"Oh, please. So we need former engineers who are also entertaining."
Funny you should say that.
Such a person just won the prestigious Meyer award.
See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6042900083.html
Elsewhere you said ed schools need to improve their act. That would require jettisoning the bizzare anti-knowledge progressive/constructivist ed creed. Ain't gonna happen.
Very nice post.
Two things:
First, I agree with you that education schools need to ramp up the standards for educators. At the same time, you're not going to get many educators until you pay them as professionals. However, society needs to also understand that teachers in their first few years are not going to be outstanding teachers. It just doesn't happen. The best lessons are taught in the classroom when you are dealing with students. Mistakes are going to be made and the best teachers will be able to adjust from year to year (or class period to class period).
Second, the concept of regular society coming into the classroom and manageing students is laughable. I asked a prominant Republican for the State of California what would happen if every teacher went on strike to protest teacher pay. Her response was that members of the community would gladly step in and teach the classes. I had to laugh.
Anonymous, I was ready to eat crow about the entertaining engineer, until I got to the bottom of the article. This guy teaches Physics to students in the International Baccalaureate program.
Uhhhh...that's like saying he's a great teacher of Advanced PLacement students.
But I will give you this: Gar-Field HS does not look like Exeter (the private school in Kristof's article). It's 30 percent white, and 30 percent black, and the rest is a mix of various groups.
I would also take issue with your last statement. You don't know my teacher ed students, the ones who just graduated.
"The graduating class of teachers from my university this was impressive."
In what way are they better than the previous class? Ed schools have been saying this for years, and there's certainly a chance that you're right, but the odds are against you.
What Kristof is saying is that Ed schools are irrelevant. I understand that this bothers you, but is he right?
I think he is.
But Gar-Field HS is also in a fairly affluent, largely middle class suburb. While they do have students whose families live in poverty, you can't make judgements based solely on the racial percentages. It's not Exeter but it's also not like an inner city school with the same breakdown.
If TFA is getting the same results in six weeks that Ed schools are getting in a few years, I think this is a good argument that you can learn the pedagogical knowledge you need to teach in a lot less time than what is required in Ed schools. MIght be a good option for teacher wannabees who already have a bachelors degree.
None will know for certain about researched methods for helping students grasp content knowledge and skills.
There's a good argument that our current teachers don't know how to do this either.
Some will get lucky and discover the right way. Some won't.
This should not be the current state of affairs in any respectable profession. Could you imagine if surgeons took the same loose approach to their skill set.
One administrator I know said you could take all the kids from his elite district, teach them nothing for a year, and they'd still score above grade level.
I think this is most likely true. And, it is mostly kids like this who are suceeding academically today. The real skill comes with teaching the remainder of the curve and there's not much evidence that we've been all that successful doing so with our present teaching techniques.
In many cases, it's not obvious how to present content and skills to kids in ways that they can grasp and learn.
I think this is also true. There is a wide gap between where many instructional leave off and what is necesary to implement them correctly so that children actually learn. I don't think most teachers have or have been taught or have any inclination or time to fill in these pedagogical gaps. Teachers are more like insructional technicians, not curriculum designers.
This article does a much better job describing the problema nd possible solutions than Kristof does.
Hi KDR. Added you to the blogroll.
The TFA study compares TFA'ers in a large part to teachers who HAVE NOT been to Ed School. They are non-certified.
KDR, I'm worried. I read the article and I kind of agree with it. What's happening?
I think, though, that school districts do not have the capacity to do all teacher training. They're mission is to teach kids, and there should be assistance in training professionals.
I wonder if a mix of university-based education, with more district-centered education would be a better way to manage alt-cert teachers.
There are two bodies of knowledge: the subject matter and pedagogy. Knowledge of either knowledge set is NOT an indication that a person can teach. A good teacher can not only pass tests about subject matter and about teaching technique, but can ALSO apply that knowledge to groups of real-world kids.
KDR,
That's not what the TFA study is saying (although that's a common interpretation). Even Jenny's interpretation is too forgiving in my opinion. What the study does show is that TFA teachers do better than certified teachers in *some* subjects and in *some* districts. In other situations, the TFA teachers are clearly not as effective.
