posted
I really don't think having a degree in a subject is necessary for teaching it for the most part. I've had bad teachers in every subject who knew the subject matter excellently yet were horrible teachers in it.
Take math, for instance. While I'd like the person teaching anything up to the second year of algebra and trigonometry (common junior and senior year type courses for your average high school student) to at least have a good grasp of first and second year calculus to understand a lot of the basic theory behind algebra and trig, for that person to have a grasp of set theory (as a person with a math degree would) just doesn't really matter.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know two personally. I know many professionally. The two I know are friends. One has his PhD, the other is working on it. Both want to continue their own education as long as they remain teaching. What have you done yourself scholastically, Elizabeth? Do you agree that as a teacher, one should also remain a student, furthering their own education and/or degrees? How many teachers do you know actually do that? I know of four, the two I don't know personally study abroad over the summer. Maybe my ideal for what qualifies a teacher are too high? In my opinion, they should be that high.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, fugu. The best math teachers I ever had held at least two degrees, and one held three. Understanding a subject thoroughly makes teaching it easier, and the information passed on more accurate. For instance, how much do children have to unlearn of math and English when they get into high school, so they can learn it correctly? This is a problem that has come up regularly in cases I've seen.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, undoubtedly if you have someone who has a graduate degree in math combined with excellent teaching skills you'll have the best sort of math teacher. But we're not arguing best, we're arguing adequate.
edit2: and which level of math class were these teachers teaching, btw?
edit: Also, that doesn't actually speak to my point at all. I didn't say that people with degrees in the subject couldn't teach well, I just said that people with degrees in the subject didn't necessarily teach well.
Oh, and I've had similar conversations with several of the teachers I know well, and even the ones with the higher degrees tend to agree they aren't the most important part of the job. Most of them acknowledge that the actual facts imparted, in fact, are not of all that much consequence.
I think teachers with subject degrees would be a nice ideal, but unless it goes hand in hand with good money its just not happening.
If you want pipe dreams to come true, you have to build pipes.
This is what I'm talking about. At the current state where "adequate" is encouraged, people are becoming adults with subpar basic skills with today's education system. While the whole of the blame is not the teachers, higher standards should be in place to require the promotion of higher skill levels. This would also mean more money needed for the schools, the programs, and the identification of needy students, but at the heart of this all would be the need for teachers who thoroughly understand what they are teaching. That's what I'm saying is needed as a step toward my pipe dream. I'm saying that NCLB, while having some parts that don't address the problem, also has steps to lay down some of the pipes needed for that dream.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think I need to spew my education forth just to satisfy you. Yes, I do agree that a teacher should continue his or her education. Every teacher I know does, and wants to. (and also has to)
I disagree that I have to hold a major in a subject that I teach. I teach elementary-middle school. I am probably a better math teacher than I am an English teacher, and math was a huge challenge for me in high school.
I also disagree that the part of teaching that you describe as glorified babysitting is unimportant. I think it is extremely important. I teach young kids in a public school. Private schools can set all sorts of parameters for academic achievment and behavior. We cannot.(as easily) We have to teach everyone, all at once.
It is not an easy job, but I love it. If I seemed preachy, I apologize. I was actually defensive and angry. I am tired of hearing what a piece of crud I am from people who have no clue what I do all day.
My favorite gardening quote from Thomas Jefferson applies to how I feel about teaching and learning, learning and teaching. There IS no difference:
"But though I am an old man, I am but a young gardener.
posted
I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, and I certainly was not calling you crud. I'm talking as a whole, not you, nor any single teacher out there. Where you may know many who continue education, all but the four I mentioned above are not seeking the same here, which may or may not skew my perception a bit. Maybe the average is higher than I see. Maybe it isn't though, and maybe you are in a very lucky school system. The main point of what I was saying is that it is a good thing to require a higher bar for teachers to pass, because so much is expected of them already. I would feel uneasy having someone who may have wonderful personal skills but not enough education skills in a job that requires both, and the policy of requiring degreed teachers according to the NCLB ensures that. That has also been the most disputed topic in the local political races here where I live, because the local politicians have been promising to fight the policies of NCLB over it. While that may please the teachers, it's dangerously ignoring the students, in my opinion. Getting teachers better supplies and pay is one thing I agree with, but not at the cost of having enough adequate teachers in the classrooms, which I do not feel there are enough of.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
However, you have to respect the teachers who were working before these guidelines took effect. They HAVE to be given credit for their years of teaching. They might have to be observed by someone, but they should get credit for time served. It should convert into a class. One class or three years of (lightly) supervised teaching. You see, we have to take, but LOVE to take, workshops of our choice,as long as it fits with what we teach. I have had the most fun taking geography workshops, and book making. I want to teach social studies, or have my own elementary self-contained class.
