Feminism + Baby Formula =

[mirth]

Of course there are expectional beings in every field. And there is anecdotal evidence that the preponderance of ps teachers seem hopelessly dim. If someone said, all the U.S. mechanical engineers I have ever met have always been of the dimmest lot, I would not be terribly upset. It is their experience. Ok, if 9/10 people said it, I might suspect there were a widespread problem and definitely think twice before walking into a steam plant of American design.

 

I find it absolutely, amazingly hypocritical that some people can pat themselves on the back repeatedly about their own admirable ways of teaching their offspring, yet still manage to degrade and belittle someone who goes to college to become a teacher. Didn't a bunch of posters, a few months ago, reassure someone who only read on an elementary level that she was perfectly capable of teaching her kids? Sorry, this kind of logic is just absolute bunk, and not too intelligent, either . I think it boils down to jealousy and a feeling of inadequacy. Flame on!!

 

It is only possible to be hypocritical if one assumes that this "someone who only read on an elementary level" is by definition unintelligent, as this whole thread discusses the relationship between instructor IQ and output. Have you had access to her IQ tests? Then why make such a jump? Further, this accusation of hypocriticism places no weight on the very likely possibility that she would lay down her life for her pupils in an instant without question, and that this sort of committment bears no premium and has no manifestation in daily education. I would argue that it permeates everything. Now, am I also to conclude that Steven Levitt is secretly jealous of American ps schoolteachers and feels inadequate compared to any random one??? It was just a data analysis. He might've found the same trend in IQ decline of Soviet nuclear physicists after the iron curtain lifted.

Edited November 22, 2009 by mirth

[Daisy]

Where I went to college it was the running joke about the um, lack of higher intelligence, in the education department. In order to be accepted into the program you need a 2.5 gpa. I've seen the courses required for the education degree. It's not very academically challenging especially when compared to other majors.

 

Well, this was definitely not the requirements at my husband's school of education program. He did earn his degree at a private university though.

 

Maybe this whole thread explains why my husband is in such high demand. :lol:

 

Passed all teacher creditionaling tests on the first try and couldn't understand why such an easy test was taking some students 4 and 5 times to pass.

 

He made the highest score on the GRE at his unversity & for his field of study.

 

Holds advanced degrees.

 

And yet chooses to teach in a first grade public school classroom.

 

Glad we aren't painting all teachers with the same brush stroke.

 

Sure would be nice if they'd give him a pay raise for being a highly educated, patient, loving person who chooses to educate and prepare children for the future.

 

Oh and I'm pretty sure he isn't a feminist and he has NEVER breastfed.

[Heather in Neverland]

Well, this was definitely not the requirements at my husband's school of education program. He did earn his degree at a private university though.

 

Maybe this whole thread explains why my husband is in such high demand. :lol:

 

Passed all teacher creditionaling tests on the first try and couldn't understand why such an easy test was taking some students 4 and 5 times to pass.

 

He made the highest score on the GRE at his unversity & for his field of study.

 

Holds advanced degrees.

 

And yet chooses to teach in a first grade public school classroom.

 

Glad we aren't painting all teachers with the same brush stroke.

 

Sure would be nice if they'd give him a pay raise for being a highly educated, patient, loving person who chooses to educate and prepare children for the future.

 

Oh and I'm pretty sure he isn't a feminist and he has NEVER breastfed.

 

1. The idea behind Levitt's "study" is NOT the exception to the rule (like your husband) but a possible rule itself. Do I agree? I don't know. I also had a lot of opportunities I could have taken based on my intelligence and I also chose to go into teaching as more of a "calling". BUT the education program at University of Michigan was a JOKE. I never studied, rarely did homework, thought the classes were an unbelievable waste of time, and graduated with highest honors without even breaking a sweat. I learned next to nothing about being a teacher until I became one. I wanted my money back from U of M. AND many of my classmates were also not the sharpest tools in the shed. So Levitt's argument struck a chord.

 

2. So the REAL the question becomes, how do we attract MORE highly intelligent people into the education field? How do we get more people like your husband to choose teaching when they could be neurobiologists, etc.?

[Sara R]

I do want to add a little something to the discussion: more intelligence does not necessarily make a person a better teacher.

 

But I agree that (in my opinion and from what I have seen) most teachers are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

 

It's about more than just intelligence; it's about valuing intellectual achievement. When I was in ed school, not only did I find my classmates (future elementary school teachers) lacking in academic skills, they were also not very curious. None of my peers questioned what the professors said. Questioning was definitely discouraged. I was surprised at how anti-intellectual the ed school professors and my classmates were.

