As I got my nails painted, I talked with a really cool woman my age (I wish we were BFFs - she teaches very close to where I live) from Spokane and we got to comparing standards for teachers between different states. The consensus was that WA has stricter standards, and higher-ranked schools (much smaller families helps with the funding problem, no doubt). She mentioned an 18-year-old cousin subbing in the mountain west with no credentials. She was working very hard, while engaged, to get certification and advanced education to teach first graders. (And after He Who Shall Not Be Named lost it, I have a newfound respect for first-grade teachers, yikes! Some of the stories I've heard are nothing short of heroic.)
I know we have at least a couple of active educators here, Uffish and Emiliana. How do you feel about accreditation to teach at the level you're teaching? Do you feel standards should be stricter, laxer, or are about right? How do teaching loads/classroom makeup differ? (For instance, Cute Teacher Lady sees a lot of schools here in Salt Lake with a huge Spanish speaking population, and there are different ideas of what best serves their needs.) Are you planning on getting advanced degrees?
I'm torn, because I worked with a math education major, an econ major, a soon-to-be rocketry science MS candidate, and I was no better or worse a primary and secondary math tutor as a French almost-graduate.* But helping one seventh-grade girl with algebra is a different kettle of fish than being in charge of a classroom of 25, 30 students, in my opinion. So I see good arguments both for letting the smartest, best candidate take a position, but I also respect the hard work and time so many put into their credentialization.
*sing "BYU dropout" to the Grease song tune
education (notate bene, teachers)
Re: education (notate bene, teachers)
Okay, I know this is not a RECENT recent post, but I saw it, I'm going into teaching, and I wanted to throw in my cent. (I don't think I even have two cents to throw in, so we'll go with one.) I'm not going to try to give a comprehensive response to this, but I do have some thoughts on some aspects of the matter.
(I'm assuming we're talking about the accreditation of new teachers here, rather than continuing teachers' renewing of their certificates.)
Standardization (by accreditation) is good and bad at the same time. If we did away with accreditation, I think we could in some ways more easily pick out the best and the brightest teachers. Then again, if we relaxed standards, it would be much easier for unqualified applicants to slip through the gaps--and replacing one teacher with another halfway through the year (because things "didn't work out") is nigh-catastrophic compared to replacing one business employee with another. Projects are more easily interchangeable; relationships and curriculum are not. Also, as I understand it, accreditation is the bare minimum for hiring anyway, and so what principals and districts are mostly looking at when they hire are the personal recommendations someone's received--the same sort of thing that happens in a regular hiring process. They base a lot of their hiring decisions off of the recommendation from the applicant's mentor teacher (the person they student-taught with) and the preservice professor who mentored the student at the university. Interviewers also pay attention to schools, since not all are created equal--for instance, BYU makes English teachers take some extra classes that other schools don't require, which helps them to be more aware of current paradigms on instruction, etc., and which probably gives BYU grads an edge as compared to many other schools.
I'm glad you pointed out the factor of trying to teaching something to 25- or 30-odd students. Knowledge of content is one thing, but knowledge of how to teach that content to a bunch of hyperactive adolescents hopped up on their own hormones (or dealing with problems at home, etc.) is another thing altogether. That stupid old saying that "those who can't do, teach" is completely ridiculous, since there are so many factors involved with curriculum, assessment, differentiated instruction, planning, etc. that most teachers need to learn and practice explicitly to do proficiently. True, some people are born teachers, but most of us need to learn it, just like people have to learn any other trade.
Cent thrown in.
(I'm assuming we're talking about the accreditation of new teachers here, rather than continuing teachers' renewing of their certificates.)
Standardization (by accreditation) is good and bad at the same time. If we did away with accreditation, I think we could in some ways more easily pick out the best and the brightest teachers. Then again, if we relaxed standards, it would be much easier for unqualified applicants to slip through the gaps--and replacing one teacher with another halfway through the year (because things "didn't work out") is nigh-catastrophic compared to replacing one business employee with another. Projects are more easily interchangeable; relationships and curriculum are not. Also, as I understand it, accreditation is the bare minimum for hiring anyway, and so what principals and districts are mostly looking at when they hire are the personal recommendations someone's received--the same sort of thing that happens in a regular hiring process. They base a lot of their hiring decisions off of the recommendation from the applicant's mentor teacher (the person they student-taught with) and the preservice professor who mentored the student at the university. Interviewers also pay attention to schools, since not all are created equal--for instance, BYU makes English teachers take some extra classes that other schools don't require, which helps them to be more aware of current paradigms on instruction, etc., and which probably gives BYU grads an edge as compared to many other schools.
I'm glad you pointed out the factor of trying to teaching something to 25- or 30-odd students. Knowledge of content is one thing, but knowledge of how to teach that content to a bunch of hyperactive adolescents hopped up on their own hormones (or dealing with problems at home, etc.) is another thing altogether. That stupid old saying that "those who can't do, teach" is completely ridiculous, since there are so many factors involved with curriculum, assessment, differentiated instruction, planning, etc. that most teachers need to learn and practice explicitly to do proficiently. True, some people are born teachers, but most of us need to learn it, just like people have to learn any other trade.
Cent thrown in.
Re: education (notate bene, teachers)
Good feedback. (And I am not at all opposed to oldish threads of mine being resuscitated.)wryness wrote:Okay, I know this is not a RECENT recent post, but I saw it, I'm going into teaching, and I wanted to throw in my cent. (I don't think I even have two cents to throw in, so we'll go with one.) I'm not going to try to give a comprehensive response to this, but I do have some thoughts on some aspects of the matter.
(I'm assuming we're talking about the accreditation of new teachers here, rather than continuing teachers' renewing of their certificates.)
Standardization (by accreditation) is good and bad at the same time. If we did away with accreditation, I think we could in some ways more easily pick out the best and the brightest teachers. Then again, if we relaxed standards, it would be much easier for unqualified applicants to slip through the gaps--and replacing one teacher with another halfway through the year (because things "didn't work out") is nigh-catastrophic compared to replacing one business employee with another. Projects are more easily interchangeable; relationships and curriculum are not. Also, as I understand it, accreditation is the bare minimum for hiring anyway, and so what principals and districts are mostly looking at when they hire are the personal recommendations someone's received--the same sort of thing that happens in a regular hiring process. They base a lot of their hiring decisions off of the recommendation from the applicant's mentor teacher (the person they student-taught with) and the preservice professor who mentored the student at the university. Interviewers also pay attention to schools, since not all are created equal--for instance, BYU makes English teachers take some extra classes that other schools don't require, which helps them to be more aware of current paradigms on instruction, etc., and which probably gives BYU grads an edge as compared to many other schools.
I'm glad you pointed out the factor of trying to teaching something to 25- or 30-odd students. Knowledge of content is one thing, but knowledge of how to teach that content to a bunch of hyperactive adolescents hopped up on their own hormones (or dealing with problems at home, etc.) is another thing altogether. That stupid old saying that "those who can't do, teach" is completely ridiculous, since there are so many factors involved with curriculum, assessment, differentiated instruction, planning, etc. that most teachers need to learn and practice explicitly to do proficiently. True, some people are born teachers, but most of us need to learn it, just like people have to learn any other trade.
Cent thrown in.
I was referring to differences between private and public school certification. In private primary and secondary schools, usually all you need is a bachelor's, or a master's in a specific field for some upper grades.