If anythihng, the study suggests the problem is more complicated than certifying or not certifying teachers. At least that's how I've always interpreted the reuslts.
Whoops - I forgot to sign that last comment. It was me.
The TFA study compares TFA'ers in a large part to teachers who HAVE NOT been to Ed School. They are non-certified.
I caught that, but I read your comment as implying that the TFA teachers were doing about the same as regular teachers. I should have read the study.
I'm worried. I read the article and I kind of agree with it. What's happening?
Good question. Don't know if I have the right answer, but I'll venture a guess anyway. In education the reality on the ground never seems to match up to the educational theory. The situation is made worse because what works with one smal set of kids at the top frequently doesn't work with the rest. This is false evidence of sucess which is especially alluring.
Yet, we form opinions of what we think we know about education based on all this faulty data. This becomes our conventional wisdom, yet we're never sure we're right since there is so little evidence of success. Then you come across a radically different viewpoint that is the opposite of the conventional wisdom but with evidence of success.
Initially, you probably still dismiss it as being an outlier in your data set, but keep it in the back of your mind. Eventually, with continued exposure to this alternate viewpoint you start to reach a critical mass of positive data, leading you to question the conventional wisdom and start looking at the new viewpoint on its own merits. Then it's just a matter of testing the viewpoint looking for evidence of failure so you can disprove the hypothesis that this may be, in fact, the right viewpoint. If you find that disproving evidence, let me know, because I'm still looking. I'm finding it's hard to argue with real success, a theory that matches the practice, and that makes sense based on cognitive science.
I think, though, that school districts do not have the capacity to do all teacher training. They're mission is to teach kids, and there should be assistance in training professionals.
I agree. But necessity is the mother of invention. If Ed schools aren't producing teachers with the right skill set and refuse to change their pactices, there still existed a need to train teachers to suceed in the instructional program. This had to be done at the district level. Engelmann has said that it takse two years to train teachers to be successful with low-performing students even with a fully-scripted instructional program. Just because the prgram is scripted does not mean that everyone has the skills to present the material properly and diagnose and remedy student errors on the spot.
Better this training be done in Ed schools, but if Ed schools won't cooperate, the need for skilled teachers must still be fulfilled from somewhere.
Chris C, thanks for the clarification. Did the study control for the instructional program used by both sets of teachers? If not, I can't imagine that any of the results are valid or can be generalized.
Fabulous post, Jenny.
I really have a deep, stirring curiosity about this sentence, regarding "untrained" teachers:
None will know for certain about researched methods for helping students grasp content knowledge and skills.
What could those methods possibly be, such that they would be out of reach of a naturally good teacher? There is nothing built into the essence of method research--or any research for that matter--that makes it inventive, or innovative. It simply describes methods or parts of methods that get results. In other words, practice leads research at least as often as research leads practice.
I can't say yet...too close to my research and it's still in its infancy. But there are things that CAN be taught. I think there are ways and methods....
I think I'll extend an offer to Nicholas Krostof to come to my school and teach for a few days.
The upshot is that between 1971 and 1974, 24 percent of teachers had scored in the top 10 percent on their high school achievement tests. Now only 11 percent have done so.
[ . . . ]
But let's say it's true. That would mean that a teacher in the classroom today, with a little more than 25 years experience ought to be the best teacher in the building, because that's the teacher most likely to have the high achievement score. But there is evidence (and I confess I don't have it at my fingertips) that teacher experience is not related to student achievement. And in some cases, it is negatively related to teacher experience.
This doesn't make any sense. You would need to look at the cohort that were the top scorers and how they compared to their less than stellar peers over the course of their careers to test whether the achievement rank had any effect upon performance. Comparing teachers with 30 years of experience against new teachers doesn't tell you anything about how the high achievers of the past performed against their peers.
The "other" teachers tend to be uncertified, to have little or no teaching experience, and to not be educated in a school of education. TFA teachers, on the other hand, get an intensive summer program on teaching methods, pedagogy, the kind of stuff they teach in Ed Schools.
OK, so what do we know? We know that the TFA teachers outperform teachers who have no experience. Your contention is that the TFA teachers gain this advantage from a summer workshop. So, we would expect that teachers who benefit from 4 years of specialized education should put the TFA teachers to shame, for how could it be possible that 4 years of specialized training couldn't create more value added than 2-3 months of training.
