The assumption that merely knowing a subject makes one a good teacher is foolhardy. Knowledge of subject matter is unquestionably necessary for good teaching, but it is insufficient for being a good teacher. Ed schools can make a difference. Teaching is an incredibly complex and difficult enterprise. Little about the job comes to people naturally. Prospective teachers need to learn such mundane but crucial skills as how to keep their classrooms orderly and centered on the topics at hand. Most important, at the same time, they have to learn how to make the subject matter of their content area accessible and worth knowing for their students, no easy task given the increasingly diverse backgrounds of these students. When ed schools are doing their job, these are the kinds of things prospective teachers learn so can they start their careers better able to handle the intense and unrelenting demands of teaching.
— Jeffrey Mirel, chairman of education and professor of history at University of Michigan
When I look for a teacher, I look for an educated person, someone who has been immersed in books, the arts, the sciences and philosophy through a liberal arts education. Our schools need teachers who have developed capacity for critical inquiry, for problem solving and for innovation. The art and skill of effective pedagogy is arguably equally critical to effective classroom instruction. While most aspiring teachers hope to develop these skills through university course work, in reality the most effective training is acquired through an apprenticeship at a high-performing school with a highly effective classroom teacher. As with most trades, the craft of effective pedagogy is one that is best developed in the context of the “workplace.” A liberal arts education, when combined with an empowering apprenticeship, unlocks the potential for a teacher to enter the classroom with passion, commitment and a sense of possibility for the community he serves.
— Linda Mikels, principal of Sixth Street Prep School, a charter elementary school in Victorville, Calif.
42 Comments
Some have argued that training math and sciences in an Education College is the wrong way to go. The inference is that the curriculum is a watered down version of the science and math colleges.
I think the influence of the Liberal Arts approach is a primary reason why the U.S. is behind other countries in the math and sciences.
Liberal arts teacher is probably more important for the elementary aged students as the teachers must teach a diversity of subjects.
However, in the middle school to high school groups, it’s more important that the teacher knows the subject matter and is able to deliver it in an understandable manner. In this case, discipline first and education training as a supplement.
I would however, encourage all to achieve as much of an education in the humanities as possible.
The best teachers I’ve had were absolutely enraptured with the subject matter. They could not possibly imagine anyone not fascinated by geometry or geography or history or grammar… and couldn’t possibly imagine anyone who wasn’t.
That enthusiasm was infectious.
But I’m not sure there are enough of those types to fill classrooms across the nation. Not every drill sergeant is gonne be Sgt. York, after all.
So, perhaps as an economy of scale, we’re forced to try to institutionalize whatever seems to work at the time.
I have a pet theory the most subversive force against the Vietnam War was not the marches or demonstrations or bombings or hippies, Yippies, or Commie-Pinko subversives; it was “Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.” Poor guy spent 5 years in basic training, f’r cryin’ out loud, and Vince Carter kept trying.
Once again, it isn’t a “pro-con” issue.
Pedagogy has its place. But there’s nothing quite like a teacher who’s totally immersed in the subject.
As a parent, I’ll bank on the opinions of Dr. Mirel. I think the “apprenticeship” idea has merit, but I’m not sure it is economically feasible. I also wouldn’t want my child in a classroom where there was juat an “apprentice” teacher running the classroom.
Fact is, if we paid people what they’re worth to be the best teachers in the word, we couldn’t afford it.
So a lot of people don’t become teachers.
Most teachers I know are pretty smart people but got into the profession because they were “good students.” In other words, they behaved themselves in class, kept their desk in a neat row, didn’t pass notes in class, and had their Moms type up their papers.
Mikels is right. The surest sign of a good teacher is one who thoroughly knows the subject, enjoys it and passes this enthusiasm in their manner of teaching.
Sure there are folks who love their subject but are poor communicators or really aren’t “teachers” by nature. Those folks ought to be caught early in the pedagogy phase of coursework and steered another direction. Thankfully they will have taken the necessary coursework to easily be steered into another line of work. That can not be said of those who follow the current educational model for teachers.
