Haley Dover, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, has an article entitled “Local school officials oppose non-degree teachers.” The article is about a decision by our mostly dysfunctional State Board of Education’s decision to allow people without teaching degrees into the classrooms. They would have to have a B-average in a subject area and pass one exam.
“This whole idea that someone can just walk in and start teaching is ridiculous,” said Rocky Killion, superintendent of West Lafayette Community School Corp. “It’s as ridiculous as me passing an exam and becoming a brain surgeon.”
. . .
Killion agreed, saying this dumbs down teaching requirements thus reducing the probability that students will have a highly trained educator leading them. Instead of reducing the requirements, the state needs to increase teacher education standards, he said.“Before I would ever consider someone with an emergency license, I will knock on every education door within the United States and across the world to make sure that I have a high-quality, well-prepared teacher in the classroom,” Killion said.
Seems to me a little like hiring a delivery driver who’s handy with a map but who never learned to drive a truck.
Given the political background of this decision, however, it can best be seen as a financially and politically motivated effort to continue marginalizing teachers, teacher’s unions, and teacher’s colleges.
Exactly.
For one year I was an adjunct faculty member at a college, teaching journalism, which I knew from having a career in it. I sucked. The idea is that you have a professional showing you the ropes, but it’s a big difference between training a pro who’s been hired at your shop, and training a classroom full of college students of varying ages, backgrounds, ethnicities and abilities.
My eldest son, entering college next year, wants to be a high school teacher, so I’ve gotten to meet professors and leaders at various schools of education to see how they work. One thing that sticks out to me is how Ohio does its teacher training. Most states (at least in the Midwest) have you major in your subject area, then concentrate on the education part at the end of your undergraduate curriculum. In Ohio, the subject-expert model doesn’t exist. Instead, you spend your undergrad days learning how to teach. Your subject area isn’t neglected, but in an age when you can easily look up whatever you need, it makes more sense (to me) to train people how teach and manage a classroom, rather than make them a U.S. history expert who, oh by the way, might learn a little how to teach.
Precisely. I can always teach myself the subject matter at hand… having the methods and classroom management skills is another matter completely. At IU, we majored in Education with a concentration in your subject area.
You have a gem in Rocky Killian. He’s smart, gutsy and tells people what they need to hear.
Hiring someone off the street with a degree has been the subject of some research. It’s not a new idea.
The educational scene is very different now than it was 30 years ago, with a turnover of around 50% in many areas, primarily because teachers are being treated like trash, which is a huge problem in itself. The guy who comes in post-test with a degree is, as Killian mentioned, poorly prepared in many ways, and views teaching as a short time gig until something different comes along. About the time the person understands what is going on, he/she leaves, contributing to the high turnover. The average time on the job for the off-the-street “teacher” is around three years. The whole enterprise tends to be more, rather than less, expensive in the long run, not just financially but educationally, leaving the staff with lower morale and kids cheated. But that’s only data. What is data when you have ideology?
Another thing: You may have seen the blurb that reports Indiana as being the “8th dumbest state”. No doubt that reflects the number of years of schooling for the average Indiana resident. That contributes to a cyclic self-fulling prophecy. When people have a low view of education, they are reluctant to support it, and view the education enterprise as “easy” and performed by poorly qualified people. That leads to poorer funding and subsequent poor working conditions, less reward for staying in the field and low morale. Sure enough, the enterprise ends up being performed by poorly qualified people, and it fulfills the lowered expectations set up for the state.
Unless we have more enlightened people in crucial places–from the governor to the State board and legislature–conditions will not improve, and Indiana will be in hot competition with Mississippi and West Virginia. Education, like many areas in this state, needs a revolution of “leadership”.
I’ve often wondered if in some area, particularly declining rural or small-town locations, if there isn’t resentment toward the education system because they have to pay taxes for it, the people who work there make more money than they do, and if all is done well, the kids will get their diplomas and get the hell out of town as fast as they can. I don’t know that anyone would ever say that, and certainly there are plenty of educated people in growing places who think the schools are a waste of time and money. But if you’re in a declining area, it seems like it’s harder to make the case that good schools are a benefit to the community, given nothing seems to be benefiting the community.
If you are educated and have some sort of advanced degree in those areas, it’s best not to make it a topic of discussion. They may act respectful, but you can feel the resentment. Best to talk about weather, roads, crops, best gas to buy, anything else. Those folks are the base which serves as “support” for public education. For them, education should be the same as job training. None of that literature, social studies or communistic evolution stuff.
Yes, just look at the dazzling urbanites in Gary or Indianapolis or Fort Wayne. The teachers’ unions have done a fantastic job in those places!
People who have negative attitudes about education are usually folks who have had bad experiences with the schools, but their parents had negative attitudes which were the source of some of those problems. There are some folks whose style of dealing with school problems is, when the school asks for a conference for Thursday, they move back to Tennessee on Wednesday.
Doug,
So how do you account for someone like me, who has never taken an education course but has taught speech, political science and law for 10 years, since I have degrees in all three?
I have no idea how your students are doing or who they are. In any event, you’ve never been one to regard yourself as a common denominator. So, I wouldn’t expect you to hold your own abilities out as representative of the population at large.
While I have no idea whether you are in fact a “good teacher” there is a difference between being called a teacher and being an effective person called “teacher”. This comment comes after 12 years as a secondary school student, six years in college, and over 35 years as a teacher. Have observed some excellent teachers at all levels and have observed some folks that should never be allowed in a teaching position and that included several at the college level.
Attyabdul, if you have taught at the university level, you may be familiar with the Chronicle of Higher Education, received and read in virtually all of the colleges and universities in the country. One of the issues followed by that weekly journal/magazine is that university instructors know so little about how to communicate and organize courses, and that little is taught (and subsequently known) about effective teaching methods. Usually, university teachers are heavy on content, but know very little about the art (and science) of teaching. They do it, nonetheless. This concern has brought forth a number of books and articles addressing the problem, but most university teachers are mostly in the dark in the area. I suspect that you have never had a class, a workshop or read an article about that topic because universities don’t make that a priority. A big mistake.
Working at, having gotten my degree at, and being part of the faculty interview process at Purdue (I am staff, not teaching, but with subject matter knowledge to bring to the interview process), it is very obvious that we hire people — mostly — not because they can teach but rather because they can do research. “What are your teaching goals” is a question during interviews but it is mostly lip service. My courses at Purdue made that evident. Some good teachers but also brilliant people who just mumble at the blackboard or projector.
That said college students are expected to learn in a different manner than pre-college students. The transition can be rough.