 

I think intelligence does make a difference in the education. For example, if spelling is a struggle for a teacher, she needs to be vigilant about not misspelling words on the board, worksheets, notes home, and so on. I've seen words misspelled on the word wall. If a child looks at a bin full of scissors, labeled as "scizzors," all year, chances are they are going to spell that word incorrectly. I'm not saying that spelling is a sign of intelligence, but skills like correct spelling is crucial in an elementary school teacher. If a teacher doesn't think that correct spelling is all that important, the students aren't going to get the education that they should here.

 

Math is another area where my elementary school teacher peers suffered. So many of my classmates were not confident with fractions and decimals. I think that's why the new new math has taken hold so firmly; many of the teachers struggled with math when they were students, so they don't see why mastery of long division or fractions is necessary.

 

Of course intelligence alone doesn't make a good teacher. There are plenty of smart people who can't teach. But all other things being equal, intelligence helps.

[Sara R]

I remember hearing students in other majors commenting on how the teacher's college students' studies were a joke. Sigh. They were right.

 

I agree. I majored in English at a private religious college. We were taught to question what we were taught, and to defend our point of view in writing.

 

After graduation, I substitute taught elementary school and discovered I liked it. I started credential course work at a nearby state university with a good reputation. The biggest surprise I encountered was the lack of questioning going on there. I would have expected the private religious college to be the place where we taught to accept things on faith, and the state college to be the place where we learned to fearlessly question. It was the opposite. My classmates were very happy to accept the education party line without question.

 

The classes were very easy. I never had to write any kind of research paper. I just had to write countless "reflection papers" (i.e. glorified journal entries). Yet my classmates seemed to stress about even assignments like these. They also stressed about passing the CBEST test, which was a 10th grade level competency test.

 

A few years later, I read the stat that said that education majors had the lowest SAT scores, and those teachers who did have high SAT scores quit earlier. I definitely could see that.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Sara R

[Daisy]

2. So the REAL the question becomes, how do we attract MORE highly intelligent people into the education field? How do we get more people like your husband to choose teaching when they could be neurobiologists, etc.?

 

I know what you are saying. I was just trying to throw in some humor. Sorry if it didn't go over well.

 

I have some reasons as to why well-educated intelligent people like my husband want OUT of education.

 

1. Pay that is not comparable to their level of education.

 

2. The educational system as it is currently set up with its focus on test scores undermines an intelligent person's ability to be creative. No thinking outside the box is allowed. Districts want teaching drones not innovative thinkers. Everybody on the same page at the same time no matter what. He even gets told what has to be on his bulletin boards.

 

3. My husband is so incredibly tired of children being treated like pawns in a chess game between state and national agencies, administrators and teachers, parents and principals. He didn't become a teacher so he could play referee between groups who want to use children as a commodity in a business.

 

4. Total disrespect. Disrespect by children, parents, administrators, people on the street. I swear, teachers are one of the most maligned groups of people on the planet. My husband has been spit on, kicked, bitten, threatened with a gun, etc.

So the questions is why does ANYONE stay in education if it is such a crappy job?

 

1. They stayed even though they are burned out and used up.

2. They stayed even though they've reached the point where they don't believe they can make a difference.

3. They stayed even though they no longer recognize what learning looks like.

 

Why? I'll tell you a ton of them stay because they are single income women who are providing for their children. They have a steady source of income, benefits, and the same vacation days as their children. They may truly love teaching, but it is so rare anymore that a teacher gets to teach that now the job is just about paying the bills. The above description would fit at least half of the teacher's at my husband's school site.

 

How do we fix that? Well, that goes back to that other thread about the American educational system.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Daisy

[IsabelC]

I think your first statement is taking a huge leap, unless you have some studies to back it up.

Um, nope. It's the person who claims a causal correlation between x and y who should back it up with evidence. It's not up to anyone else to show that there isn't one.

 

And what is a 'specific kind of intelligence'?

I was thinking of the categorizing of intelligence that has come out of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The stereotype we'd all be familiar with would be the super intelligent professor who know everything about his subject but has no idea how to teach anybody else because he has no people skills.

 

 

Personally (and obviously this isn't a scientific study, but just a small sample), the two main problems I have seen in schools are:

1. Teachers who should not be teachers due to their attitude. They don't like children, aren't interested in teaching, and don't particularly like their job. So they do the minimum work possible, sometimes doing a second job or even running their own business from the school where they 'work'.

2. Teachers who are highly skilled and dedicated, but struggle to give their best due to problems with the system they are working under. They have limited resources, large classes, ridiculous rules to follow and sub optimum curricular guidelines.

 

I don't think I have ever observed a teacher who is unable to do the job due to lack of intelligence.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Hotdrink

[Vida Winter]

I'll agree with the others who have weighed in on the disparity in difficulty of majors. I was a computer engineering major; some education majors I knew had it so easy it was laughable. And the difficulty of work was proportionate to the types of jobs we received after graduation. It seemed like that was fair.