The best teachers I had were the ones who went out into the world and were successful at a non-teaching occupation, and gaining real-world experience.
Some college sheepskin is needed, but to have someone who has never been outside of academia, STAY in academia their entire career is like living in a bubble. Textbook knowledge alone, does not qualify anyone to excel at teaching.
In addition to a certain educational requirement for the teaching job, I’d like to see 1)Real-world experience outside of the classroom, and 2)Initial and periodic competency testing to ensure we have the best teachers teaching our children.
No, I think we need to continue to require an education degree.
Otherwise, we would be opening the door to the schools for infiltration from religious and business interests.
In reality, our public education system reflects the desires of the NEA and the Democrat Party leaders, not the parents or the students. Now what the NEA looks for in a teacher, God only knows.
Has anyone actually been in a public school lately?
I have, and it ain’t a pretty site. 1/3 of the teachers are very good, 1/3 are competent, and 1/3 should be canned. (Or caned)
My fear here is that the substitute teachers I have encountered would be in the place of teaching every day.
I never encountered a substitute teacher that I considered competent and SOME of them were down right scary. There was one woman who would close the classroom door and start in telling us about “God this, and that”.
Requiring an education degree helps us be assured that the teacher’s mission is Government education.
“BlueJay” observes –
“I have never encountered a substitute teacher that I considered competent….”
Well, see.
That’s your problem.
You never encountered “Regular” substituting as a middle school music teacher.
I mean, c’mon man!
“Regular” know the lyrics to “Shine on Harvest Moon” an’ everything!
The teachers mission is “government educations”.
He means: INDOCTRINATION.
Heil!
The teachers mission is “government educations”.
He means: INDOCTRINATION.
Heil!
1. Yes, teachers need specialized qualifications to teach, PERIOD. This isn’t like the lovely school boards, where the local butcher and baker can, through elections, magically become education policy experts.
2. Stop emphasizing test scores. Comparing results from the U.S. to India or anywhere else is comparing apples to oranges. Why? Because those other countries use a system of education that parents would SCREAM about here because “everyone’s child is special and unique.” They use the old U.K. model, that Thomas Jefferson tried to push early in our own history, which was the “labored and the learned.”
India and the U.K use a system of tests to QUALIFY you as a student to go on to university track work or their “voTech.” The very BEST of Indian kids are stacked up against our AVERAGE kids.
I think we should adopt the system the rest of the world uses. If you work hard and pass your tests, you can go on to higher level academics. If you don’t, well then university isn’t for you.
Bottom line, it isn’t the teacher’s fault if your child isn’t well…..college material. Get over it. Your child ISN’T special or unique. Be realistic.
Jim, you just show you don’t have a CLUE what teachers do for your kids.
LOL, I think you would have qualified for the “labored” part of a Jeffersonian education model!
Sorry friend.
When I was in school, we had a science teacher who won a national teaching award and was hired away by a California system toward the end of the summer. His last-minute replacement was a young doctor completing his residency. I have no idea what education classes he had taken, but this guy had a love affair with biology which he managed to infect his whole class with; by the end of the 1st semester we were learning college-level science, and there were never any discipline problems in his class. Every one of us looked forward to his class and what new ideas would be presented, and we all had science fair projects. Really Good Class!
The next year we headed to high school with an enthusiasm for science, and met our new instructor, a driver’s ed teacher who had taken a few science classes along the way. This guy had a unique talent for creating boredom out of the most exciting subjects, and didn’t give a fetal pig’s hiney if we actually learned anything, as long as his curriculum was followed.
Now the students in the first guy’s class who went to other schools stayed in science and got good at it. The class that progressed to teacher #2 lost interest in the subject to a student.
I don’t know what part pedagogy courses play in teaching. Most of the best teachers I ever had never took them. I do know that enthusiasm is infectious.
Now the moral of this tale is that all it takes is one good teacher who knows and loves his subject and can communicate it to his students. And all it takes to destroy that interest is a teacher who doesn’t give a damn about the material and just wants to follow a lesson plan.
