A reader sent the following commentary on reformers’ efforts to lower standards for educators and to welcome people without professional preparation and credentials to teach in and administer the nation’s public schools and charter schools. His response was prompted by a post about teachers in Arizona with online degrees. He writes:
“Arizona teacher: “I have seen staffs comprised of high school graduate teachers who bought their degrees online and took not one college level course.”
To the Arizona teacher… destroying the profession of teaching and filling it with unqualified faux teachers is not a bug in the privatizers’ “reform” model, it is a feature.
I just found this from the Connecticut Policy Institute—a “think tank” and “a non-partisan research institute on Connecticut economic policy and education reform” that fronts for for-profit business interests that are trying to profit from the privatization of education. To do this, they put out bogus “studies” and “policy papers” in support of these business interests’ practices and approaches to privatized education:
In this op-ed, Ben Zimmer defends Vallas’ lack of credentialing, but goes one further.
Not only should there be no credential requirement for Superintendents, THERE SHOULD BE NO CREDENTIALING OR EDUCATION REQUIREMENT OF TEACHERS (???!!!) as well as ADMINISTRATORS.
————————————————————–
Ben Zimmer: “With a few exceptions, Connecticut law requires teachers to have a degree in education, meaning many talented people who didn’t decide to become teachers until after completing their educations have difficulty doing so.
“This serves the economic interests of existing teachers and administrators by limiting competition for their jobs, but does not advance the goal of obtaining the highest quality teaching and administration possible.”
————————————————————
Don’t you get it? If the government entity in charge of education requires thing like ohhh… bachelor’s degrees, or even 2-year community college associate degrees… or even one single college course… well, you’re just “serving the economic interest of existing teachers and administrators by limiting competition for their jobs.”
Those teachers who’ve actually achieved these “worthless degrees” will bring along with them accompanying demands for a decent salary, health benefits, retirement, etc…. AND WHO NEEDS THAT when you’re trying to make a profit… err… excuse me… make “transformational change” in education?
Oh, you don’t believe this? Well, Connecticut Policy Institute’s “studies and papers” have “proven” all of this to be true… that you need nothing more than a high school diploma to teach in K-12 schools.
Zimmer goes on:
————————————————————
Ben Zimmer: “As the Connecticut Policy Institute has discussed in our papers on education reform, there is no evidence linking certification regimes to teachers’ or administrators’ effectiveness in increasing student achievement. They simply serve to limit the recruitment pipeline of outstanding educators and keep the antiquated education administration departments of the state university system in business.”
————————————————————–
An organization fronting for business interests that want to profit from the privatization of education—some of them charter school chain CEO”s making $500,000/year or more (Geoffrey Canada)—has its spokesman attacking education departments—some of them Ivy League universities… most of them having turning out quality teachers for 100-150 years or more—as only being “in business” to advance the selfish financial interests of their administrators and professors that work in them. They are deliberately blocking “outstanding educators” from entering the field because they are out for themselves, and not the students’.
Wow! I”m so glad someone’s finally blowing the lid off this!
But then look at this assclown Zimmer’s bio at Connecticut Policy Institute:
http://ctpolicyinstitute.org/about/bio/ben-zimmer/leadership
He proudly touts his own education credentials:
———————————————————————-
“Ben received a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he specialized in business law and economic policy, and a B.A., magna cum laude with highest honors in history, from Harvard College.”
———————————————————————-
But Ben, I thought those high-falutin’ things like degrees didn’t matter. Aren’t those “J.D.’s” and “B.A.s” and “magna cum laude’s” just worthless pieces of paper spit out by “antiquated” entities that are only trying to keep themselves “in business” to pay the undeserved salaries of the folks who work in them?
No, no, no… you see in Ben’s world, rigid requirements like… oh… years of post-secondary education, or even passing a certification test…. those things only matter in OTHER careers or professions. They don’t matter in the realm of K-12 education… as his noble “kids first” organization, Connecticut Policy Institute, has produced studies and papers” have “proven” that.
