| | 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) | | |
Hey Matt -- interesting discussion, here's my input: | |
<
< | I see no reason why getting a teacher's certification should be made easier for those people who've already attended a four-year college and presumably have had the chance to take the required education courses. If money is an issue, affordable state school programs are available. There is also the option of teaching at private schools, which have lower hiring standards. Ultimately, I don't think flooding the market with "average" teachers would make a marked difference, in that there are limited openings in the unionized field and I suspect that demand for employment in low-income school districts with higher turnover rates would remain low. | >
> | I see no reason why getting a teacher's certification should be made easier for those people who've already attended a four-year college and presumably have had the chance to take the required education courses. If money is an issue, affordable state school programs are available.
Great point. However, there is a time value to money.
There is also the option of teaching at private schools, which have lower hiring standards. Ultimately, I don't think flooding the market with "average" teachers would make a marked difference, in that there are limited openings in the unionized field and I suspect that demand for employment in low-income school districts with higher turnover rates would remain low.
Again, great point about the unionization. However, I do think there is a rejoinder here: if there are limited openings, then, relaxing applicant "hurdles" could in theory produce better hires (because there is more to choose from, increased competition). | | | On the other hand, "throwing money" at schools, by allowing for better supplies, facilities, and lower student-to-teacher ratios would actually make a much bigger impact on the quality of public education. Furthermore, I don't think indicia of upper-level academic success is the true measure of teaching ability, particularly for young children. I would argue that one of the big problems with programs like Teach for America is that they tend to select high-achieving students over those students that are more dedicated to childhood education and teaching as a long-term profession. Furthermore, if a prospective teacher considers student-teaching, an important part of certification programs, a "hurdle," perhaps it's best that she doesn't teach. | |
>
> | They don't consider it a hurdle. I do. | | | On your other argument, I agree that too many people are attending college, given the number of students who are dropping out or who are merely floating through the system. This documentary provides an interesting snapshot of the problem (which is also on Netflix instant play if you're interested): http://www.decliningbydegrees.org/show-synopsis.html. | | |
I saw two major threads/points in the OP, 1) Reforming the elementary/secondary education system so that more kids are getting a quality education, 2) Reforming the post-secondary education system so that it is more efficient, in the sense that the money spent is going towards learning the skills necessary to get a monetary return on your investment. Obviously, these threads are intertwined, for example, if students come out of high school unable to do basic mathematics, they are going to be at a disadvantage when they try to get into an engineering program. I'll respond to the first section. | |
<
< | Teaching involves more than knowledge of the material. Classroom management, understanding of the child's psyche, diplomacy, the drive to help children (sometimes in the face of enormous resistance from the community/parents), and the ability to develop an engaging curriculum are, in my mind, much more important than a thorough understanding of the material, except for the most advanced classes in the later years of school or technical/trade classes. These are skills you cannot learn by just getting a history, English, math, or science bachelor's degree. When it comes to elementary/junior high education, I would much rather have a teacher with excellent classroom management skills who graduated middle of the class at a state school than a teacher with average management skills who received a 4.0 from Harvard. 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? | >
> | Teaching involves more than knowledge of the material. Classroom management, understanding of the child's psyche, diplomacy, the drive to help children (sometimes in the face of enormous resistance from the community/parents), and the ability to develop an engaging curriculum are, in my mind, much more important than a thorough understanding of the material, except for the most advanced classes in the later years of school or technical/trade classes. These are skills you cannot learn by just getting a history, English, math, or science bachelor's degree. When it comes to elementary/junior high education, I would much rather have a teacher with excellent classroom management skills who graduated middle of the class at a state school than a teacher with average management skills who received a 4.0 from Harvard.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my point. I'm not suggesting that excellent academic credentials should override every requirement. Besides, I think "classroom management" classes can only teach so much. Perhaps, I should use an analogy: Surely its important to read books about chemistry in order to be a decent chemist. But, you can't learn chemistry unless you enter the lab and do some hands on work. You could read book after book knowing the chemical structures of fancy compounds but until you practice in the lab, you won't be any good. And, for those who are particularly bright, they won't need as much time to read books before entering the labs. This is the crux of my argument: there may be bright people who want to be teachers who should not have to spend as much time on the "book" side of training and actually need to enter the classroom, in some capacity.
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? | | |
I had a math teacher in high school who was probably the most brilliant person on the faculty. He worked for years in the private sector and held a number of patents. He'd quit his job after he made enough money and took a teaching position so he could have summers off and travel around the country on his bike. He did crazy stuff like try and get on game shows, and was generally (I thought) an interesting person. The first class I had with him was Trig, and the class was a madhouse. The problem was that his classroom management was awful. He let the students walk all over him. Years in the private sector made him accustomed to a certain level of professionalism that just didn't exist at a large public high school. Additionally, he confided that he was frustrated at the constant politicking involved in every aspect of the school life (we had a school system that approved budgets based on an anachronistic city-wide popular vote). I took Stats with him the next year, and class was marginally better, however, his teaching style seemed better suited for a college level course for students majoring in the material than an intro course for HS students.