My philosophy for teaching is based on connectedness. Whenever possible, I try not to disconnect knowledge. I use what my coteacher teaches in English as the guidelines for my writing assignments in science or social studies, and back and forth. It is so much fun to expand on old units or develop brand new ones. Right now we are doing a pop-up book project. Those who finish the basic core of the unit can have a pop-up book to create four rooms in, based on the American Revolution. Any ideas?
posted
In most cases there are credits given for certain experience, but the requirements qould still have to be able to be charted. The workshops and other things would count around here, as far as I know, though the amount of credits towards any degree would depend on the college or university. On the other hand, there are many classes that can be tested out of for undergrad, so it's not even like it's that difficult. Also, as far as I knew, most state and local systems were helping foot the bill for non-degreed teachers who are working toward getting a degree before deadline, which is 2006, I believe. The options are there, they just require making sure certain things are covered. The attitude I've mostly seen has been that of teachers who have been working for ten or more years who don't want to sit on the other side of the classroom again, even if the state is footing the bill, and even though they'd be further ahead of younger students in terms of credits from the start. I'm glad that you feel teaching and learning are both necessary, Elizabeth, because I've seen too many who do not have that kind of optimism and openness.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, I do hold a degree. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education, but I am still labeled as "unqualified" by the Federal government.
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I would like to point out that unions, with their organized strikes, have helped make fair-labor laws, such as healthy work environments, anti-child labor laws, and many others of the same sort. Although strikes were--and still can be--very bloodly, generally nowadays many strikes are avoided by mediations between higher-ups and union reps.
And now, a hypothetical. Allow me to present it in a scientific hypothesis:
IF teachers unions are a terrorist group THEN all teachers in unions should be arrested.
Hey, this is a post-9/11 world. Terrorism is not a word to throw around lightly, lest we forget the true definition.
At the school my mother teaches in, over 50% are union teachers, my mother included. But hey, they're terrorist, not teachers. Lock them up. Go on. You know where they are, in their classrooms, doing their jobs.
That's just one elementary school out of about a hundred in the parish/county, maybe more, I'm not sure at the moment. Some are probably more unionized than just that one.
So, roughly speaking, that's maybe... 1,000 teachers? 2,000? In just one parish/county. We're already teachers short, and you can't have just one teacher with 60-some odd kids per class all day. You have to bring in other people, other teachers, subs, what have you.
So, we have underqualified people teaching our children, who's education is suffering while 'terrorists' flood our already-flooded prisions and judicial systems.
Now blow that up to the national scale.
And while we're at it, let's hit the PTAs! They're OBVIOUSLY terrorists, because they're involved in their child's education.
I know, I'm being cynical. Some 'jokes' are inappropriate, especially with something as serious as terrorism. We stared a war over terrorism, people. It's our magic word; just say it and all other reasons disappear into thin air!
Teachers have a very thankless job. Calling them terrorists is not encouraging. The next thing we know, we'll be calling them baby-corrupters.
Posts: 873 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I do not know his department of ed. guidelines, I could guess that Utah is not considered "highly qualified" because he(she? sorry!) might be teaching in a middle school(say, sixth grade English), and does not have a specific English degree, though has an elementary ed. certification which would(until recently) cover him/her to teach English to sixth graders, because they are eementary stdents. He would need to get a Masters, or take enough English classes to meet an English requirement. It would depend on how many classes he is away from that.
Or, he/she could get a Masters.
Now this is where I have an issue. When I look around my school, which is primarily veteran teachers, I see some mighty fine educators. They are superior teachers to a newer teacher who is "highly qualified." They are getting screwed.
Argent, as far as I have seen, schools paying for Masters programs is a myth. I did hear of one three-year math program which would make someone highly qualified, but that is it. The proble(one) with NCLB is that it looks good on paper, but when real humans are involved, and real money, the story changes.
Also, now they are requiring paraprofessionals to have a BA to teach as assistants. OK, so someone who is making seven dollars an hour has to pay for college? Good-bye paras, off they go to make real money.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say schools paying for masters programs. I said school systems paying to get their teachers adequately degreed to teach. In my county, there are at least half a dozen teachers going to the local community college to finish up their last credits, and not paying for it. I know that depending on your state, you can find similar programs. It's not a myth.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you talking about teachers without BAs? How can they even be teachers of record in a public school?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
NCLB allows states to set their own specific definition of "highly qualified." Most states allow the teachers to pass the subject area exam in lieu of holding a degree in field. Are your states different, UTAH and Elizabeth?
-o-
FWIW, the fact that a teacher is taking classes is not an indication that the teacher is not "highly qualified." I qualify for that description: I am certified, have a degree in math, and have been teaching for ten years. I am also currently taking a class because part of our continuing certification requirement is to earn six credits every five years. So don't assume people are not qualified because they are taking night classes somewhere.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can know something well without having a degree. You can even PROVE you know something well without having a degree.