No, according to Ben, teaching is like working the fry machine at McDonald’s… just let anyone in the door—education and credentials be damned—to have at it and compete for the job, then just keep the ones who do it best. And THAT is how you end up with a staff of what Ben describes as a nation of “outstanding educators.”
Got that?
You see the way to get better teachers in front of kids is just simple… so simple that those antiquated ed departments full of money-motivated hacks have been missing it for over 150 years.
The way to fill our country’s schools with “outstanding educators” is to lower or even eliminate the standards and requirements for becoming one.
That’s it!!!! Why hasn’t anyone thought of that until now?
What’s that, you say? The highest achieving nations like Finland and South Korea don’t operate that way? In those countries, becoming a teacher is as difficult and demanding as becoming a doctor?
Well, that would never work here in the United States.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
And this man represents Tom Foley, who will most likely run against Malloy for governor in the next election. Two lousy choices. CPI is just a PAC for Foley and nothing more.
There is no reason to listen to Ben Zimmer on any score. Of course, I’m sure Zimmer wants a national platform from which he can respond to this exposure of his ridiculous comments. He may think that he can tap into the wider atmosphere of teacher- and public-school-bashing that way.
Zimmer ran a “workshop”/conference in January 2012 just before Malloy went on the road with his corporate-education reform legislation–on the need for “school choice” http://ctpolicyinstitute.org/blog/page/cpi-holds-forum-on-public-school-choice; his institute also disseminated Michelle Rhee’s (!) Students First Report Card on Connecticut–http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/students-first-on-ct-education-policy-d/
Ben Zimmer is a corporate flack. It is profoundly disturbing that people like this are given credence for what they have to say about education–a civic institution that is the foundation of modern democracy.
It will take some time for Ben to re-think his position, review it with his handlers and rephrase what he really meant. I suspect he will reappear in a day or two.
“Ben Zimmer: ‘With a few exceptions, Connecticut law requires teachers to have a degree in education, meaning many talented people who didn’t decide to become teachers until after completing their educations have difficulty doing so.
‘This serves the economic interests of existing teachers and administrators by limiting competition for their jobs, but does not advance the goal of obtaining the highest quality teaching and administration possible.’ ”
Those pesky laws that require practicing doctors and lawyers to have successfully graduated from medical and law schools do the same thing!
They keep out all the talented, un-credentialed individuals who could otherwise be competition to the existing doctors and lawyers who monopolize the market for their own economic interests.
What, with providing non-trained talented competition (who didn’t decide to magically “become” doctors and lawyers) competing for these same jobs, we could eliminate death and illness and keep everyone out of prison!
The same thing has been going on in Early Childhood Education (ECE) for decades, due to very effective lobbying by the private for-profit child care industry.
Typically, the requirements for teachers and administrators in child care centers are very minimal –and even lower for family child care (home day care) –all of which must be licensed by the state. Although most children actually attend non-profit preschool programs, the private for-profits, who belong to a powerful professional organization that employs lobbyists full time,.are very well organized and have been calling all the shots.
Whenever there has been a push to increase teacher and administrator qualifications by adding even just ONE relevant college course, the for-profit preschool owners mobilize, go en mass to the state capital, to make themselves look like their numbers are larger than they really are, and they have managed to defeat the initiative EVERY time over the past four decades in my state.
So, we have no college degree requirements for teachers and administrators here. Just two years of college credits are necessary, with six credit hours (two classes) in courses related to child care for teachers and 18 credit hours (six classes) in courses related to child care for administrators –no administration courses are necessary. (Family child care requires just a heart beat, er, um, a high school diploma.)
Non-profits usually ask for higher qualifications than required by the state. Consequently, the quality of for-profit programs tends to be much lower.
