonderful pianist regardless of her kindness or lack thereof. I'm sure there are kinder teachers out there, but I wouldn't trade ours.

 

 

So yes, while kindness is certainly a nice bonus, I do consider it a bonus. There are many other qualities I consider more important in a teacher.

 

All that being said, I do consider kindness as vitally important in parents. :D

 (yes, teaching is not as rigorous as engineering)

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with the above.  I mean, today in the US it isn't as rigorous, but there's no reason it couldn't be just as rigorous as engineering, maybe even more so.

 

For example, consider teaching third grade math word problems.  Sure, being able to do the problems yourself, as an adult, is straightforward.  But if the student isn't getting the right answers, does the teacher understand all the possible ways a kid could be misunderstanding the problem?  Can she diagnose what the kid isn't understanding, and re-present the material in a new way?  Seems to me, this could be much more challenging that simply answering a straightforward engineering question like "how much steel do we need to put in this bridge so that it won't fall over?"

[Stellalarella]

I earned a BS in Elementary Education and had minors in middle school science and English.  I also took several special education courses.

 

And what was that worth?  Not much. 

 

I learned how to teach from hold-your-hand curriculums like MUS, AAS, FLL, PP, and HWoT.   I've learned a lot from the hive.

 

[Momling]

I think the need for kindness and gentleness in an ideal teacher decreases as the grade level of the student they teach increases.

But, the need for intelligence and strong academic skills increases as the grade level of the student increases.

 

Kind college professors who are not intelligent and academically rigorous are nice, but useless.

High achieving academics who are unkind should not be near a kindergarten or first grade.

[Caroline]

I'm not sure I agree with the above. I mean, today in the US it isn't as rigorous, but there's no reason it couldn't be just as rigorous as engineering, maybe even more so.

 

For example, consider teaching third grade math word problems. Sure, being able to do the problems yourself, as an adult, is straightforward. But if the student isn't getting the right answers, does the teacher understand all the possible ways a kid could be misunderstanding the problem? Can she diagnose what the kid isn't understanding, and re-present the material in a new way? Seems to me, this could be much more challenging that simply answering a straightforward engineering question like "how much steel do we need to put in this bridge so that it won't fall over?"

I have a PhD in engineering and am an excellent high school math teacher. Sorry, they simply don't compare. How much steel do we need to out in this bridge so it won't fall over? What an oversimplification of bridge design!

I have a PhD in engineering and am an excellent high school math teacher. Sorry, they simply don't compare. How much steel do we need to out in this bridge so it won't fall over? What an oversimplification of bridge design!

 

I guarantee you that bridges are easier to understand than people.

[redsquirrel]

Wait, why would anyone expect teaching students to come from the very top of their high school classes? Do you all know what we pay teachers? The students who strive to be at the top of their classes are going to be told continuously that they should be going into law or medicine or finance etc. No one is going to tell a kid with top STEM scores she should become an elementary teacher or a high school math teacher. She is going to get told to go into research or engineering.   Heck, in college the top education students get told not to go into the classroom and go for more lucrative graduate degrees. 

 

The top students go to where the money is, at least the majority of them will. You want the top students to become teachers? Pay for it.

 

 

[kiwik]

Kindness is not necessary. It will get a teacher in big trouble here because that is an invitation to certain students to disrupt.

 

There are other levels of smart besides brilliant. It is necessary to be smart to master certain subjects well enough to teach them.

Kindness and compassion are not the same as softness and weakness. A strict and kind teacher can work wonders. I do think at least at primary level here there is an ongoing maths weakness. I would like to see selection of people who can do maths and science as well as language.

[El...]

That show looks interesting.  I'm going to listen to it later this afternoon.  Thanks!

 

 

[Tranquility7]

I'm not sure I agree with the above.  I mean, today in the US it isn't as rigorous, but there's no reason it couldn't be just as rigorous as engineering, maybe even more so.

Ummm, actually, by stating the bold, you are actually agreeing with exactly what I said, which was that teaching is not as rigorous as engineering. IS not. I did not say it should not be, or could not be. I said it IS not.  In fact, my point was that it should be more rigorous, as demonstrated by the apparently extremely low standards it currently has for admittance and graduation into such programs (even at supposedly high caliber schools like Vandy).