 

On the baby formula -- not so sure about that. My mom used formula with me (I was born in 1961) and was a stay at home mom; it was touted as the thing to do way before women had expanded opportunities. But you can make a link -- the formula did allow mothers some schedule alternatives once those opportunities presented themselves. If you take a step back and look at it, formula only affected mothers, not all women. I would make the argument that contraception made a bigger difference than formula.

[Heather in Neverland]

I would make the argument that contraception made a bigger difference than formula.

 

That is a very good point!

[msjones]

I've heard a similar conversation somewhere....

 

Oh, yes, it was in a teacher's lounge.

 

Some teachers were discussing the type of parent who decides to home-school. The idea was that most people who would homeschool were inept parents -- their kids couldn't flourish in school because of their many behavior problems. The behavior problems were the fault of the not-so-bright parents. The parents obviously weren't too bright because, after all, they were ignorant religious freaks who wanted to brainwash their kids with no state interference. (Well, most of them...someone had heard of a 'normal' homeschooling family once...)

 

It was a bunch of women smugly criticizing and stereotyping a group of parents who they didn't really know much about.

 

I knew this conversation sounded familiar...

[Heather in Neverland]

So the questions is why does ANYONE stay in education if it is such a crappy job?[/b]

 

1. They stayed even though they are burned out and used up.

2. They stayed even though they've reached the point where they don't believe they can make a difference.

3. They stayed even though they no longer recognize what learning looks like.

 

Why? I'll tell you a ton of them stay because they are single income women who are providing for their children. They have a steady source of income, benefits, and the same vacation days as their children. They may truly love teaching, but it is so rare anymore that a teacher gets to teach that now the job is just about paying the bills. The above description would fit at least half of the teacher's at my husband's school site.

 

How do we fix that? Well, that goes back to that other thread about the American educational system.

 

Gosh is that ever true!! One of the reasons teachers stay is because of what I call the "golden handcuffs". In Michigan, the pay is pretty good and it is heavily unionized so the pay is steady and not merit-based. When I started teaching I was making $26K (in 1994). When I left teaching to go into administration I was making $67K (in 2004). It would be difficult for me to leave teaching and go into a non-education field and expect to make $67K to start. So you stay in education. I went into admin and made even more money and now it would be difficult to ever leave this field even if I wanted to.

[Heather in Neverland]

I've heard a similar conversation somewhere....

 

Oh, yes, it was in a teacher's lounge.

 

Some teachers were discussing the type of parent who decides to home-school. The idea was that most people who would homeschool were inept parents -- their kids couldn't flourish in school because of their many behavior problems. The behavior problems were the fault of the not-so-bright parents. The parents obviously weren't too bright because, after all, they were ignorant religious freaks who wanted to brainwash their kids with no state interference. (Well, most of them...someone had heard of a 'normal' homeschooling family once...)

 

It was a bunch of women smugly criticizing and stereotyping a group of parents who they didn't really know much about.

 

I knew this conversation sounded familiar...

 

Well, considering I have been in the education field for 15 years, I would say that I know a lot about it. And many posters on this thread are also former teachers who have been through teacher cert. programs and said they were a joke.

 

Maybe we need more strict entrance requirements for teacher programs???

 

And then, of course, we need to improve the teacher education programs.

[Barb_]

1: Smart women can (and do) choose teaching.

 

2: More smart women chose to go into teaching in the 40's than they do today simply because there are more fields open to them in recent years.

 

3: The general level of intellectual ability of teachers has steadily decreased since the 40's because women have more options.

 

4: More options are open to women partly because of the changes of ideals and mores thanks in part to feminism.

 

5: Formula helped to nudge these changes along because the use of formula gave women more flexibility to have families and careers.

 

6. Homeschooling and teaching a classroom full of children are two completely different skill sets.

 

7: Brains and hard work are important in both settings. A successful homeschooler can get by on an excellent work ethic and a willingness to learn along with her student. An excellent classroom teacher requires intellectual flexibility.

 

ITA with Heather. There are still some excellent teachers, but the general intellectual level of the profession and of the education degree has declined over the decades. Those of you who disagree likely aren't old enough to remember attending elementary school in the late 60's or early 70's with teachers who chose the profession before the feminist revolution.

 

A Corollary: Nursing is another affected profession. Hence the shortages and the huge discrepancy between the best and worst in the profession.

 

Barb

[Daisy]

Those of you who disagree likely aren't old enough to remember attending elementary school in the late 60's or early 70's with teachers who chose the profession before the feminist revolution.

 

ITA. The veteran teachers that my husband rubs shoulders with are head and shoulders above the newbies. Guess hubby & I always assumed it was because the newbies are recent products of a failing public school education that now ranges from preschool to university.

 

Would anyone suggest though that it isn't just teaching or nursing, but rather an across-the-board epidemic?