Again, hope Diane can convey all of this via the media once they begin hounding her for interviews on the book. I’ve also seen the “faux teacher” situation in action and it looks like a scene out of the movie “Idiocracy”. No one knows what they are doing in the school or in the classrooms. The very idea of education is dead and buried. Wake up America, because this truly is a Concord Bridge moment and we are marching against our own best interest as we allow this takeover of our public schools to continue.
They like being called “Reformers” and they don’t like being called “Profiteers,” but that’s what they really are. So, how about we call it like it is and refer to them as “Reformers/Profiteers” henceforth? (I also like Krazy TA’s “edubullies”)
Or FRAUDS….they have no idea what they are talking about and most of the time they lie.
Some merely repeat the same talking points and when questioned or challenged, they haven’t a clue how to respond other than repeating another memorized sound bite.
Let us be serious.
1. Certainly teachers should be college educated. The real question is: what kind of an education?
2. Are education courses as currently offered the necessary and best paths for the formation of teachers? Should there be different criteria for different levels of education?
3. It is absolutely true that many intelligent college graduates are turned off from taking education courses which they consider mindless but which are often required for licensing.
4. The City University of New York for at least the last decade requires that future teachers major In the subject matter that they Intend to teach, which means that education can no longer be the major of future teachers. Certainly for the higher grades of elementary school and for high school that is a sensible decision on.
Other issues/problems may be raised and argued, but let us do so in a serious manner, taking into account the real needs of education and of the teaching of students.
Vivian R. Gruder
This seems correct to me. Deep understanding of a subject is an important attribute for a teacher. I have no doubt that Dr. Ravitch would be a fine high school history teacher based on her Ph,D. In history.
No one said understanding of a subject was not important; it is just not the only factor in becoming an effective teacher.
“I have no doubt that Dr. Ravitch would be a fine high school history teacher based on her Ph,D. In history.”
I would have doubts, if she never studied child and adolescent development and pedagogy, because kids are not just little adults and teachers need to learn instructional strategies that are content-related and developmentally appropriate.
Many locations have long required that secondary and middle school teachers major in education AND the subject they intend to teach, so I don’t know why I keep hearing this as if it does not already exist. Teacher prep should not be thought of as an either/or situation. Teachers need to learn about students AND content AND teaching methods.
And I have completed the course requirements for three education degree programs and I have never taken even one “mindless” education course.
I was thinking of high school.
I think the locations that are requiring an undergraduate major and additional coursework in education are moving in the right direction. I look forward to more locations adopting this approach.
Because one has a PhD. doesn’t necessarily make them a “fine” teacher. You’re statement about Diane being able to teach at the secondary level because of the PhD. is condescending to say the least (now she may make a great secondary teacher, I have no way of knowing until she would do that). Because one is a “fine” teacher at one level doesn’t mean that that person could be a “fine” teacher at another level. Primary classroom concerns are different than middle school ones, than high school ones than community college ones from those of a university level. And because one has a PhD. doesn’t mean one can convey that information (teach) well.
Duane,
I was thinking of a high school teacher, perhaps teaching APUSH.
TE,
Is APUSH related to PIYUSH?
The worst teachers and administrators that I’ve worked with in primary education were trained in secondary ed –as it happened, at colleges in other countries. They knew content and nothing about young children or how to teach them. (The administrators I worked with who had degrees in other areas, such as secondary ed, tended to hire people with similar qualifications, so I worked with a lot of secondary ed majors who were teaching preschool. Ugh.)
It’s still apples and oranges. High school students are adolescents and minors and not the same as college students.
I don’t think you can draw such a sharp line between seniors in high school and freshman in college.
CT said high school students and college students. This is a prime example of your methods which puts a hole in your “just here to have a discussion” BS.
So you take her statement and then compare a small sub group: seniors in high school and freshmen in college. Others have tried to tell you, but you don’t seem to get it.
Lets expand it than. A sharp distinction between juniors an seniors in high school and freshman and sophomores in in college.