 

I think teaching SHOULD be a more rigorous program. That is totally my point!

 

For example, consider teaching third grade math word problems.  Sure, being able to do the problems yourself, as an adult, is straightforward.  But if the student isn't getting the right answers, does the teacher understand all the possible ways a kid could be misunderstanding the problem?  Can she diagnose what the kid isn't understanding, and re-present the material in a new way?  Seems to me, this could be much more challenging that simply answering a straightforward engineering question like "how much steel do we need to put in this bridge so that it won't fall over?"

 

...though on this point I completely agree with Caroline - that is a stunning oversimplification of bridge engineering.

 

I guarantee you that bridges are easier to understand than people.

 

LOL. To whatever degree that may be true, I'd say it depends largely on the bridge, and on the person. And on the one trying to understand them.  But what difference does it make anyway? That comment assumes that teachers have some special ability to "understand" people. LOL, not the ones I knew! By and large, my teachers did not understand me, or even really know me for that matter. Yet I learned a lot from some of them.

 

That being said, for the Master of Education students that I took that statistics class with, I greatly hope (for their sake, and for the sake of those around them) that their understanding of people was better than their understand of math, grammar, or logic, because they clearly struggled in all three of those areas. And yet they were all experienced teachers.

 

Conveniently, I trust engineers way more than teachers. That is why I happily drive over bridges every day without a thought, but I homeschool my kiddos.  :D

[mom31257]

I agree - one of the issues is the whole education certification nonsense - which is crap for high school level topics - subject matter knowledge with an ability to convey that information to the students is what is important

 

for example let's say an Engineer or Scientist who retired early wants to teach a couple of courses part-time - this is almost impossible at the high school level in a bricks and mortar school with all the bs that needs to be done

 

This is what I will deal with in a few years. I have a math degree, but no education classes or certification. I don't want to go to school. I just want to teach, and I'm good at it. Just yesterday, I was tutoring a student because I was filling in for another tutor. The girl asked me if I taught somewhere, and I said at home with my own kids. I asked her why she asked, and she said because you are really good and should be teaching in school. 

 

Yet, the school system will only want me if I'm willing to sign my life away to work full time while I take classes basically full time. I will probably end up teaching GED classes or at a private school that will need a person with a math degree regardless. 

[Caroline]

This is what I will deal with in a few years. I have a math degree, but no education classes or certification. I don't want to go to school. I just want to teach, and I'm good at it. Just yesterday, I was tutoring a student because I was filling in for another tutor. The girl asked me if I taught somewhere, and I said at home with my own kids. I asked her why she asked, and she said because you are really good and should be teaching in school.

 

Yet, the school system will only want me if I'm willing to sign my life away to work full time while I take classes basically full time. I will probably end up teaching GED classes or at a private school that will need a person with a math degree regardless.

There is an alternative prep program that will allow you to take classes for two weeks one summer, and then less than once a month the following school year, do a portfolio, and then you will be fully certified. In GA it is call TAPP. You can also do a one year practicum and get certified that way. Contact the RESA in your area when you are ready.

[shawthorne44]

Wait, why would anyone expect teaching students to come from the very top of their high school classes? Do you all know what we pay teachers? The students who strive to be at the top of their classes are going to be told continuously that they should be going into law or medicine or finance etc. No one is going to tell a kid with top STEM scores she should become an elementary teacher or a high school math teacher. She is going to get told to go into research or engineering.   Heck, in college the top education students get told not to go into the classroom and go for more lucrative graduate degrees. 

 

The top students go to where the money is, at least the majority of them will. You want the top students to become teachers? Pay for it.

 

I personally have never bought the argument that more pay would mean better teachers.  I just looked at the stats for a few cities I've in, (all in the same area).  Where I grew up, an average medium-sized city has a median household income of 53K, and the starting teacher salary of 50K.  In this same city there is a company that hires many engineers of all types, the starting salary is 48K.  Where I live now the median household income is 79K (a very posh area often on the "Best Places to Live" lists) and the starting salary is 48.5K.  Where we will be moving (small rural suburb with a very low cost of living) the teachers start at 39K and median household income is 47K.  When you consider that the many of those households are dual-income, a teacher salary is extremely respectable in all these places.  