[Barb_]

 

2. So the REAL the question becomes, how do we attract MORE highly intelligent people into the education field? How do we get more people like your husband to choose teaching when they could be neurobiologists, etc.?

 

After reading this thread my first thought would be, "A more demanding education?"

 

Barb

[Barb_]

ITA. The veteran teachers that my husband rubs shoulders with are head and shoulders above the newbies. Guess hubby & I always assumed it was because the newbies are recent products of a failing public school education that now ranges from preschool to university.

 

Would anyone suggest though that it isn't just teaching or nursing, but rather an across-the-board epidemic?

 

I just think that teaching and nursing used to gather most of the best and brightest females who wanted careers. I can remember as a preschooler when asked what I wanted to be when I grew, I answered, "Um, a nurse or a teacher." I didn't want to do either, exactly. I just knew I wanted to do something and that those were the two options open to me. It's not a bad thing that my daughters have the world open to them, but I think that nursing and teaching as professions haven't weathered the changing sociology well.

 

Barb

Edited November 23, 2009 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[Barb_]

Of course intelligence alone doesn't make a good teacher. There are plenty of smart people who can't teach. But all other things being equal, intelligence helps.

 

Precisely. This bears repeating.

 

Barb

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I agree. I majored in English at a private religious college. We were taught to question what we were taught, and to defend our point of view in writing.

 

...I would have expected the private religious college to be the place where we taught to accept things on faith, and the state college to be the place where we learned to fearlessly question. It was the opposite.

 

Would you be willing to share the name of the private religious college? :001_smile:

[zaichiki]

I've heard a similar conversation somewhere....

 

Oh, yes, it was in a teacher's lounge.

 

Some teachers were discussing the type of parent who decides to home-school. The idea was that most people who would homeschool were inept parents -- their kids couldn't flourish in school because of their many behavior problems. The behavior problems were the fault of the not-so-bright parents. The parents obviously weren't too bright because, after all, they were ignorant religious freaks who wanted to brainwash their kids with no state interference. (Well, most of them...someone had heard of a 'normal' homeschooling family once...)

 

It was a bunch of women smugly criticizing and stereotyping a group of parents who they didn't really know much about.

 

I knew this conversation sounded familiar...

 

Now that would only be a good comparison here if a good handful of those teachers had homeschooled their kids. (A good handful of us here have gotten our university education in education and have taught in the classroom.)

[Sara R]

Would you be willing to share the name of the private religious college? :001_smile:

 

Brigham Young University. The summer before my freshman year, I read this talk on the Ophelia Syndrome, by Thomas Plummer, a BYU faculty member. In Hamlet, Ophelia says she doesn't know what to think, and Polonius tells her, "Think yourself a baby," and he'd tell her everything she needed to know. Plummer describes how good students often fall into Ophelia's role at the university. He gives steps on how students can fight against this tendency.

 

I took this essay to heart, and tried to follow its advice while I was there. My professors encouraged me in this.

 

If this attitude was encouraged at a religious university, I thought it would be especially encouraged at a state university. I was very disappointed. The ed professors took upon themselves Polonius's role, and those who didn't fall into Ophelia's role were punished (either by being ignored, or through lower grades).

Edited November 23, 2009 by Sara R

[msjones]

Now that would only be a good comparison here if a good handful of those teachers had homeschooled their kids. (A good handful of us here have gotten our university education in education and have taught in the classroom.)

 

You're right that it's not a perfect analogy.

 

My point is that some folks here have posted observations referring to Teachers-in -General as, really, not too bright.

 

It's not too bright to paint any group with such a wide brush.

 

I share the concern about teacher prep programs, and am interested in that discussion. I'd just prefer to have the discussion without the frequent over-generalizations, little jabs and smugly critical remarks.

[kokotg]

Maybe we need more strict entrance requirements for teacher programs???

 

And then, of course, we need to improve the teacher education programs.

 

Given that there are already shortages of teachers in critical needs areas and in "less-desirable" (read: poorer, either urban or very rural) school districts, I'm not really sure how simply making it more difficult to become a teacher while leaving in place the same compensation and working conditions for teachers once they graduate would help. I think this is backwards. It's relatively easy to get into teaching because most people don't want the job. First you make teaching a more desirable profession, THEN you can demand more from the people you hire. The whole premise of the thread, after all, was that intelligent women don't WANT to become teachers anymore.

