| | A friend and I recently got into a discussion / argument recently over education reform. It all started when I scoffed at the fact that prospective grade school teachers who lacked a degree specifically in "education" needed to take an three extra semesters of education (get a Masters).
My argument was that if person A went to undergraduate school B, a respected, accredited American university and did reasonably well but majored in something than education, then that person should be not have to borrow more money just to attend another year and a half to two years of school to get the necessary qualifications to teach. The current requirements are in many ways, too burdensome. Not to rely on anecdotes, but, I have multiple friends who excelled in undergrad, got honors, wrote theses, etc. who wanted to become teachers but cannot (at least not immediately) because of the hoops and hurdles involved in entering the system. At least one will not become a teacher any time in the near future because of them. To be sure, I'm not in favor of a simple standardized test that tests nothing but your ability to take that test. But, I think that an alternative combination of a test and a shorter more affordable certificate program possibly coupled with an evaluation period or apprenticeship may be sufficient. (Teach For America aside) | | | Your analogy drastically oversimplifies my point. I never said that the person without an education degree would necessarily be bad at managing students or that an education degree ensured success in this regard, and I know there are probably plenty of those bright people out there that could be great teachers without an education masters. In my experience, however, nothing I was taught in any of my classes in high school/college would have prepared me to teach children, and a lot of bright people, brightness being measured in the traditional way (grades and test scores) could never explain those concepts to a child, deal with the 4 or 5 "problem kids" in the class, or handle bureaucracy, parents, and the special interest groups (which I know is inherent in most jobs, but is greatly amplified in the American public school system). | |
<
< | Education degrees are the currently accepted way of identifying people who are committed to teaching kids. These schools try to teach skills to improve teachers' understanding of pedagogy. They may not always be effective, and I agree that a properly designed apprenticeship program would be more effective. In your OP, however, you seemed to imply that your friends were concerned that they could not immediately get teaching jobs with their BA's. Under any system- education degree or apprenticeship program, we should not let them become teachers until some years after college because even one year under a poor teacher can really set children back relative to their peers, you can see this in schools with multiple sections of certain classes who then go on to take standardized tests in those courses. | >
> | Never have I advocated that good grades should act as a complete substitute for a certification requirement. I have merely advocated that the certification requirement should be less burdensome than it currently is for people with better grades / test scores. Better grades being an indication of how "bright" someone is and their ability to absorb the material. Perhaps there are skills that need to be learned beyond a 4 year degree, and let us make the giant assumption that these skills are actually teachable (like we have been assuming): does it really need to be 3-4 semesters for everyone? That is the question I want answered. Because I am not advocating good grades as a complete substitute for certification, I don't want to see the argument drift that direction.)
Education degrees are the currently accepted way of identifying people who are committed to teaching kids. These schools try to teach skills to improve teachers' understanding of pedagogy. They may not always be effective, and I agree that a properly designed apprenticeship program would be more effective.
Actually, education degrees may not be effective at all. "Current acceptance" seems like a weak argument to me. To me, it appears that "more education" is the status quo and there is an incredible bias against anyone who even suggests that less education could actually better. Also, sometimes more education makes someone less qualified. But, I'll check that idea at the door for now
In your OP, however, you seemed to imply that your friends were concerned that they could not immediately get teaching jobs with their BA's. Under any system- education degree or apprenticeship program, we should not let them become teachers until some years after college because even one year under a poor teacher can really set children back relative to their peers, you can see this in schools with multiple sections of certain classes who then go on to take standardized tests in those courses.
I don't think that point is debatable--that a bad teacher can set someone back years. However, it is missing my point a little. Ideally, every teacher would be a good one. Pragmatically, we want the "least bad" teachers. There are currently some really bad teachers in the system. Let us try to weed them out by increasing competition. I realize union problems (as stated above) would make it difficult to fire teachers. However, another consequence of increased competition is that the union will not be as strong. At any rate, I still haven't seen a pretty good indicator of why "some years after college" is necessary to produce average teachers. Keep in mind, there are other filtering mechanisms in place (and other less burdensome filtering mechanisms that can be put in place) such that not every BA can become a teacher.
Yes, because standardized test scores actually measure anything other than someone's ability to take the test (cue Eben's entry). Of course, I realize that I have been advocating it as an education substitute, so this could be turned against me. I think test scores are a bad, but less bad metric when considered as a supplementary metric. As a primary metric in American education its detestable because of the various incentive programs we have to make teachers teach to the test. | | |
Under an apprentice system, they would probably have to work longer hours than most teachers (classroom time plus education courses to explain and supplement what they are seeing in the field), and would be paid less than the average first-year teacher (I am thinking something like med school). Would these students, who don't want to spend 2 years getting a masters, do a 3-4 year apprenticeship without a guarantee of a job afterwards? I would fully support such a system if education is ready to evolve in this direction. | |
<
< | The other problem with the apprenticeship program is politics, getting the parents, administrators, politicians, teachers, on board. If this could be done, I see no reason why education masters degrees could not subsumed into apprenticeship programs (rather than the other way around). Figuring out how to get these groups to work together, however, is another matter. | >
> | Why does it have to be 3-4 years? Why can't the apprentice program be 2 years? My argument is that hands on training may be MORE useful than coursework and that coursework would be better as a supplement. And, in the case of a 2 year paid apprentice vs. 2 year masters, I think a lot of people will be choosing the former.
The other problem with the apprenticeship program is politics, getting the parents, administrators, politicians, teachers, on board. If this could be done, I see no reason why education masters degrees could not subsumed into apprenticeship programs (rather than the other way around). Figuring out how to get these groups to work together, however, is another matter.
I agree, for the most part. The education system is just like any other. Because we exist in the system that no other alternative system could be better.
| | | I am not familiar with UG/Graduate education programs but they should be teaching child/teen psychology, communications/public speaking (including non-verbal communication which young children respond to much more), political science (to understand how decisions about budgeting get made), sociology, history of education, etc. etc. Failing that, we would need a lengthy apprenticeship program, which would place more of the burden on schools and may not produce effective results in all cases. Would people want to spend two or three years figuring out if they had the skills to control a classroom of 30-40 children?
|
|