[fairfarmhand]

Kindness and compassion are not the same as softness and weakness. A strict and kind teacher can work wonders. I do think at least at primary level here there is an I going maths weakness. I would like to see selection of people who can do maths and science as well as language.

The strictest teacher in my high school had a HUGE heart. Very high expectations. but an enormous compassion. She was willing to work as hard as you were, but she wasn't going to give it to you.

 

I have a PhD in engineering and am an excellent high school math teacher. Sorry, they simply don't compare. How much steel do we need to out in this bridge so it won't fall over? What an oversimplification of bridge design!

 

 

I guarantee you that bridges are easier to understand than people.

I think these two discussions are apples to oranges.

 

I think what handicaps most good teachers nowadays are bureaucratic red tape/

[Jenny in Florida]

Bottom half of high school class is deceptive...I doubt these are people that went to failing schools...more likely they were in the bottom half of a selective high school.

 

Actually, I've read quite a bit on this topic, and students entering college as education majors consistently have lower average standardized test scores than for most other disciplines. It's not just that they attend super selective high schools and their grades look lower by comparison. They simply aren't as academically accomplished as many other students.

 

This isn't new information. It's been true for years.

 

Edit: Take a look at the table on page 17 of this report from the College Board: http://www.joshuakennon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2010-total-group-profile-report-cbs.pdf

 

The mean subscores of students who intended to major in education didn't crack 500. They were significantly lower than not only engineering majors but English majors, communication majors, visual and performing arts majors, history and social science majors . . .

[hornblower]

No discussion on teachers is complete without mentioning Finland, right?

http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-teacher-and-principal-quality/

[Caroline]

The strictest teacher in my high school had a HUGE heart. Very high expectations. but an enormous compassion. She was willing to work as hard as you were, but she wasn't going to give it to you.

 

 

 

I think these two discussions are apples to oranges.

 

I think what handicaps most good teachers nowadays are bureaucratic red tape/

I totally agree with all of your points.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/

 

I have not listened to this in its entirely yet.  I heard the intro while running an errand and it sounded interesting.  The intro discussed the number of students in the bottom half of their high school classes admitted as education majors in college, whether there are too many education majors, whether the programs are rigorous enough, etc.  I heard a bit of the end where callers were calling into the show with questions and comments.  I unfortunately haven't had time to listen to the bulk of it, but from the intro, it sounded interesting.

Any other links with the actual radio story on this? I appreciate your help.

[Reefgazer]

I agree.  Even at the college level, I get much more out of my students by being kind and taking an active interest in their lives and their academics.  They respond better to me, and they will work harder, even if they aren't conscious of that.

The idea that kindness is optional in a person who is helping you rear your kid is MIND BLOWING.

 

[Reefgazer]

Imagine how much more she could get out of him, in effort, motivation, and desire, if she were also kind.  The two qualities are not mutually exclusive, but we don't value teachers, pay educators enough for the crap they are expected to deal with, or value an experienced teacher's recommendations on teaching to frequently get both talent and kindness in one package.  I think the disrespect shown teachers is what kills the profession or the desire to go into that profession, but money can make amends for that, in a small way.

Really? Huh. I have had many teachers over the years, some kind, some not. I certainly wouldn't say the kind ones were better teachers. Sometimes quite the opposite.

 

I would not describe my son's piano teacher as kind. She is not warm, and seldom praises much. However, she is an amazing piano teacher and has transformed him from being a tone-deaf four-year old into an eight-year old musician. Would it be nice if she were kind also? Absolutely. But the fact of the matter is, she has made my DS a wonderful pianist regardless of her kindness or lack thereof. I'm sure there are kinder teachers out there, but I wouldn't trade ours.

 

 

So yes, while kindness is certainly a nice bonus, I do consider it a bonus. There are many other qualities I consider more important in a teacher.

 

All that being said, I do consider kindness as vitally important in parents. :D

 

[73349]

IME one problem with ed courses being a cakewalk (and they were)--completely apart from the fact that no one is weeded out who got admitted to college in the first place--is that then the ed major cannot take as many courses in his/her field. The ed courses take up too many slots. Colleges could reasonably put the same content into half as many courses.