 

And if, as several people have argued, teacher salaries are actually really awesome, WHY don't more people want to go into teaching? My husband's a teacher, and it's not because of the money. He took a $20,000 a year pay cut to go into teaching, and that was coming from job at a non-profit (i.e. the pay cut would have been a lot bigger had he been coming from a corporate job). Teacher salaries are better than working at McDonald's, yes, but compared to the vast majority of other jobs that require the same level of education (all teachers have a bachelor's, and most have advanced degrees), they're quite low. They also don't offer the same opportunities for advancement as other jobs (unless you go into administration, which a lot of teachers don't want to do, because then they wouldn't be teachers). And the amount of BS teachers put up with from all sides (students, administrators, parents) is really maddening. I wouldn't be able to do it. I wouldn't want to do it. And lest anyone question my husband's IQ...he was a math major, not an education major ;)

[hornblower]

I suspect this has a lot to do with how little we value teaching and education in our culture.

 

And I'm not sure whether we don't value it because it is dominated by women or whether it's dominated by women because we don't value it.......

 

But I think it's interesting that in the US 71% of elem & hs teachers are women whereas in China just under half of teachers are women.*

 

*("the proportions of women teachers in junior and senior middle schools were 45.9 percent and 41.7 percent, respectively")

 

OTOH, in Russia & other Eastern European countries female teachers dominate the profession as well. However, education is valued and I think teachers are much more respected. Also, starting in about the middle of elementary, each subject is taught by someone who actually knows the topic - ie math is taught by someone with math education etc. and not by generalist teachers..... And feminism and formula also appeared in communist and socialist countries - feminism was a very strong movement in socialism. Formula was often scarce due to shortages but many women made their own. My mother did.

 

I don't think these authors' conclusions are valid.

[Chris in VA]

I was just thinking about this, too--

 

I see a double standard, and no one has, yet, explained the reasoning in a way I can grasp. (I could say that that's because I was only an Education major, but that would be snarky...Just kidding :D)

 

Some homeschoolers seem to think this--that public school teachers should have a degree in what they teach. But, they want to homeschool their kids, and don't, themselves, have a degree in each subject they will teach to their own children.

They argue that, simply because they are caring parents, they are the best teachers for their own kids.

 

If we can homeschool our kids thru high school without a degree in each subject, then why do we think teachers need more education than they would receive as high school graduates?

 

Ok, I can hear someone countering with "high school is not truly teaching high school level material now"--

 

Suppose the teacher did not go thru the public or even thru the private educational system, meaning brick and mortar school--suppose the teacher was a homeschooled student. Do we teach our homeschooled kids enough just in K-12 for them to be teachers?

 

I see such a double standard here. It seems to be, "Teachers of groups of children should be degreed in whatever they are trying to teach. However, if they are teaching their own children, simply having gotten a high school education is enough." What if you have 10 kids? That's a classroom-sized family. Do those parents need a degree? Should homeschoolers outsource high school? Is the ideal teacher one who has a degree in each subject, AND knows how to do grades, crowd control, lesson plans with objectives, entertaining and engaging presentations, etc. etc.?

 

It just borders on the ridiculous. Some also say homeschooling parents are different than teachers in schools, because they can learn alongside their kids. Well, ime, teachers in schools are also learning alongside their kids. There is new content all the time, esp in history, science and government.

 

IDK, I guess the whole double standard just gets to me.

 

I am a homeschooling parent, and I do heartily believe what I am doing is best for my child. I don't think I need to be a well-trained reading teacher to teach reading. I don't think other kids need a degreed teacher to teach their classes, either. I did learn some content in college--and I can bring that to my high schooler, but I had to learn that in college because I did go to public high school--and it wasn't all that great (but it was enough for me to be able to teach my elementary child).

 

Talking in circles here--time to go teach math.

[tdeveson]

I haven't read this book, and I hadn't really thought about the point the author makes -- how he connects the dots between more career choices for women and a decline in teacher IQ. I do know that teachers place in the lower 1/3 of college entrance exams.

[Renee in NC]

I am not as focused on the baby formula aspect of the idea as the idea that more intelligent women are picking fields other than teaching to go into now that those fields are open to them and that leaves us with teachers who are mostly of average intelligence...and these are the women "educating" the next generation.

 

Still not sure what I think about it, but based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is something about it that rings true. hmm.....

 

My dh's grandmother and my grandmother both were highly intelligent women. My dh's grandmother graduated with a degree in chemistry in the 40s, but couldn't find any job other than teacher (because she was a woman.) My grandmother went to college at 16 (in the 40s) and tutored my grandfather in Calculus her freshman year. After 2 years he went on to be a chemist and she went on to be a teacher.

 

Today, I imagine they would both have many options. Dh's grandmother would have been a chemist and my grandmother would have been an English professor (her love of grammar and literature is notorious in our family!)

[Renee in NC]

Chris in VA, you make some very good points here. I would be okay with teachers not having college degrees at all, as long as they were educated and had a gift for teaching. In an institutionalized setting, how would you measure that, though? I would prefer that they would not require education courses at the Bachelor's level at all, but rather have all teachers have a degree in something such as English, Math, etc. Even a "Liberal Arts" degree that covered all the subjects in some way (such as the Core Knowledge Foundation's teacher sylabi.)