Clearly, you have never studied child and adolescent development. There are also legal lines that have already been drawn between minors and adults.
And no one can go into teaching in a public high school and demand that they only teach students who are in their senior year.
Actually APUSH is a junior year course in my local system.
Right, Linda. More examples of how pretzel logic. He throws out his opinions as if they are facts and keeps trying to defend the indefensible, rather than hear what others are saying.
Been down this road too many times before. Bye!
No TE. Lets not expand it, but we’ll say we did. Buhbye.
“More examples of how pretzel logic.”
Steely reference…love it.
Yes, “serious” is a fine quality for those, even on the sidelines, who wish to join in the debate. We could ask what kind of education ANYONE should have–doctors, lawyers, accountants, pharmacists. Are courses in all fields necessary (etc.–we could go down through Gruder’s list with regard to many disciplines–but we won’t because, for some reason, it’s only teaching that is now deemed a fatally flawed subject area).
Is Gruder trying to confirm, with #3, the propaganda of “elite” TFA that their “elite” corps is comprised of members who were too intellectual to bother with lowly education classes?
I have observed that there are “mindless” aspects to schools of education, but it is usually the management-slant “curricular specialist”, “ed leadership” “data facilitator” tracts that are the problem–NOT child development, the history of pedagogy (this has probably been dropped as too esoteric–and, yes, difficult!), literature surveys, and methodology courses.
Just because people who have avoided taking the proper steps to enter the guild suddenly want to join it, does not mean that the requirements, sets of coursework, student teaching, observation, etc–are “mindless” and worthless. What some undergraduates deem mindless is often a subject area with requirements that they want to avoid.
So, someone wants to be an electrician but they never did vocational training? Should we eliminate licensing requirements and apprenticeships? We are closing out so many eager people that way!
Sadly, it is only teaching that is disrespected in this way–and only in America, where teachers have become the whipping boys of corporate ideologues.
I think some students are not attracted to education classes becausetheydont find them challenging. The mean grade given in education classes at my university is an A-. From what I have read, the prevalence of high grades is common in schools of education.
TE,
Could it be that the preponderance of As in education courses is an indicator of the high quality of teachers and students?
It might, but I think it more likely reflects a teaching philosophy in the education schools. If your hypothesis was correct, we would have to conclude that education undergraduate students as a group are much stronger than undergraduates in any other discipline. A good deal stronger than the students in the engineering school, which has the lowest average grade at my university.
Exactly with your conclusion-ha ha.
Just shows the futility of sorting and separating students, i.e., grading, considering all the logical fallacies that render the whole process invalid that grading entails.
Or could it be that lower performing students were counseled out and/or not accepted to the program? Contrary to public opinion, in my experience, there is a lot of gatekeeping in Teacher Ed. In many locations, students are not allowed to take education courses until they have meet Ed School academic requirements and have been accepted to the program.
Admission to the BSE in secondary social studies education program at my university requires
Applicants must complete or be enrolled in all courses required for admission, usually 31-35 hours of college credit. Required admission courses include English composition (two classes), mathematics (two classes), speech, psychology, American History, a science with lab, sociology or anthropology, and introductory education classes.
Students must have a 2.75 grade point average in the required classes above as well as a minimum 2.75 cumulative grade point average.
Other admission requirements include passing scores on the Pre Professional Skills Test and no grade lower than “C” in English, Mathematics, or Communication Studies.
I suspect teaching economist thinks he just presented a strong case to dispute CT, when he actually provided an example of gate-keeping in Teacher Education at his university.
Most Ed Schools require that students complete two introductory Education courses amongst prerequisites in Arts and Sciences before they are accepted in the College of Ed and are allowed to take any further Education courses. It’s not unusual for students to excel in what they are interested in and want to learn more about, so serious Education students should do well in further Education courses.
