Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
* Gave no comments at all on an essay other than a grade. When students complained that they did not know why they had received this grade, they were told, "Look at the rubric" and refused to explain why their specific essay fit those criteria in the rubric.
We ran into this with two separate teachers in our brief flirtation with a gifted magnet school. The gifted program rationale was "they'll have to get used to this before college".
Well...okay...two problems with that. First is that they'll have to get used to a number of things, including driving, drunken roommates and filling out FAFSA forms, none of which I expect them to handle at the age of eleven. Second is that, through three degrees and a ridiculous number of majors, I never ran into an instructor who wouldn't explain a grade when asked. I have to chalk this upto laziness or ineptitude, or (more likely) both.
We ran into this with two separate teachers in our brief flirtation with a gifted magnet school. The gifted program rationale was "they'll have to get used to this before college".
Well...okay...two problems with that. First is that they'll have to get used to a number of things, including driving, drunken roommates and filling out FAFSA forms, none of which I expect them to handle at the age of eleven. Second is that, through three degrees and a ridiculous number of majors, I never ran into an instructor who wouldn't explain a grade when asked. I have to chalk this upto laziness or ineptitude, or (more likely) both.
Unless I get more or different data -- something I am always willing to do -- I will continue to stand by an assertion I have made many times based on my experience: education degrees are damn near worthless.
Here's what I mean. I'm summarizing from many years' worth of experience, so please forgive the broad brush w/which I am necessarily painting. All of the below applies to English, my discipline, and to teachers who have gotten their degrees in education, "English education" (better, because it requires at least some courses in English, but not as good as an actual English degree), or in some other subject besides English but who are teaching English regardless:
Here are some of my most memorable encounters with teachers of that description. They have...
* Literally cried when told to teach grammar.
* Cried and admitted, "Teaching grammar makes me uncomfortable."
* Said, "I don't really believe in teaching essays."
* Primarily assessed students' mastery of English through using "nonlinguistic assessment" -- that is, assessment which involved no words. When mathematics teachers start using nonmathematical assessment to assess math skills -- and it works, and works better than assessing math skills by, say, doing math -- then maybe I will consider a similar approach for English. Until then, I will stubbornly continue to insist that a class in language is assessed best by using words.
* Grouped students in clusters of six to write "group essays" so that he or she only had to grade five essays per class instead of thirty.
* Gave no comments at all on an essay other than a grade. When students complained that they did not know why they had received this grade, they were told, "Look at the rubric" and refused to explain why their specific essay fit those criteria in the rubric.
* Substituted sentimental tripe for real literature study. Two actual, real-life examples: The teacher who taught all three Twilight books to her freshmen, and the teacher who taught The Lovely Bones.
* Demonstrated substandard command of English spelling, syntax, and vocabulary. My favorite example: a handout entitled, "The American Dream: Reality, or Allusion?" This was NOT a clever pun.
* Stated, "Oh, I could never take a class in Shakespeare. It would be too hard."
I could go on. In essence, these teachers have several features in common: a disdain and even an active dislike for the fundamental elements of their discipline: the elements of grammar, the rules of clear writing, and the classic literature which forms the central canon of Western culture. Overall, I have found ed. majors, on the whole, to be relentlessly anti-intellectual and ultimately a serious problem, especially for gifted students.
They cannot give in-depth answers to questions because they don't have them: without the answers in the back of the book, they're sunk. They can't explain why and they can't go off-book because they can't. Their choices in assessment almost always involve the least amount of work possible...for them. They often involve some form of visual representation rather than words, although words are their business. They do not care very much about words or language. That's all well and good -- but don't teach English.
I would have to agree. IMO, teaching is learned in front of the classroom not by sitting in one. I'm finding that little in my ed major prepared me for the realities of the classroom. My engineering major, however, means I know my content well enough that I don't have to teach it to myself before I teach the students and I can shift on the fly (I often have to when I find my students don't know prerequisite material or the way I'm teaching just isn't working). Content isn't something I have to struggle with no matter what the subject (I'd have to refuse to teach grammer too, but I wasn't an english major)
I am finding that content is only a small part of teaching but I feel sorry for any teacher who isn't a master of their content area. That's just one more thing on their plate. With three lab based preps, I'd be dead if I had to teach myself the material before I teach it. Fortunately, all I need is a light review for most topics. By the time I throw together a power point and a few assignments, I've done all the review I need. I don't write formal lesson plans. I do a rough outline and then go the direction the class leads me. At the end of the hour, I do a brain dump into a planning book to keep track of what I covered.
To be honest, I think we should rethink how we certify teachers. Instead of having teachers take ed classes before they start teaching, have them major in their subject area then start teaching and take ed classes at night where they discuss real classroom situations they are experiencing. At least, then, the ed major would serve a purpose. Out of the 12 classes I had to take for my ed major, only 4 were of any use and then not much. The most interesting one had nothing to do with teaching. It was on racism and classism in America.
I really think teachers should apprentice under a master teacher. I'm not talking about student teaching but giving a new teacher a full load of classes and a mentor who works with them, at least, weekly to see that they're covering their bases and learning what they need to learn. As a second year teacher, I feel like I should be getting, constant, feedback but I'm getting none. I learn by making mistakes, dusting myself off and making new mistakes. I leave things in place that seem to work and, probably, don't realize that there might be better ways to do things. There really should be master teachers whose job it is to supervise new teachers and give them that feedback. I feel like I'm self teaching myself how to teach but the problem with self teaching is you are limited by what the teacher knows to try.
There really should be master teachers whose job it is to supervise new teachers and give them that feedback. I feel like I'm self teaching myself how to teach but the problem with self teaching is you are limited by what the teacher knows to try.