Jed: By coincidence, your comments remind me of two situations.
One this morning at a restaurant gathering, we were discussing schools and teaching issues. One fellow, a former college educator, now commercial real estate person, mentioned his theory on what makes a good teacher. He said, “Enthusiasm for the subject matter.”
I suppose there are a lot of nutshell formulas for various complicated activities but his was a good one.
Also speaking of medical doctors teaching school, I talked to a medical specialist doctor just a few weeks ago. He said he works four days per week so would like to teach high school biology classes on the fifth day. If he does reach that goal, I hope he is as successful and enthusiastic as your example.
Wink,
One of the other things I noticed was that teachers who got their kids involved in their subject never seemed to have discipline problems. The ones with the worst problems were also the most bored and boring.
2. Stop emphasizing test scores. Comparing results from the U.S. to India or anywhere else is comparing apples to oranges
Okay, let’s compare them to the U.K., Germany, France or Japan – you know the other nations that lead in economics and industry.
I will never forget taking a conversational German class while stationed in Germany. We had a German High School teacher who taught the class. He was absolutely wonderful in his teaching method and was enjoying himself and we were enjoying him. We were way ahead in learning from the book and the materials.
Then, one of the ‘educators’ came down and told him he was doing it all wrong and should stick only to the lesson plan as detailed.
From then on, it was rushed, mostly incomprehensible and rather boring. It was canned education.
That was my first insight of how Liberal education administators kill enthusiasm and teach by pulling noses through a funnel.
When I was a substitute teacher I witnessed the same thing. Teachers that have become paycheck unionists, only there to do the minimum – not teaching but just surving the day.
The best teachers, ironically or not, where the Special Needs teachers. Because they utilized a method tried and true and gave individual attention when necessary.
Students are pretty much ignored in classes these days that I’ve witnessed. They are warehoused, instructed (not taught) a lesson plan and judged on first attempts with failures not recognized as the need for re-addressing their methods.
I found this out in Chemistry and Math classes where the kids were totally lost. A few hours of teaching by me, addressing their learning difficulties and the kids were back to knowing why smiling and learning go together.
In one Math class where the teacher came back and Iwas still there to assist the learning disordered students I witnessed why the students were not learning. The teacher never interacted with the students, she just instructed the lesson plan and the h3ll with any questions the kids might have had. Her attitude was it was just the kids tough luck they didn’t study.
Drilling and repetition can be fun. Smiling, along with enthusiasm is key to teaching.
This is what I observed of the teachers in Germany and England, they had enthusiasm for themselves and the kids. Perhaps that’s why these foreign country excel in achievement.
My apologize for the poor grammar, didn’t re-check my work. :)
Reading Ms. Holman’s leading-in comments to this blog thread, I am inclined to agree more with Linda Mikels’ points but with questions.
Ms. Mikels’ thesis is simply skills in content (math, history, etc.) are at least as important if not more so as skills in methods of teaching.
My question is what does she mean by “liberal arts” education? Some say the classical liberal arts education should include subjects of mathematics, chemistry and physics. In fact, I believe the basic degree at the U.S. military academies is an engineering degree including leadership and liberal arts courses.
My basic point is degrees in science, mathematics, economics, archeology, engineering, government, history should be as acceptable as a degree in education particularly for teaching in high schools and colleges.
Now I admit that WSU and other colleges do provide ways college graduates in these non-teacher curriculums can “catch-up” to become qualified to teach in public school programs.
But perhaps the reverse should be true also, education majors should be required to “catch up” on content courses.
Wink,
Oh, and one glaring advantage your doctor would have in a classroom would be that he keeps up on the literature and knows a lot of new stuff the kids really want to find out about!