 

And yes, as a top student, one is told not to major in education.

 

The deceptive thing about starting salaries (aside from the fact that they are, in non-union states, comparable to those in secretarial and other work that may not require an expensive college degree) is that they often don't go far from there. https://www.wcpss.net/careers/salary-schedules/teachers/a.html shows that a local teacher with a BA starts at 37k and tops out at under 60k a year, even with 30 years' experience.

[Lawyer&Mom]

I was a top student who always wanted to teach.  My mom repeatedly told me that I would never make enough money as a teacher.  She was very focused on her daughters being financially independent and in our super high COL region, she had a fair point.  I'm the second salary now, and sometimes I daydream about transitioning to teaching.  But I'd cut my government lawyer salary in half, and probably work more hours.  It just isn't a rational choice.  I fully believe we could attract the top students to teaching if we elevated the perceived status of teaching.  And in our culture that means paying more. 

[kitten18]

 

 

The deceptive thing about starting salaries (aside from the fact that they are, in non-union states, comparable to those in secretarial and other work that may not require an expensive college degree) is that they often don't go far from there. https://www.wcpss.net/careers/salary-schedules/teachers/a.html shows that a local teacher with a BA starts at 37k and tops out at under 60k a year, even with 30 years' experience.

I agree.  DH and I started out within a few thousand dollars of each other in starting salaries (I was a teacher, his degree is in construction management), within 5 years his salary/bonus was more than triple my teacher salary.

[kitten18]

I always feel like this conversation is a scapegoat.

 

The schools are failing...let's blame the teachers, it must be because the teachers are stupid.

[indigomama]

I am currently taking an Intro to Ed class, at a local community college. My fellow students have made homeschooling for life soooo attractive. I honestly wouldn't want any of them teaching my children.

 

Two students have been online on their lab tops shopping for shoes, while the instructor was lecturing. One student slept through an entire class, in the front row! A few of them frequently "forget" to bring paper, pens, pencils, previous handouts,etc. And when the teacher announces an open book, open notes, quiz, everyone groans outloud. 

 

It is so discouraging. 

[Erin]

I've worked in public education for 20 years.  While there are plenty of teachers I've known who were probably in the upper end of their high school class, I've discovered that doesn't necessarily make them giants in intelligence…   :glare:

 

That is, I have known a number of rather stupid teachers.   :sad:

 

 

However, I don't think teachers are any dumber than they've ever been, really.  Nor do I think teacher intelligence has as much to do with student success as people like to tell themselves.  

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I've worked in public education for 20 years.  While there are plenty of teachers I've known who were probably in the upper end of their high school class, I've discovered that doesn't necessarily make them giants in intelligence…   :glare:

 

That is, I have known a number of rather stupid teachers.   :sad:

 

 

However, I don't think teachers are any dumber than they've ever been, really.  Nor do I think teacher intelligence has as much to do with student success as people like to tell themselves.  

I do not think it intelligence so much as the importance of being content experts and I fear many teachers are not content experts. I think the how to teach classes should encompass maybe something like 9 to 15 credits, if that much at all, with the rest of the degree going towards content such as math, science, english, and reading. I have encountered way too many teachers who were not content experts and gave wrong information to students which drives me batty.

 

ETA: Obviously this does not apply to all teachers.

[hepatica]

No discussion on teachers is complete without mentioning Finland, right?

 

http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-teacher-and-principal-quality/

 

It may be passé to mention Finland but there is an important point to be made here. We can have a long discussion speculating about what might make for better teacher quality, but it's really not a mystery. Other countries, not just Finland but Poland and Hungary and China just to name a few, have already figured it out. We, as Americans, just seem to hate to admit that we could learn from some other less powerful country.

 

In these systems, teaching is a highly respected, well (but moderately) compensated profession. Teacher education programs are very competitive to enter, rigorous and challenging in both content and methodology/pedagogy. Teachers are not graduated until they have demonstrated excellence in both content and pedagogy.

 

But, importantly, all these countries have a much more centralized educational system. Recent studies have demonstrated that excellent teaching makes a huge difference in student education. We are just never going to make the changes that need to be made as long as we cling to an outdated system of local control. 