Teaching Ed,
It may be the case that education schools are better than all the other professional schools and all the academic departments at selecting students. The alternative hypothesis is that the culture of education schools is to award high numbers of A’s in their classes, while it is the culture in other schools, say engineering and other disciplines like mathematics to award few A’s in a class.
What are the entrance requirements for all of the other colleges to which you are comparing your undergrad Ed School? Typically, it’s only the Ed Schools that require students to demonstrate academic achievement at the university before they are accepted and permitted to take more than intro courses, so low performing students are filtered out.
Your continued failure to hear what anyone has to say is what gets you ostracized here. So long.
At my university, at least, most of the professional schools and many departments have entrence requirements either based on high school performance or performance in lower division classes.
Even after admission, a number of students end up dropping out of these programs due to low grades. The average grade in the engineering department is a B- for example.
So what are the lower division requirements for being accepted into the undergrad engineering program at your university?
The engineering school admits students directly from high school. Their admissions requirements are considerably more demanding than the university as a whole.
How ridiculous. This is just more of TE’s bullsh*t bashing of teachers and Teacher Ed.
Every field requires people with certain strengths and passions and each has it’s own skill sets that must be learned.
There is gatekeeping upon entrance to college and again for acceptance into Ed Schools.
Then there is gatekeeping after completing college, when students have to pass additional state tests for certification. such as the Praxis II tests, which are content area tests. (There are a minimum of three exams that each teacher must pass in my state.) If students are able to pass all of those certification exams, then there should be no question about their competence or college program.
Stop trying to compare teaching with rocket science!
Teaching is not rocket science. What is a more apt comparison?
Perhaps there just isn’t a proper way to make a comparison of this type of field preparation to another.
Rocket scientists study engineering, Dufuss.
LG,
Comparisons across fields are often made here. The role that experience plays in medicine and teaching has often been compared to the general approval of posters here. If it is appropriate to make the comparison after graduation, it seems to me that it is appropriate to make the comparison before graduation as well.
“If it is appropriate to make the comparison after graduation, it seems to me that it is appropriate to make the comparison before graduation as well.”
This, from a public school “teachingeconomist” with no formal preparation as a teacher, is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
Just a question of logic, not pedagogy.
Another example of pretzel logic from an untrained “teacher” who throws out pedagogy and fails to acknowledge the importance of studying andragogy to college teaching.
And another discussion with TE that’s just a huge waste of time.
Cosmic Tinker, TE never listens. He is in his own universe.
I read the research and try not to make a judgment based on truthiness.
Right, Diane. And it’s a universe where college is just “13th grade” (the epitome of “truthiness”), so there is no need for teachers to learn anything about adult learners.
Vivian,
A couple of quick questions if you don’t mind. Are you a traditionally certified teacher? Do you teach? If so what setting, public and private and what levels and subjects? If not traditionally certified how did you become a teacher?
Thanks,
Duane
Mr. Zimmer is incorrect in stating, “With a few exceptions, Connecticut law requires teachers to have a degree in education, meaning many talented people who didn’t decide to become teachers until after completing their educations have difficulty doing so….This serves the economic interests of existing teachers and administrators by limiting competition for their jobs, but does not advance the goal of obtaining the highest quality teaching and administration possible.”
There are ways for talented individuals willing to commit time and effort in education to become teachers. There is an Alternate Route to Certification program run by the state; I graduated from this program in 1994. There is also a “Troops to Teachers” program for the state.
Yes, these programs takes commitment, but education is not a profession interchangeable with other professions. For example, new teachers, who may bring a body of content knowledge, still need to be trained on pedagogy (differentiation, multiple intelligences, etc), the incorporation of 21st Century skills (collaboration, digital learning platforms), and the myriad of regulations (mandated reporting, SSP, 504, special ed, etc). These represent only a small part of what teachers/administrators must address daily in their classrooms.