 

My ds attends a charter school in NC that does not have all certified teachers. Some of the best teachers he has had do not have education degrees, but rather degrees in their subject.

 

The best teacher's I had were the "old" ones - not necessarily because of their extensive experience, but because their focus and expectations were different. In fact, that is why I am attracted to neo-classical education - it covers the things that I think are important and are not included in most ps scope and sequences today.

[Lovedtodeath]

Would anyone suggest though that it isn't just teaching or nursing, but rather an across-the-board epidemic?

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Chris in VA, you make some very good points here. I would be okay with teachers not having college degrees at all, as long as they were educated and had a gift for teaching. In an institutionalized setting, how would you measure that, though?

The same way you would in any other job: Entrance exams, interviews, applications, resumes, experience, references.

[Renee in NC]

The same way you would in any other job: Entrance exams, interviews, applications, resumes, experience, references.

 

The exams would also have to be tougher in the subject matter. I just did a brief search and it looks like NY requires exams even for teacher assistants. Were you thinking something like that? Even then it seems that college credit is required (by the end of 3 years.)

[Lovedtodeath]

I think that exams and interviews should be used instead of college credits, but I think that way about any job. I can easily teach myself what a college can teach, and I know many people who are better at their jobs than the college graduates working alongside them. People can still choose to go to college if that is what is needed to learn the requred material to pass the exam and interview.

[Renee in NC]

I think that exams and interviews should be used instead of college credits, but I think that way about any job. I can easily teach myself what a college can teach, and I know many people who are better at their jobs than the college graduates working alongside them. People can still choose to go to college if that is what is needed to learn the requred material to pass the exam and interview.

 

:iagree:

 

I would do really well with this option - I usually do really well on standardized tests and I learn better on my own as well.

 

I wonder what the idea is behind requiring the college credits?

 

I would like to see MORE teaching experience required under a "Master Teacher" before certification, though. This would have to be paid, though, much as apprentices are paid in the trades.

[Lovedtodeath]

:iagree:

 

I would do really well with this option - I usually do really well on standardized tests and I learn better on my own as well.

 

I wonder what the idea is behind requiring the college credits?

 

I would like to see MORE teaching experience required under a "Master Teacher" before certification, though. This would have to be paid, though, much as apprentices are paid in the trades.

Sounds good. Requiring college credits? The bottom line is money. They spent the money to pay for college, so they must get the higher paying jobs. It is also much easier. It would be more difficult to hire people if you had to ascertain their credentials on your own, wouldn't it?

[Renee in NC]

Sounds good. Requiring college credits? The bottom line is money. They spent the money to pay for college, so they must get the higher paying jobs. It is also much easier. It would be more difficult to hire people if you had to ascertain their credentials on your own, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, it would be more difficult. I also don't think that just having a college degree means all that much. I worked for a CPA firm once that used "Accounting Assistants" for much of the actual work. There were women there who had worked in their jobs for 20 years and had forgotten more accounting than a new graduate would have. Unfortunately, in most states they couldn't even sit for the exam.

 

I don't know about the bottom line being money. I think it is more about "weeding out" those who can't keep up (at least academically.) That's the idea, right? The more value that is placed on a particular profession, the more education it requires. Is one the cause of the other, or just a correlation?

 

Passing a test doesn't mean anything, either. My father says I could pass the Plumbing test with a one weekend intensive course (the test is open book.) He's probably right, but that doesn't mean I know *anything* about plumbing (other than being able to dope and glue a pipe!:tongue_smilie:)

 

Then the question is (since we are talking about teachers) - how willing is a principal to take a risk? There is some expectation that if someone graduated from an accredited school there was a certain amount of learning going on. It also shows the ability to multi-task, meet deadlines, complete a goal, etc. In that regard it does offer *some* information.

 

None of this really has anything to do with the question originally asked. I do know that there are programs in some states to get the brightest students to go into teaching (the NC Teaching Fellows is one such program.) NC also spends money and time getting "lateral entry" teachers - those who have degrees in other things who teach while they earn their teaching credential. Would they be better to spend their money on on the job training instead?

 

I do agree that it is possible to learn almost everything on your own. However, I would say that ability means that you have an above average intelligence or better.;)

[Renai]

Brigham Young University. The summer before my freshman year, I read this talk on the Ophelia Syndrome, by Thomas Plummer, a BYU faculty member. In Hamlet, Ophelia says she doesn't know what to think, and Polonius tells her, "Think yourself a baby," and he'd tell her everything she needed to know. Plummer describes how good students often fall into Ophelia's role at the university. He gives steps on how students can fight against this tendency.

 

:iagree: I like this. Thanks for posting.