[Penelope]

I agree - one of the issues is the whole education certification nonsense - which is crap for high school level topics - subject matter knowledge with an ability to convey that information to the students is what is important

 

for example let's say an Engineer or Scientist who retired early wants to teach a couple of courses part-time - this is almost impossible at the high school level in a bricks and mortar school with all the bs that needs to be done

This is possible in some states, I guess. But in the program, the interviewees mentioned that they think those should be done away with. That teaching is much too complex to have people with a bachelor's in something jumping into the classroom after only a few education courses.

 

I found the program a little frustrating to listen to, because I think that we need to think of education differently for K through grade 5 or 6 vs. grades 7-12.

 

I did agree with what they were saying about even need for apprenticeships. However, I don't understand the lamenting of how that would be so expensive. Why would the apprenticeships have to be after the degree is completed? Why not more time in the classroom were still in college? Nurses and doctors get this. I have heard teacher friends say that the little bit of student teaching they got in college was just not enough. Instead of some of the easier classes they take, why not concentrate the material and make it more intense, and then have more classroom apprenticeship for credit? One of the guests did say that at Stanford where she is, the students go into the classroom regularly from the beginning. Though I assume anyone who is going to Stanford would be able to handle more difficult academics to begin with.

[hornblower]

 

 

But, importantly, all these countries have a much more centralized educational system. Recent studies have demonstrated that excellent teaching makes a huge difference in student education. We are just never going to make the changes that need to be made as long as we cling to an outdated system of local control. 

 

Yes, centralized education but also (paradoxically) WAY more autonomy for individual teachers in the classroom.

 

I had a funny convo with someone about teachers here (we just came off a several months long province wide teacher's strike) who said "we need to be able to fire bad teachers!" & I replied with the Finland response which apparently is "WHY on earth would you do that? We're teachers! We know how to teach someone to be a better teacher!" So they don't fire, they re-apprentice, offer additional training, supervision from a more experienced teacher etc.  I mean if anyone should know how to get someone to be better at something, it should be the teaching profession....

 

Sadly, that's not the case here where it seems like the education is divided between lots of jargony mumbo-jumbo & classroom management and very little on concrete teaching skills.

 

 

 

[Caroline]

This is possible in some states, I guess. But in the program, the interviewees mentioned that they think those should be done away with. That teaching is much too complex to have people with a bachelor's in something jumping into the classroom after only a few education courses.

 

I found the program a little frustrating to listen to, because I think that we need to think of education differently for K through grade 5 or 6 vs. grades 7-12.

 

I did agree with what they were saying about even need for apprenticeships. However, I don't understand the lamenting of how that would be so expensive. Why would the apprenticeships have to be after the degree is completed? Why not more time in the classroom were still in college? Nurses and doctors get this. I have heard teacher friends say that the little bit of student teaching they got in college was just not enough. Instead of some of the easier classes they take, why not concentrate the material and make it more intense, and then have more classroom apprenticeship for credit? One of the guests did say that at Stanford where she is, the students go into the classroom regularly from the beginning. Though I assume anyone who is going to Stanford would be able to handle more difficult academics to begin with.

I have been working with a local college on revamping their student teaching program. High school ed students (who do get a minor in their subject area) are in the same classroom for an entire school year. The fall semester, the student teacher is helping the classroom teacher, and does an two week stint as the lead teacher. The second semester, two weeks in, they are the lead teacher and teach until the end of the school year. The year before, they spend two days a week in a high school classroom in fall semester, and two days a week in a middle school classroom spring semester, with a week long teaching stint towards the end. (Usually after spring testing, which is in March here.) the year before they spend one day a week in the classroom. They also take most of their education classes in the high school and middle school, and those classes are team taught with a college prof and a high school teacher. Some of their subject area classes are also team taught with a high school teacher and college prof.

 

These teachers seem much more prepared for the classroom than those who came through a traditional program.

 

We have found for our higher level math classes, we do better to hire people out of industry. All the AP Calculus and honors precalculus teachers are former engineers, scientists, mathematicians.