How incongruous that someone who is trying to influence policy would suggest that teachers, charged with the responsibility of training the state’s future work force in order to insure a healthy economy of that same state, would not be licensed or certified? The state already requires certification and training for a myriad of professions: hairdresser, contractor, paramedic, real estate broker, day care provider along with a host of medical professions. These licenses insure public safety and maintain high standards that make the state desirable to live and do business.
Why would the State of Connecticut’s children not deserve the same?
I don’t agree with no credentials but I do completely agree that the system creates very large barriers for anyone without an education degree. I had a very successful business career and retired with the idea that I was going to teach math. I chose math because 1) I love the subject and 2) observing my own children’s math teachers (24 elementary (1-8) teachers and 12 secondary (9-12) teachers) made me realize that, in general, math was being taught poorly. I felt I could “make a difference.” At the time, I had a 4-year degree in economics, had been a Kemper scholar and actuarial student, and had worked in the actuarial department during the first four years of my business career.
The state required some education courses required for anyone wanting to teach any subject on things like classroom management, lesson planning and special education. These seem perfectly reasonable and helpful. Then came the math requirements! I took both the two required Praxis tests, scoring 198 and 199 out of 200. But that apparently doesn’t prove that I know the math to anyone other than me. Basically, if you did not have a math undergrad degree, you needed to take the college courses you would have needed to get one! The very nice woman in charge of math credentials told me she couldn’t except actuarial exams because that was “business math” so I needed to take an introductory level probability course. I did not have college algebra/trig on my transcripts so I would have to take that, even though I took those classes in high school and started my college math classes at the calculus level.
Only because I had both the determination and resources and personal stubbornness was I able to prevail and eventually be allowed to teach math to middle and high school kids. I specialize getting low and remedial math learners back to grade level and, more importantly, reverse all the negative influence of their prior math teachers.
No credentials is an idiotic proposal. But Zimmer is certainly correct that state ed departments have policies that create indefensible barriers for otherwise highly qualified people that want to teach as a second career, especially in the STEM area.
If you want to hear more about the idea that teachers need no more than a high school degree to teach, look no farther than Bill Gates. He has a video on TED where he states that there is no correlation between the higher education of teachers and how good they are. He has the whole audience laughing at the fact that a teacher’s pay goes up with education when, in fact, according to Gates, there is no correlation to good teachers & higher education. I myself have never done a study on this, however, after 10 years experience, the two factors that affect student gains in the classroom are classroom size and teacher certification through accredited college institutions.
Teachers may get an extra $1,000 a year for a Master’s degree but this hardly qualifies as the root of whatever catastrophe Bill Gates imagines.
A serious discussion involves focusing on issues, and not personal attacks, as sometimes appear in these and other comments. So please hold back on the latter.
In my original comment I said that majors in subjects other than education are appropriate for teaching in higher grades in elementary school and certainly in middle school and high school. The first few grades in primary school may be quite different and I am not qualified to comment on that.
Teachers in highly qualified private schools may not have education degrees, but that does not disqualify them from teaching. They have degrees in the subjects they teach, and they may teach those subjects quite well.
So it is not a question of having a college education or not having one. It is a question of what is the best college and post-college preparation for teaching. And the answer may not be just one form of preparation, such as an education major or a degree from a school of education. There may be other valid and appropriate education paths that should not be dismissed.
The bottom line is that Zimmer is a spin doctor and a salesman, nothing more. The acid test of the studies he cites has already been done in the market place he so reveres and the market has refuted them in a resounding fashion. There are no elite, prestigious private schools anywhere that have adopted his or any other reformer/lobbyist/profiteer policies as being superior to the ones they have had success with for decades or longer. The smartest, richest, best educated parents in the country who can send their kids anywhere on the planet for school have never chosen a school based on reformy ideology and never will. The market has spoken, reform is a completely bogus smoke screen whose sole purpose is to loot the tax dollars America spends on education.