The problem is not to produce either excellent or average teachers but to figure out what the "excellent" teachers are doing right and design a program to get the average teachers to adopt those methods, or encourage more people with the skills and drive of the excellent teachers to go into teaching. We also need to remove political and bureaucratic barriers to successful innovations as the Jaime Escalante case illustrates. | |
>
> | _To the degree that the skills and techniques excellent teachers have are teachable, I agree. That said, there are techniques that teachers may be using which cannot be replicated in other teachers. | | | In regards to teacher pay, this is something that needs to literally be evaluated on a district by district basis. Some districts have high pay but still poor results, including NYC. When you get out to the suburbs where property taxes determine the money available for the school system, you are going to find differences based on income. In my home state of MA, the public school systems with the highest average SAT scores are the Boston commuter suburbs with the wealthiest people. I've heard the argument that more accomplished people = smarter people = smarter kids, but that seems to me like wood-paneled smoking room rhetoric. It would be interesting to find a study that looked at the SAT scores of lower-income kids in wealthier communities to see if they are higher because of the improved facilities/better paid teachers. | | | One might argue that a liberal arts educations improves writing ability. True, but then let's append a year to the end of high school in which professors teach us university-level writing. Maybe that's not the best idea - but there has to be something out there that is more cost-effective than the current college system.
If a job does not require a college degree, then employers have no reason to require one. I have no idea how, but let's end the illusion that a "college graduate" is anything more than a 22-year-old with a piece of paper. | |
>
> | I completely agree | | |
To go back to your original point regarding teachers, I myself was a teacher for two years, but I never got a teaching degree. Instead I worked abroad in schools that did not require teaching degrees. What I learned from this is that teaching, like many jobs, can be learned on-the-job from experience. I was not very effective when I began, but after two-years I basically knew what I was doing. I also learned that teaching is all about individual styles. I observed other teachers from time to time and every one was extremely different in what she chose to stress or in how she organized her activities. I am not sure how much better off I would have been with an education degree. I observed both teachers with and without education degrees, however, and I did not notice a huge difference in the effectiveness of the two groups or any real difference in classroom management skills between the two groups, on average. | |
>
> | _Thank you for this comment. I feel like you touch on two of the main points I am advocating: (1) the value of on-the-job experience (2) how "education" can only teach so much (i.e. the "basics") and beyond that people will have individual styles. In fact, it makes me think that generic MA programs that teach standardized may in some ways impair one's effectiveness as a teacher. | | | -- ChristopherCrismanCox - 08 Feb 2010
| | | “Not everyone is suited for college.”
Fine – yeah, that’s tough to argue with. But what would the actual impact of taking such a stance be? You mention encouraging community colleges over 4 year degrees, since that will meet some people’s career goals. Sounds Great! Once we design a system with high schools that actually give students a well-rounded, solid education, that allows them to fully understand what their options are, and that gives them the capacity to make informed choices about where they want to end up in life, I say let’s go for it. | |
>
> | In the mean time, let us perpetuate the cycle of rising tuition | | | But until that happens, I have a feeling that the people who end up looking “suited” for college are going to be the ones whose parents went to college. The ones who end up looking “unsuited” for college are more likely going to be the ones whose parents didn’t. This is already largely the case, to the detriment of both the individuals and the community at large. Making it official policy seems pretty disturbing to me. | |
>
> | Again, gross distortion of my argument. Though, perhaps a bad use of language on my part. When I say "unsuited" what I mean is people who don't need to go to college to achieve their goals. I recognize though, that many people do not know what they want to do before going to college. Besides, the long term implications of implicitly discouraging higher education is to make it more affordable. | | | And what would have happened if we took that stance earlier in the 20th century when we decided to open the doors to education to veterans? We probably wouldn’t be looking at a recognizable America today. And I’m sure a lot of those folks didn’t look “suited” for college, and I’m sure it cost a lot of money, and I’m sure some went to some not-so-great institutions. But I think we’re better off in the long term. | |
>
> | This point is debatable and I perceive a bit of outcome bias here. But, generally speaking the G.I. bill had a lot of positive effects--it was also a dramatically different situation. WWII was a point in time where people were undereducated due to the draft. | | | Again, yes, there are some serious problems with the college education system. But I don’t see problems with some aspects of the system as grounds for making another broken area even worse. | | | On the larger issues, I agree with Paul.
The notion that "too many people" are attempting higher education doesn't sit well with me. If someone wants to go to college, let them. If they drop out after a year and never receive a degree, why is that a bad thing? A fellow citizen gained a year of education. | |
>
> | Its a bad thing because, under our current system, it makes college cost more. It is bad for the same reason that passing legislation making houses affordable to everyone through massive debt is bad. It makes housing prices skyrocket and then forces more leveraging. Eventually bubble bursts. In the mean time, I feel like the middle class gets the shaft (lower class does too). | | | The health of a democracy rests upon the education of its citizenry. We fund public libraries. We fund public primary education. We do so for good reasons. A participatory democracy requires a literate public, and benefits from thoughtful and discerning voters. Thinning the ranks of higher education is a poor way to make it more efficacious. If demand is high, we should devote greater resources as a society to maintain its quality. In short, let's throw some more money at the problem. | |
>
> | This frustrates me because it only compounds the problem and makes education less affordable. If we throw more money at the problem in the form of debt availability, subsidies, etc. it only makes it less possible for the middle class to afford tuition. I think there is a good middle ground which was stated by Erica, which is, promote state schools. Nevertheless, does anyone really think that college degrees make for a more educated citizenry? Here is the problem: to get into college in the first place you have to be literate (unless you are one of 30 people on the FSU football team). Thus, colleges, though ideally create a more educated citizenry, in reality only widens the current education gap. Higher education only educates the educated. The benefits of college vis-a-vis "education of its citizenry" is given to the people who need it the least. Higher education has its purpose, but in reality its not to educate the citizenry. | | | P.S. I realize my post about education/democracy is vulnerable to a number of critiques, especially regarding the ease of voter manipulation, voter apathy, the poor state of our current public education system in meeting its theoretical goals, etc. I'll let someone else take up the mantle of poking holes in idealism tonight. |
|