 

There are colleges trying to make changes. It isn't easy, though, because NCATE requires certain things, and it is hard to make changes.

[Catherine]

You know I can't read this thread without thinking of Liping Ma's book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. If I understood it correctly, Chinese math teachers before high school level are not college educated and often have very large classes. I realize that applying the lessons of one culture to another is tricky, but I still think it's worth noting that in China, teachers spend almost HALF their time on class prep. That is striking. They also spend a lot of time working on math problems with colleagues which presumably improves their own knowledge base.

 

I think teacher training is only one piece of the puzzle. Lack of autonomy is a problem, IMO. In KIPP schools, teachers work longer hours for less pay on much shorter contracts, and KIPP is still overrun with applications when they hire...their teachers have far more autonomy. Having a strong centralized system is important, IMO, but it has to be paired with teacher autonomy so that student instruction is individualized.

 

And one more thought about certification: it has a role to play. Not everyone can teach and some former engineers can teach math, but some definitely cannot. My kids have experience of this. Teaching is a specific skill set and it DOES matter. But it's not the only thing that matters.

[Reefgazer]

I disagree with the idea that centralization of education would be a panacea for the USA's educational problems.  While, it would be wise to take what we can of other countries' experiences, to think we can duplicate another country's culture and educational system is naïve.  The countries you mention that have a "better" education system than the US do not just have centralized education, but they have other social/societal characteristics that are different from the US, as well.  So all of those factors go into making a successful school system for that particular country.  In fact, it may well be that the school system in Finland is successful in spite of centralization, and is due to other factors that influence education in that country.  IMO, public education in this country stinks, but that's just my opinion, and we as a society can't even agree on what makes a public education system good, which is why I put the word "better" in quotation marks. 
 
At any rate, you really can't compare one country (Finland or any other) to the US because each country is unique, and what makes Finland successful are a whole host of factors, not just centralization.  This is not because the US is afraid of taking advice from a smaller country, but because we are aware enough of our differences to recognize that borrowing centralization would not transfer in the same way across the pond.  The first difference is that de-centralized education is built into our constitution, and hence, our culture; you can't just mandate centralization by fiat.  You need to first change the constitution so that education is the responsibility of the federal government and not the state government.  But that involves changing a mind-set that has been present since the American Revolution (and in fact, drove the revolution), and I don't think that will be easy to do.  If we could change that mind-set, we must ask ourselves, "Is it beneficial to do so?"  I'm not convinced that it is.  Second, the teaching profession needs wholesale and nationwide respect for the job they do.  Not just lip service and extra pay (although the pay is part of it), but real respect, confidence, and trust in our teachers.  Trust to the degree that they are the drivers of education reform, not politicians, big business, or bureaucrats.  I do think this is intimately tied to the quality and rigor of our schools of education, and that schools of education turn out such a pile of questionable practices and theories (sight word reading, anyone?) that they wind up hindering respect for their own profession.  That's a very thorny problem to resolve and has little to do with centralization.  Third, pop culture has tremendous disrespect for education in this country, and students' immersion in this culture means that they absorb this message and do not have the respect for their education or their teachers that students in other countries have.  This, in turn, is tied to teacher pay.  Fourth, we are a very money-oriented culture, and I think this is also a hindrance to an effective education.  Not only do we directly value and respect high-paying occupations over lower-paying ones ("Why be a chemistry teacher when you can make more money as an industrial chemist?"), but we allow deep-pocketed corporations to dictate how we educate (I'm talking to you, Pearson).  Fifth, and I think this is most important, we are afraid to let students fail.  At all costs, we hold to the myth that every student can and will succeed and that everyone is responsible for that success except for the student.  The reality is that there are some that cannot or will not succeed in an academic environment, but because we hold onto this myth, we are forced to dumb down the academics in order for everyone to "succeed".  The result is that very few are able to succeed when subjected to 12 years of dumbed-down public education in un-safe schools where anyone who has the means to flee such schools has long ago done so (because we have to keep everyone there, even dangerous and over-age miscreants, in order to prove that they can "achieve") .  Other countries have the common sense to recognize that an academic education is not appropriate for all students and set them on a different vocational path.  There are so many differences between how the USA handles their educational system compared to other countries, I'm doubtful that de-centralization is the bogeyman some make it out to be.