 

I'd heard a long time ago this saying that I've carried around with me: "Be open-minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out.":D

 

I posted this to my (online) field experience education peers, and received NO responses :lol:. (I usually receive many responses to my posts full of profound wisdom :tongue_smilie: lol.) The others were beginning to follow a bandwagon, and I felt the need to (save them?) play devil's advocate to see the other side. I guess they didn't appreciate that.

[Kirch]

I was just thinking about this, too--

 

I see a double standard, and no one has, yet, explained the reasoning in a way I can grasp. (I could say that that's because I was only an Education major, but that would be snarky...Just kidding :D)

 

Some homeschoolers seem to think this--that public school teachers should have a degree in what they teach. But, they want to homeschool their kids, and don't, themselves, have a degree in each subject they will teach to their own children.

They argue that, simply because they are caring parents, they are the best teachers for their own kids.

 

If we can homeschool our kids thru high school without a degree in each subject, then why do we think teachers need more education than they would receive as high school graduates?

 

Ok, I can hear someone countering with "high school is not truly teaching high school level material now"--

 

Suppose the teacher did not go thru the public or even thru the private educational system, meaning brick and mortar school--suppose the teacher was a homeschooled student. Do we teach our homeschooled kids enough just in K-12 for them to be teachers?

 

I see such a double standard here. It seems to be, "Teachers of groups of children should be degreed in whatever they are trying to teach. However, if they are teaching their own children, simply having gotten a high school education is enough." What if you have 10 kids? That's a classroom-sized family. Do those parents need a degree? Should homeschoolers outsource high school? Is the ideal teacher one who has a degree in each subject, AND knows how to do grades, crowd control, lesson plans with objectives, entertaining and engaging presentations, etc. etc.?

 

It just borders on the ridiculous. Some also say homeschooling parents are different than teachers in schools, because they can learn alongside their kids. Well, ime, teachers in schools are also learning alongside their kids. There is new content all the time, esp in history, science and government.

 

IDK, I guess the whole double standard just gets to me.

 

I am a homeschooling parent, and I do heartily believe what I am doing is best for my child. I don't think I need to be a well-trained reading teacher to teach reading. I don't think other kids need a degreed teacher to teach their classes, either. I did learn some content in college--and I can bring that to my high schooler, but I had to learn that in college because I did go to public high school--and it wasn't all that great (but it was enough for me to be able to teach my elementary child).

 

Talking in circles here--time to go teach math.

 

 

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you to a degree. Like, maybe through middle school. :001_smile:

 

Here are my other ideas, though, on why it would be possible (although not easy) for a hs'er with only a high school diploma to give his/her child an excellent education but a PS teacher would need more training in his/her field (most of this is more applicable at the high school level):

 

1. A homeschooling parent has the freedom to research, find, and use the best curriculum out there for the subject at hand. PS teachers have to use what the school board/state require them to use in the classroom. They also have to be able to understand and teach the material themselves, where homeschool parents can use other resources (tutors, outside classes, online or dvd classes).

 

2. Teaching just a few children (even most large homeschooling families aren't educating all the children at the same time--some are infants or toddlers, some have already graduated) makes it possible to spend time finding resources, answers, etc. that individual students need. A homeschooling parent can do that for 2, 5, even 8 kids. There's no way a teacher with 25-30 kids in a high school class--with 6 or 7 classes a day--could do that.

 

3. People who send their kids to ps are entrusting their education to someone else--and trusting that the person is up to the job. I know that I'm capable of educating my own kid, but how does Joe Smith know that his kid's teacher is capable? A standard is needed, and for various reasons (see 1, 2, and 4), it's going to be higher than what a parent would need in educating just a few kids at home.

 

4. For high school, I think that just a hs diploma may not be enough to actually *teach*. I took calculus in hs, but there's no way I could teach it, even with a good curriculum. But I CAN facilitate my son learning it if he needs/wants to by finding and providing resources. PS teachers ARE those resources for PS kids--therefore, they need to really know those subjects. And for the vast, vast majority of them (excluding a motivated few who might become experts out of love for a particular subject, that's not going to come with just a high school diploma.

 

I honestly think that if most homeschoolers had to actually *teach* each subject to their high schoolers, there would be at least one area in which each of us would come up short. Even with scripted guides, questions would come up that we wouldn't be able to answer. We could check for right or wrong answers, but we wouldn't be able to accurately assess how well the student grasps the concepts because we don't understand them ourselves.

 

If you put a PS teacher in a classroom with only 5-10 students that he/she is really emotionally invested in, the freedom to choose the best curriculum and resources to use with each student, AND the freedom to outsource anything he/she isn't qualified to handle, then I'd say a high school diploma would be enough.

