In my opinion, there are some very smart teachers. However, education does not attract the best, brightest, and most creative individuals to the field. There are a number of reasons: 1. Well Trained Monkeys: School systems want the most compliant people available. Gone our the days teachers could do best for their students. It's now about following the script, doing what your teammates do, etc. It's no longer about creativity. 2. The Internet: The world is out the tips of our hands. And, people can work anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Why be an English teacher and live in the same town for 30 years, when I travel the globe, work when I want to do so, and for the rate I set. 3. Flexibility: Young people crave flexible schedules. Schools operate on Monday - Friday schedule. Businesses, especially start-ups, allow individuals freedom on when they want to work. Three day weeks are sometimes a perk for tech start-ups. 4. Options: Technology, communications, media, retail, tutoring, nonprofits. Today's young people can choose to do a lot of things. If they love kids, but don't want to work in a classroom, they have multiple options from working at the YMCA to leading a global organization. ONE of my colleagues at the University of Virginia, a world authority on how culture influences personality, almost didn’t become a professor. He wanted to teach high school, but went for his Ph.D. because it seemed easier; he thought he would fail the exacting admissions test for teacher candidates. Perhaps I should mention that my colleague is from Japan. When I tell this story to Americans, they usually nod knowingly, because it confirms their beliefs about the quality of teachers in both countries. Most Americans think that teaching is a natural talent, not the product of training, and that smart people are the ones with the talent. So some policy makers have concluded that the way to improve schooling is to lure top-scoring graduates into teaching (as Japan does) instead of scraping the bottom of the academic barrel (as America supposedly does). Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, invoked this idea in a speech last year. But the problem in American education is not dumb teachers. The problem is dumb teacher training. It’s true that the average SAT score of high school students who plan to become teachers is below the national average. But planning to teach doesn’t guarantee that you’ll succeed in college, pass the certification test and be hired. The median SAT score for those who actually do end up teaching is about the national mean for other college graduates. (There is some variation, depending on teaching specialty.) Teachers are smart enough, but you need more than smarts to teach well. You need to know your subject and you need to know how to help children learn it. That’s where research on American teachers raises concerns. Consider reading. In 2000, a national panel of experts concluded that reading teachers need explicit knowledge of language features that most people know only implicitly: syntax, morphology (how the roots of words can combine with one another or with prefixes or suffixes) and phonological awareness (the ability to hear parts of spoken language like syllables and individual speech sounds). Yet many undergraduates preparing to teach, fresh from their coursework in reading instruction, don’t know these concepts. In one study, 42 percent could not correctly define “phonological awareness.” Of greater concern, those who educate future teachers don’t know them either. Emily Binks-Cantrell of Texas A&M University and her colleagues tested 66 professors of reading instruction for their knowledge of literacy concepts. When asked to identify the number of phonemes in a word, they were correct 62 percent of the time. They struggled more with morphemes, correctly identifying them 27 percent of the time. Mediocre teacher preparation extends to mathematics. An international study of new middle school teachers showed that Americans scored worse on a math test than teachers in countries where kids excelled, like Singapore and Poland. William Schmidt of Michigan State University identified the common-sense explanation: American teachers take fewer math classes. Instead, they take more courses in general pedagogy — coursework, that is, on theories of instruction, theories of child development and the like. Teachers themselves know that their training focuses too much on high-level theory and not enough on nuts-and-bolts matters of teaching. In a 2012 survey, that was their top complaint about their training. The same survey showed that most thought the current system of training should be changed; a fifth thought it worked well. Policy makers have debated the best way to evaluate teacher effectiveness, but have shown little interest in the training that is supposed to make them effective in the first place. That’s changing, but it’s not obvious where and how to intervene. Tougher entry requirements for teacher training? A more challenging certification test? New accreditation standards for teacher training programs? The problem is that many different organizations influence various aspects of the teacher training process. For changes to be effective, they must be coordinated. Two guiding principles could help. First, let’s agree that the way to evaluate teacher training is to test teachers. It’s tempting to use student outcomes instead: If teachers trained at Podunk University can’t get their kids to pass state exams, doesn’t that reflect badly on Podunk U.? The Obama administration’s proposal for program evaluation used that logic, but it’s hard to say how much Podunk mattered compared with other factors like the school curriculum or the student’s home life. A more direct measure of teacher training is to test, at graduation, whether a teacher has learned what he or she was meant to learn. Second, use existing research to generate the list of things that a teacher ought to know. A good deal of evidence shows that students learn to read better from teachers who understand the structure of language and learn math better from teachers who know specific techniques for drawing analogies to explain mathematical ideas. A list like this could be used as the guiding framework not only to evaluate whether a teacher is well trained, but also whether he or she should be certified to teach and whether a training program should be accredited. Much of what makes a teacher great is hard to teach, but some methods of classroom instruction have been scientifically tested and validated. Teachers who don’t know these methods are not stupid; they’ve been left in the dark.
Some teachers are what is wrong with the system. They blame everyone else for the problems in modern-day schools: students, parents, school leaders and the government – but very seldom do they turn the bright lamp of accusation on themselves. (Not you, dear reader, of course… you have an active PLN and you read blogs like this one. You care about what you do. This automatically exempts you from what follows.) (Note: The point of this post, and of my entire blog is to detail my own learning journey, as transparently and openly as possible. Hence, I seldom speak from the perspective of the expert giving advice to my followers… Most often, these are issues I am grappling with myself and trying to work towards mastering. I am guilty of at least three of the ailments detailed below… But I am actively trying to change.) I’ll jump right in: Why Teachers Are What’s Wrong With Education:
And this list does not even consider those incompetent teachers who simply cannot do their jobs properly. Or the ones who demand respect from their students without giving it first. Or some of the dangerous bullies who arrange their classrooms according to academic ability. Or … you get the picture. Think of just five teachers at your school, or a school you know, who suffer from ten or more of the ailments detailed above. And think about how much better it would be if these teachers suddenly changed their ways for the better. |