It may be passé to mention Finland but there is an important point to be made here. We can have a long discussion speculating about what might make for better teacher quality, but it's really not a mystery. Other countries, not just Finland but Poland and Hungary and China just to name a few, have already figured it out. We, as Americans, just seem to hate to admit that we could learn from some other less powerful country.
 
In these systems, teaching is a highly respected, well (but moderately) compensated profession. Teacher education programs are very competitive to enter, rigorous and challenging in both content and methodology/pedagogy. Teachers are not graduated until they have demonstrated excellence in both content and pedagogy.
 
But, importantly, all these countries have a much more centralized educational system. Recent studies have demonstrated that excellent teaching makes a huge difference in student education. We are just never going to make the changes that need to be made as long as we cling to an outdated system of local control.

[hornblower]

Ok, but playing Devils advocate here a bit -

 

Canada has education under provincial authority, and (putting on my canadian flame proof suit & whispering) are we really that much different than you guys? So, why do we outscore you on PISA ?

[Reefgazer]

I think we are very different.  Your country's origins are nothing like ours, you seem to generally agree that national health care is a great idea (we can't even agree on that here), your tax system is quite different (you have a VAT tax, correct?  I might be wrong on that, but nevertheless, many EU countries with centralized education have one), and when my DH was with NATO and I was working on the board with other NATO wives, Canadians' positive attitude toward consensus at all costs struck me as odd (and it was very much in line with the attitude of EU wives, to the point where I could pick out an American wife just by her comparably disagreeable attitude :) ).  I bet all those things help to explain your quality education system and high scores.  But those are actually core differences that speak volumes about running a country, and volumes about what would work in an educational setting here. 

Ok, but playing Devils advocate here a bit -

Canada has education under provincial authority, and (putting on my canadian flame proof suit & whispering) are we really that much different than you guys? So, why do we outscore you on PISA ?

 

[RootAnn]

:glare:

I have not met many engineers that would make good kindergarten teachers.

 

I've been amazed with the number of trained engineers who are the main homeschooling parent. I can think of at least five of us engineers by screenname who are on the WTM board. While I think the English-major moms have a leg up on us engineers in teaching reading, spelling, and grammar, we are not usually intimidated by teaching math at any level. My kids, so far, have LOVED their Kindergarten experience & teacher.

 

RootAnn -- Professional Engineer who plans on being a "good kindergarten teacher" one more time for her youngest kid

 

 

BTW - Here is a link to the actual radio show.

[hornblower]

I know someone who is a kindergarten teacher & she has a newly grad. teacher doing her observation/practicum thingy in her class this fall & the new teacher is an engineer (chemical engineering grad IIRC) She was just telling me how awesome this young woman is.... I think there's an unfortunate stereotype that people who are good at hard sciences are somehow emotionally cold & unable to relate to young kids or something ... it's really just a stereotype.

[Erin]

Yeah, I'm not sure where that one comes from... :huh:   
I have to say, most of the engineers I know are kind of dorky, open, wise-acre types.  No offense intended and kids LOVE this type of person.

[MarkT]

But in the program, the interviewees mentioned that they think those should be done away with. That teaching is much too complex to have people with a bachelor's in something jumping into the classroom after only a few education courses.

 

 

Sorry I do not believe this is a true statement for the high school classes where the students actually want to learn - our educrats have it made it appear to be this way to add layers of "management".

 

Our society tolerates horrible mis-behavior in the classroom today that would have got a person expelled back in my HS days. I definitely would not want to teach at the HS remedial level math classes because of the caliber of the student and their typical behavior. Maybe former prison guards would be a good fit.

 

[mom2scouts]

 

for example let's say an Engineer or Scientist who retired early wants to teach a couple of courses part-time - this is almost impossible at the high school level in a bricks and mortar school with all the bs that needs to be done

 

My son had a high school science teacher who had been a chemical engineer.  She realized that she was lonely working in a lab and really wanted to be sharing her passion for science with other people.  She was an amazing high school science teacher.  Although our school district pays *very* well, she did have to give up income to become a teacher.  I wish there were many more teachers like her!