Do we see this rank order in studies of teacher effectiveness:
Ed. School Masters graduate
Ed. School Bachelors graduate
TFA graduate
untrained teachers
I haven't seen any study which makes this claim. So, what value is Ed. School adding that justifies 4 years of time and resources?
What really needs to happen is that Ed Schools work on improving teacher education. And Kristof's column obscures that important solution.
I understand that it's only natural that you've now been captured by the system, but don't lose the awareness of other viewpoints out there. Ed. Schools have shot their credibility and an increasing number of opinion makers are giving up on them.
You call for Ed. Schools to improve teacher education and make the implicit assumption that they should be given even more rope on this issue. Kristoff isn't making that same assumption, so he's not obscuring an important solution, he's making a judgement that the solution you proffer isn't worth considering. You've heard the old saying the respect isn't owed, it's earned. What have Ed. Schools done to earn any respect? Why was there a need for TFA? It's a direct response to the failure of Ed. Schools to get the job done.
The graduating class of teachers from my university this weekend was impressive.
Compared to what other group? The engineers or the womyn's studies graduates?
I wish Kristof would explain what he would do to actually improve the practice of teaching, rather than just conduct some kind of trial and error experiment with other people's children. There's been enough of that already.
It's good to see that you're acknowleding the utter failure of the modis operandi of Ed. Schools, but you can't really criticize Kristoff for doing what is done every day at Ed. Schools without telling us how Ed. Schools are doing things differently from having learned the lessons of their utter failure.
"I understand that it's only natural that you've now been captured by the system, but don't lose the awareness of other viewpoints out there. Ed. Schools have shot their credibility and an increasing number of opinion makers are giving up on them."
Spot on!
"Compared to what other group? The engineers or the womyn's studies graduates?"
Methinks I raised the same question.
I agree with several things:
I think Ed Schools have shot their credibility as a group. Individual Ed Schools are doing a great job, but I'm afraid it's not systemwide.
The fact that some Ed Schools are doing a bad job, though, doesn't mean that Ed Schools are by definition bad.
There was a time when some medical schools trained near-butchers, while others trained scientists and healers. Fortunately, the medical education gurus got together and insisted on higher standards for all medical schools. I think the same thing COULD happen in education.
I know it's a long process. But so is turning the Titanic away from the iceberg.
I think the most promising way to improve teaching is to improve teacher education. Eliminating it altogether won't help.
How will this improvement in teacher education be measured?
Ed schools are sinking ships bailing furiously. Why are some people so afraid of competition with teachers trained in some other way? Wouldn't failure on the part of the non-ed shool teachers quickly put an end to this debate? Or does no one really expect failure from non-ed school trained teachers?
Of course, not everyone could teach. But don't ed schools go to great lengths to say otherwise? They believe it's their method of inculcating students that will lead to effective teachers, not to the particular person's innate skills and ability to learn.
And talking of controls and variables in accessing educational efficacy, how about opening up the field to true experimentation. What have we to lose?
As a non-credientialed, untrained, first-year teacher in a "traditionally under-served" urban school, this is an issue close to my heart. I come to the teaching profession from a career in computer programming and, needless to say, have taken a huge pay cut to do so. I was looking for something more fulfilling to do. And as I contemplate what I will do now about credentialing now that there are no more emergency permits to be issued in California, the main question I keep asking myself is, "How am I going to develop an effective teaching practice if I stop spending time as a teacher in the classroom in order to be a student?"
My feeling, not that I'm 100% with Kristof, is that alternative methods for certification are necessary and would be beneficial. I think I would get a lot more out of decent on-site mentoring and mutual observation than I would from night classes or from taking a year off to do an education degree. The spirit behind creating a path for smart, willing people to enter the classroom and use their skill at learning to learn how to teach seems like the right one to me. I fundamentally don't believe that you need to write research papers about educational theory to become a good, sensitive, skilled, and versatile teacher. You just need the heart and the willingness to look critically at yourself and your performance without becoming discouraged as you move up the learning curve and strive for better quality.