Also, during the time I had that good teacher, I had neighbors, husband and wife pathologists (and their 14 adopted kids). They were kind and I spent a lot of time there learning about microbiology and cell structure (as much as they knew at the time- the field has progressed a lot since then). That’s where I first learned a bit about DNA in 1958. None of my science teachers had heard of it yet. They also provided me with samples of not-too-virulent bacteria to culture and stain and learn to identify. Lotsa fun!
reggie,
When my sons were in school, we sent them to Isley Magnet Open School. We got to know some really dedicated teachers there.
“Lotsa fun!”
There’s another aspect that ensures learning — fun. Who doesn’t give more to the subject when they’re enjoying it? Maybe it’s the same, or at least similar, to the enthusiasm that’s already been agreed makes a more successful teacher and students.
Has the low pay and lack of professional standing (at least to the degree deserved!) sent our brightest and best seeking other opportunities than teaching? Remember when most teachers were women and the highest a woman could aspire to was teacher or nurse?
Wink,
“My question is what does she mean by “liberal arts” ”
We live in an age of specialists. Most of us are only involved in what relates to our specific area of expertise. What our schools need to teach is a broader discipline that allows people to think and understand the issues of other specialties, and be able to relate and integrate them into a unified concept. That’s where real progress comes from.
I know people, as I’m sure you do, who read nothing but technical papers relating to their work. They don’t read good fiction or biography or poetry, or listen to music or look at artworks, and it limits their ability to think beyond their field. Specialists are nice when you need one, but they aren’t the ones who expand the knowledge across the boundaries and unify it with the other specialties into a larger view of the way the universe works. We need more people who can do just that!
Blaid_Drgg: About your “apprenticeship” comment, walking through the classroom buildings at K.U., I have noticed how many classes appear to be taught by teaching assistants. This wasn’t true at all back when I was at K-State and K.U.
I have noticed comments by some WE Bloggers who comment on their ideas of how high school classrooms are run. I have heard this discussed in my coffee groups. It would be educational if the interested public could somehow view classes in our public high schools to see how they are conducted. However, might be difficult without disrupting the learning process.
Linda,
Fun really is what it’s all about. If you watch your kids playing and analyze it, you’ll find that playing is kids educating themselves and practicing skills and relationships they’ll need later in life. Unstructured time isn’t wasted time!
My daughter taught robotics using the Lego Robotics Systems — the kids were building robots and didn’t think about the math they were learning, the teamwork, the ability to follow instructions, to analyze results and find solutions… Clay animation is another fun learning tool she employs.
“Education is not the filling of a vessel, but the kindling of a flame.” – Socrates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0fJKvdjQgs
Are we educating our kids? Are we mentoring, inspiring, and engaging them or are we teaching them to take multiple choice tests?
Jed: Coincidentally, I took a microbiology class at K-State in 1958. We didn’t hear anything about DNA at that point. We did study the heck out of Eshricia Coli (E-Coli) and how to identify it and count on an auger plate. Fortunately I have not needed that knowledge since.
About DNA, a few Shawnee Indian historians and I asked a DNA expert in Ohio to determine if a Shawnee Indian chief in about 1810 was actually a kidnapped white man as told in an old newspaper article. A complicated 200 year old history story. There were pros and cons on all sides of the culture line. The final DNA answer: he wasn’t.
Wink,
DNA was first described in 1952. By ‘58, nobody really knew much about it, and then only scientists working in the field could make much of it. My pathologist friend had read some of the initial work and tried to describe it to me. It confused the hell out of me, but it got my imagination going, which is usually a good thing. Some years later, when it finally hit the public newsstands, I at least had a notion of what it was and a vague concept of it’s future importance. One of the nice things about knowing such people.
My question is the opposite- why do we have teachers that know nothing about what they are teaching? Can a teacher explain that to me?? For example, why is the football coach (who is a great coach perhaps) teaching American History too? If he is a teacher, then he should be teaching PE do ya think? Why did my daughter have a French teacher that didn’t know how to speak French?
Kev
Posted September 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
My question is the opposite- why do we have teachers that know nothing about what they are teaching? Can a teacher explain that to me?? For example, why is the football coach (who is a great coach perhaps) teaching American History too? If he is a teacher, then he should be teaching PE do ya think? Why did my daughter have a French teacher that didn’t know how to speak French?