I agree. There seems to be more emergency certified teachers missing the professional development and student teaching experience.
I have a bigger concern over schools using traditional teaching instead of self-directed project orientated instructions for students identified gifted. A highly gifted student may be able to study for a week and master the semester exam easily. Wouldn't it seem as though the teacher would be just 'babysitting' the gifted student the next couple of months? It wastes both teacher and the gifted student's time.
On the other hand, some high schools in the area are providing International Baccalaureate (IB) courses as gifted instruction. While I like the set-up, I don't particularly know how much difference this would make on a high school transcript for a student entering college.
I agree. There seems to be more emergency certified teachers missing the professional development and student teaching experience.
I have a bigger concern over schools using traditional teaching instead of self-directed project orientated instructions for students identified gifted. A highly gifted student may be able to study for a week and master the semester exam easily. Wouldn't it seem as though the teacher would be just 'babysitting' the gifted student the next couple of months? It wastes both teacher and the gifted student's time.
On the other hand, some high schools in the area are providing International Baccalaureate (IB) courses as gifted instruction. While I like the set-up, I don't particularly know how much difference this would make on a high school transcript for a student entering college.
IMO, student teaching is not enough and pretty much a waste of time. I think teachers should be trained the same way engineers are. I was an apprentice for three years before I had a permanent assignment. During that time, I had projects but was considered to be in training and closely supervised.
Honestly, 15 weeks of student teaching didn't turn me into a teacher. I'm still in the process of doing that only, now, I do so with little supervision. Just as I was an engineer in training for three years, I think I should be a teacher in training. Unfortunately, they considered my training done after 15 weeks of student teaching. I'm not sure why learning to teach is sink or swim. I'm SURE that's not good for the students.
To be honest, I think we should rethink how we certify teachers. Instead of having teachers take ed classes before they start teaching, have them major in their subject area then start teaching and take ed classes at night where they discuss real classroom situations they are experiencing. At least, then, the ed major would serve a purpose. Out of the 12 classes I had to take for my ed major, only 4 were of any use and then not much. The most interesting one had nothing to do with teaching. It was on racism and classism in America.
I really think teachers should apprentice under a master teacher. I'm not talking about student teaching but giving a new teacher a full load of classes and a mentor who works with them, at least, weekly to see that they're covering their bases and learning what they need to learn. As a second year teacher, I feel like I should be getting, constant, feedback but I'm getting none. I learn by making mistakes, dusting myself off and making new mistakes. I leave things in place that seem to work and, probably, don't realize that there might be better ways to do things. There really should be master teachers whose job it is to supervise new teachers and give them that feedback. I feel like I'm self teaching myself how to teach but the problem with self teaching is you are limited by what the teacher knows to try.
I do understand -- and frankly, I think your plan would be far better and more practical than the way most colleges of ed. have it set up now.
Does this vary per state? Many of my colleagues in Texas and Nebraska have degrees in Secondary Education and I have friends in a few other states who have degrees in it as well. These are education degrees with one or more areas of specialization, such as math or English, but the major itself is Education. Just wondering if it is different everywhere else?
I think it does vary by state but NCLB definitions of highly qualified used to mean a degree of expertice in your field that was so many credit hours as to mean a degree. In NJ you must have 30 credits in your specific field (so I have 30 credits in chemistry) to get a HS certification. Now there are absolutely people who are grandfathered in for the new requirements. In NJ you used to be able to teach any science as long as you had 30 credits of any science.
With all due respect, they definitely do. Among my departmental colleagues at my school, for example, I am one of two people (out of seven) who has at least an undergraduate degree in my subject area. Most of the rest have degrees in education. This is typical of the other schools at which I have worked.
Believe me, there is a profound difference between those teachers who have degrees in education and those who have degrees in a core subject area.
Wow. Literally no one in my school has an education bachelors degree. A couple of people have gone back and gotten masters or doctorates in education but that is it.
The school I worked at last had one person with an education degree out of the eight of us in the science department but he was much older.
Wow. Literally no one in my school has an education bachelors degree. A couple of people have gone back and gotten masters or doctorates in education but that is it.
The school I worked at last had one person with an education degree out of the eight of us in the science department but he was much older.
Maybe its a state by state thing?
I think it is state by state. Here in Michigan, you get an ed degree and then have to meet certain numbers of credits in the area you'll teach. I don't know what they are for others but I had to have, at least, 40 credits in chemistry for my chem "major", at least 30 credits in math for my math "major" and, at least 20 credits in physics for my physics "minor". A true chemistry major or math major would have had me taking a lot more credits of each. While I have the equivalent of a chemistry major, I don't have enough math for a non ed math major, unless you consider that pretty much every engineering class I had involved math
I think it is state by state. Here in Michigan, you get an ed degree and then have to meet certain numbers of credits in the area you'll teach. I don't know what they are for others but I had to have, at least, 40 credits in chemistry for my chem "major", at least 30 credits in math for my math "major" and, at least 20 credits in physics for my physics "minor". A true chemistry major or math major would have had me taking a lot more credits of each. While I have the equivalent of a chemistry major, I don't have enough math for a non ed math major, unless you consider that pretty much every engineering class I had involved math
For bio, chem and phys, you need 30 of each with no introductory level or education course counting. It was very hard to get 30 in physics but they eventually counted my physical oceanography course so I just made it.
To me the 30 is sort of odd. I have gen chem 1& 2, orgo 1&2, biochem 1&2 and only have 28 credits. IMOP those classes are more than enough to teach any level of high school chem including AP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I wasn't an english major)