But maybe this is a good excuse for me to go back and get another degree... being in school is pretty much the best life I can imagine. The only problem is paying for it all!
the students in some prestigious high school academy are more prepared for lectures and conventional learning, right?
ed schools are supposed to teach us how to teach english language learners and visual learners or the learners with disabilities (or students that are "triple threats")
teaching these students isn't based on personality, but there is a point about personality to be made here.
sometimes teaching is about common sense and social skills and sensitivity. there is a sense of timing, particularly in middle school, that is so crucial (knowing when to shift from small group to whole class to whatever). i don't think an ed school can or needs to teach that, it's rather a more human sensitivity to people. it's the teacher playing the perfect host or hostess.
and personality also denotes status -if low-income students respect or are in awe of you, then you have them hooked. it isn't that this notion of attraction doesn't exist in other schools, but that it's so powerful in our schools.
(as a TFA alumni i have to say that in some cases, TFA teachers may not achieve student gains due to their
higher GPAs, but perhaps due more enthusiasm and less burnout and to the whole mission statement of TFA insofar as closing the achievement gap.)
i have been enrolled in full-time classes at san jose state university for three years now (june will mark the 3rd year). that is three years, also, of paying tuition. i am still not done with the SPED mild/moderate credential. not to mention that sjsu doesn't have CLAD embedded in their program. yes, it is my fault, perhaps, for choosing SJSU, but it was the one that TFA somewhat recommended. that's 3 years of school without a preliminary. many of us in this Mild/Moderate boat are contemplating leaving SPED or teaching altogether.
if i am going to spend my life in grad school, then it better be for something like philosophy or literature. meeting a bunch of other exhausted teachers from 7pm to 10pm on a random weekday to complete your millionth "Teacher Reflection!" or your hundreth pair-share in a college classroom with flourescent lighting is not my idea of stimulation.
not to mention that you are just too physically and emotionally exhausted too adequately process AND APPLY everything you are learning. people mistakenly think that new teachers lack resources. in truth, there is an abundance of resources and no time to actually process, synthesize and use them, not to mention space to keep them. i have amassed an enormous amount of literature from district trainings, county workshops, sjsu coursework, TFA learning teams and workshops, and my own internet research. enough reading material to last for every day of an entire year at least.
does any new teacher really synthesize this wholly or completely?
hell no.
"He says that if we let anyone with some knowledge about a subject teach, it would improve teacher quality right away."
No, he didn't.
But that's a fantastic straw-man argument. Good for you and your George Bushisms. Maybe you were just trying to increase readership of your little blog here, but your obvious lack of real intellect and honesty destroys whatever traces of valid argument exist in this post.
...A doctoral candidate? Yikes! Public education's doomed!
So we need former engineers who are also entertaining.
Funny, Jenny D.
Anyway, I couldn't agree more.
you sound like someone who has never taught but has taken a lot of ed psych and C&I classes.
Some teacher training - on the job, evenings, summer - is nice, for me it will be part of my natural curiosity and drive to be a more effective teacher. but as an amherst grad and former lawyer, there is no way in hell i'm going to get an ed degree before switching careers to the classroom. I knew from my background acting and coaching and living that I could connect with kids and make a difference in their lives. That's why I am at a small charter high school now. The unified school districts are a mess.
oh, and you can study bloom's taxonomy till the cows come home but if you are shy or boring or just an asshole the kids will walk on you or reject you or rebel against you as soon as you set foor in the classroom door.
I just came across your blog and really appreciated this post. I came to teaching by way of TFA nine years ago and have also taken many classes. I really, really think education programs need to be dramatically improved. In my experience there is very little rigor and yet when I read professionally on my own...I learn SO MUCH. Where is the disconnect? I believe great teachers need the experience (some things you can only learn on the job) along with excellent professional knowledge. Too often, academia seems disconnected from the classroom. Great post!
Kristof probably didn't read the Mathematica study of TFA very carefully, but I don't know if you did either, Jenny. The TFA corpsmembers got the positive impact on math scores regardless of whether you look at the full sample (including certified and uncertified) or the certified subgroup.
The issue there is that the people going into the worst schools -- the ones where TFA is -- are not better than TFA corpsmembers on average.
It's hard to extrapolate from TFA, which works in the worst off schools in the nation, to the rest of the eduworld.
Commenting by HaloScan