———————
Kind of narrow-minded don’t you think Kev?
Are you claiming that a football coach cannot be highly qualified to teach American History. Isn’t it stereotyping to say all coaches should be PE teachers?
Where and when di your daughter have this French Teacher who couldn’t speek French? I call BS on this one other than that teacher being a subsitute.
My daughter took French for 3 years. The first 2 years she had a teacher that knew the language and culture and was quite fluent in it. The 3rd year, that teacher transferred to a new school and she got a teacher that admitted she did not know the language and had taught English Comp prior. The teacher said soemthing like “this will be new for all of us and we will learn together”. I called the Principal and she had a vice pricipal call me back and he said “right now we have a shortage of certain language teachers”. I was just in shock! That is just unbeliveable!!! How????
Kev – if you remeber, I asked when and where.
I think it is quite beleivable that there is a “shortage of certain language teachers”. If this is accurate, the class should have been canceled.
A French teacher who cannot teach French is about as useful as screen doors on a submarine.
Un professeur de français qui ne peuvent pas enseigner le français est à peu près aussi utile que des portes d’écran sur un sous-marin.
About coaches: Many teachers get combined degrees in a particular subject such as math, history, English etc. and coaching.
Kev
Posted September 5, 2009 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
My daughter took French for 3 years. The first 2 years she had a teacher that knew the language and culture and was quite fluent in it. The 3rd year, that teacher transferred to a new school and she got a teacher that admitted she did not know the language and had taught English Comp prior. The teacher said soemthing like “this will be new for all of us and we will learn together”. I called the Principal and she had a vice pricipal call me back and he said “right now we have a shortage of certain language teachers”. I was just in shock! That is just unbeliveable!!! How????
———————–
Effin Public School SUC K don’t they?
Bring on MORE Government control, with lectures from the President even!
Why push standards now? The US public education system is one of the worst in the world. Kids scores are some of the worlds lowest. Truancy, dropout rates, and graduation rates are nothing to brag about.
Why waste the time on getting more educated teachers who have just spent more time in the worlds worst public system?
Cheaper to hire sanitary technicians. We might see an improvement then!
reggie,
“A French teacher who cannot teach French is about as useful as screen doors on a submarine.”
Didn’t you know? Everybody understands English if you talk loud!
What I remember is when my daughter-in-law got her Master’s in Music Education, she was told by almost everybody not to even bother applying to districts in Kansas, that the pay was so low that with her academic record she could make more almost anywhere else. She accepted a teaching position in Texas, and started at more than a friend of mine who has two doctorates and 20yrs experience made at that time in the Wichita system. If you don’t think much of the Kansas system, you know what you have to do.
The discussion taking place concerning these issues is quite good, minus the teacher-bashing.
FUN is a rather dangerous term in the classroom IMO. To most of us adults, the term FUN means the thrill we get from accomplishing something or overcoming a great challenge. However, today’s generation of Millennials view FUN completely different. FUN to them is expecting to be entertained by the teacher whilst the kids get to act out and ignore the enthusiasm being presented. FUN is also a reason why graduating Millennials are doing so poorly in the workplace. They are expecting their daily jobs to be places of entertainment and constant rewards.
Until we start teaching kids what FUN actually is as we understand it, we will never get these spoiled, lazy Milennial’s (not all), to get off their rear ends and WORK.
These kids need a swift kick in the BUTT, not more FUN!
As having recently retired as an optical design engineer, my experience with college undergraduates and those with graduate degrees is they have no concept of what they have been instructed in. This is entirely the fault of their teachers, instructors & professors. Most of those have themselves no experience whatsoever outside classroom so they cannot relate to the student what will be expected of them or how to work through demanding problems. Whether the student graduated from K-State, KU or WSU or other institute makes little difference. They all are ill prepared and the fault lies in the instructional system. The system is at fault from the junior high through college and as long as there is union and tenure involved, there will be graduates that are fundamentally non-functional.