 

Oh, AND if you get rid of all the other stuff PS teachers have to put up with. Dealing with most of THAT could be a college degree in and of itself. :glare:

[zaichiki]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you to a degree. Like, maybe through middle school. :001_smile:

 

Here are my other ideas, though, on why it would be possible (although not easy) for a hs'er with only a high school diploma to give his/her child an excellent education but a PS teacher would need more training in his/her field (most of this is more applicable at the high school level):

 

1. A homeschooling parent has the freedom to research, find, and use the best curriculum out there for the subject at hand. PS teachers have to use what the school board/state require them to use in the classroom. They also have to be able to understand and teach the material themselves, where homeschool parents can use other resources (tutors, outside classes, online or dvd classes).

 

2. Teaching just a few children (even most large homeschooling families aren't educating all the children at the same time--some are infants or toddlers, some have already graduated) makes it possible to spend time finding resources, answers, etc. that individual students need. A homeschooling parent can do that for 2, 5, even 8 kids. There's no way a teacher with 25-30 kids in a high school class--with 6 or 7 classes a day--could do that.

 

3. People who send their kids to ps are entrusting their education to someone else--and trusting that the person is up to the job. I know that I'm capable of educating my own kid, but how does Joe Smith know that his kid's teacher is capable? A standard is needed, and for various reasons (see 1, 2, and 4), it's going to be higher than what a parent would need in educating just a few kids at home.

 

4. For high school, I think that just a hs diploma may not be enough to actually *teach*. I took calculus in hs, but there's no way I could teach it, even with a good curriculum. But I CAN facilitate my son learning it if he needs/wants to by finding and providing resources. PS teachers ARE those resources for PS kids--therefore, they need to really know those subjects. And for the vast, vast majority of them (excluding a motivated few who might become experts out of love for a particular subject, that's not going to come with just a high school diploma.

 

I honestly think that if most homeschoolers had to actually *teach* each subject to their high schoolers, there would be at least one area in which each of us would come up short. Even with scripted guides, questions would come up that we wouldn't be able to answer. We could check for right or wrong answers, but we wouldn't be able to accurately assess how well the student grasps the concepts because we don't understand them ourselves.

 

If you put a PS teacher in a classroom with only 5-10 students that he/she is really emotionally invested in, the freedom to choose the best curriculum and resources to use with each student, AND the freedom to outsource anything he/she isn't qualified to handle, then I'd say a high school diploma would be enough.

 

Oh, AND if you get rid of all the other stuff PS teachers have to put up with. Dealing with most of THAT could be a college degree in and of itself. :glare:

 

:iagree:

 

Good points -- especially 1 and 4! I do want to point out that I have never said that I thought pretty much just *anyone* could do a great job educating their own child at home... but after reading your post, I can see how a parent who had less education could possibly do a better job than a teacher who had more. When it comes to homeschooling it's not really about the education or intelligence of the teacher, though I'm sure more of each can only be a plus. Teaching in a classroom is different -- you just have less time and attention for each child. Your motivation is entirely different. You need more (education, intelligence, etc.) to make up for that, IMO.

 

Though who knows... I haven't gotten to the point of having to teach my kids something I don't know. My plan is to outsource if/when that time comes. We're already there musically: I don't have enough education/experience to teach my kids viola, cello, etc. They're already well beyond what I understand. So, we outsource for instrument lessons and orchestra. And I expect those teachers to have a high degree of training and skill in their academic area (just like I would like to be able to expect from a classroom teacher).

 

Have you all read Liping Ma's book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics? That book was an eye-opener for me. The math teachers in Singapore *know* math. They are open to learning from each other (which is not something that most American elementary teachers are willing to do). They can teach and discuss the reasons behind the algorithms, which is something many American elementary teachers cannot do. This book really makes the point that it's the knowledge of the topic at hand that can make a great teacher. And, of course, I love reading about how the research was done... :D

Edited November 24, 2009 by zaichiki

[Sara R]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you to a degree. Like, maybe through middle school. :001_smile:

 

Here are my other ideas, though, on why it would be possible (although not easy) for a hs'er with only a high school diploma to give his/her child an excellent education but a PS teacher would need more training in his/her field (most of this is more applicable at the high school level):

 

 

I agree with all your points, and I'll add a couple:

 

(1) Parents are more invested in the results of their child's education. If the child grows up and is unable to support himself because of a poor education, the parents will definitely suffer some consequences there. The child's public school teachers won't even know.

 

(2) The homeschooling parent can see the big picture of their child's development over time. The public school teacher sees a bunch of different children during one year of their life. The public school teacher might not realize that something that they should teach this year will be crucial for their success a few years down the road. For example, it seems that a lot of the K-2 teachers generally like the new new math curricula. The teachers of the upper grades and high school don't like it, because they see the consequences of not encouraging mastery of the lower levels. Of course homeschoolers might not see the big picture either when they are at the beginning of their journey, but they will see it eventually as they go along. School teachers see just the one year, and they don't see the consequences later down the road of not teaching something well.