In fact, I suspect teaching a subject for 4 years is better proof of understanding that subject than a degree.
------
What's more - I don't ever recall having a problem with any of my teacher's not knowing enough. There were many bad teachers, but this was because they had bad teaching methods or didn't care enough. I can't recall a single case where it was a lack of subject area knowledge that did it.
posted
Depends. At the risk of angering the other teachers here, I've known algebra teachers who've never taken a course in calculus. Now, after teaching algebra for five or ten years, sure, you know algebra--at a ninth grade level, that is. You lack the perspective, though, for how this knowledge is going to be called upon in later courses, and for what parts of your class are truly more important. And so you get the algebra teachers who penalize students for leaving fractions improper, or who spend three weeks on tesselations but don't get to polynomials.
I think there are issues with NCLB, but I'm not convinced that this is one of them.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, I suspect teaching a subject for 4 years is better proof of understanding that subject than a degree.
Tres, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that someone teachs a subject does NOT prove they know the subject. I had far too many teachers that didn't know the subject but managed to keep their job.
I had "coachs" that were thrown into a classroom that didn't know squat about the subject.
posted
I did not assume that, Icarus. Most of the people taking classes around here are not degreed, and are taking undergrad classes to fill a degree. Most of them grandfathered in by being daycare workers and substitutes and aides for long enough to work their way up and pass the state tests required to hold the job.
I am not saying a degree makes a person smarter or more intrinsically qualified. I am saying that a degree, or even a minor, in the field they teach is a far better indicator that the instructor has gone through training for what they are going to teach, instead of just being able to volley back the same things teachers before them said without a firm basis in the suject itself. I used the literacy link as an indication of the numbers of undereducated adults, and I'm asking people to recall their own early education as an example. Do you or do you not remember being told in high school math and English that you have to relearn some things you took for granted in grade school? I spent time in three high schools over two states, and saw the same technique in each. Why are children being taught flawed method in grade school, only to be confused by the change and need to relearn in high school? Why do a large number of high school graduates have a below high school reading level? The system needs more work, I'm sure, but if all of these instructors are so qualified, why are so many not learning?
quote:Tres, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that someone teachs a subject does NOT prove they know the subject. I had far too many teachers that didn't know the subject but managed to keep their job.
I had "coachs" that were thrown into a classroom that didn't know squat about the subject.
Exactly my point. Anyone can read out of a teacher's edition workbook. A good number can even make it sound convincing. The only way to be sure they actually know the subject is if they have actually done the work. Currently, a degree is the best indicator of having done the work.
Isn't it rare that a person go from getting a degree to teaching a classroom? Don't they have to go through a year of student teaching or something? How many teachers here worked as substitutes before they taught? Do you think a required amount of substitute teaching would maximize the efficiency of these potential teacher to get that much needed experience?
posted
Argent, I'm not saying I completely agree with you, just that I disagree with Tres on that point.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that someone teachs a subject does NOT prove they know the subject. I had far too many teachers that didn't know the subject but managed to keep their job.
A degree isn't any better though. I knew plenty of people who graduated with economics degrees back in school who didn't really know the subject that well. I'm sure the same is true with many other subjects. All you have to do is listen to a bunch of lectures, write a few papers maybe, and pass some tests. I think teaching a course in a given subject is at least as challenging as that.
---
Incidently, why do school systems require only one semester of student teaching before they consider a teacher fully qualified? If I were writing the rules, I'd want new teachers spending more time being trained by master teachers, and spend far less time worrying about degrees and college credits.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The requirement for the degree may be just one semester, but most schools these days will create some sort of a mentorship relationship for a new teacher. (Of course, the flip side of this is that they don't really pay these mentors significantly more . . . )
Your post, though, seems to hinge on the thought that the "how to teach" is more crucial than the content itself.
We can all point to anecdotal evidence of people with some credential who were nevertheless incompetent, or people without it who were brilliant. But, accepting that any way we document highly qualified status is bound to be fallible, I still don't see anything all that wrong with asking teachers to document their subject area knowledge--especially given that in most states, simply passing a subject area exam will accomplish that. (A point that everyone seems to have overlooked, btw.)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You lack the perspective, though, for how this knowledge is going to be called upon in later courses, and for what parts of your class are truly more important."
This happens, in a different way, all through the grades. Sometimes, it is not so much a matter of a teacher not knowing what is important at a higher level, but is more about a lack of communication. What we are doing now in our town, in a panicky oh-my-goodness-12-special ed-kids-did-not-achieve-AYP mode, is to get all the grades together and strategize what is most important to teach. It SEEMS obvious, but it is amazing how infrequently it happens.
A fifth grade teacher should be able to say to the fourth grade teachers, "You know, I am having trouble teaching these kids because they are so weak on their math facts."
One thing I DO like about the testing is that it is making schools circle up the wagons much more, and helps teachers to break out of their niches and communicate.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)