To Diane Ravitch,
I am truly surprised at your curt comment about “teaching economist.” He has made intelligent, thoughtful comments and deserves better than the words you wrote.
Too much of the comments o n this blog are beginning to sound like agitprop, especially the notion often repeated that an educator who does not have a degree in education cannot make any valid comment on education.
I write what I know. I assume you do the same. It’s my blog.
What is the evidence that he lives in”a closed universe”? He has responded thoughtfully to every comment directed at him.
Sent from my iPad
How long have you been reading this blog?
Vivian, please reach out to TE and start a blog together. Best of luck.
I think it is important for different points of view to be expressed, especially in this blog about teaching in public education in the U.S. It should not be limited to the expression of the same ideas since this should not be a theological discussion among the faithful. We do live in a democratic society which protects and cherishes freedom of expression. And especially pedagogues should welcome open-minded discussion of different points of view. Isn’t that what teachers are supposed to teach their students?
That isn’t what I asked you.
Vivian, We have been dealing with TE here for quite some time and are very familiar with him, including the repeated characterization of his work as a college professor as teaching “13th grade.”
You just came here recently and, without knowing anything about me and my background or even asking me about that, you accused me of making an ad hominem attack on E.D. HIrsch and of being “closed-minded,” because I reminded people of the FACT that E.D. Hirsch is an English Professor who went out-of-field when he created curriculum content in virtually all disciplines for K-8 students (actually, Preschool as well) and the FACT that he does not believe in developmentally appropriate practice.
As it happens, I welcomed and implemented Hirsch’s curriculum in my own classroom, years ago, and I found it to be developmentally inappropriate indeed. I believe that Hirsch has taken liberties that over-reach his areas of expertise and that are not in the best interests of young children. Therefore, as an experienced teacher, Child Development Specialist and college professor myself, who is very familiar with many different kinds of curricula, I do not recommend the use of Core Knowledge in Early Childhood Education.
Instead of making assumptions about people here, I would suggest that you ask folks about where they are coming from, as well as make a concerted effort to refrain from issuing your own ad hominem attacks and, thereby, practice what you preach.
Freshman year is equivalent to 13th grade. So what is terrible about that? If you mean that the phrase implies that many freshmen are not up to college work,that is sadly too true. Since, as you write, you are in early childhood education, your experience with Hirsch’s core knowledge does not invalidate its potential worth for higher grades. So don’t dismiss it outright. The point is: culturally deprived children need beef-up curricula. And from my experience, I would add that many students in college need more rigorous pre-college learning. Listen to the experience of those who receive students from American high schools. The changes in the capacity and willingness of college students to study, learn and understand college material has changed–dropped dramatically since the late 1960s. Education is not just early childhood. It continues through middle school and high school.
Sent from my iPad
“Listen to the experience of those who receive students from American high schools.”
Gee, thanks so much for responding to me as if I did not tell you that I am a college professor. –And you reproached someone else here for not reading posts accurately, when you wrote “It puts you and them as teachers in a bad light as poor readers, not grasping or exaggerating what you read.” Shall I say the same to you?
I have been a professor for nearly 20 years. As I’ve completed all course requirements in four different degree programs, additional course work in minors and cognates, and I have had a vast array of professional experiences, my areas of expertise cover a lot more than Early Childhood, including Liberal Arts, Special Education, Administration, Neuropsychology and Educational Psychology.
Most of the children I have worked with have been from low-income groups and “culturally deprived,” and I have taught virtually all ages in my 45 year career. I’ve found that the didactic, drill for skill approach undermines motivation for many students, regardless of age, so I prefer other more meaningful curricula over Core Knowledge, such as project-based learning, with standards used as guides. Most importantly, I think teachers should have a lot more autonomy to decide the curriculum in their classrooms.
Regardless of the academic level of entering college students, they are adults with developmental, learning and real world needs that differ from high school students. I do not believe they should be called “13th Graders.” In my experiences at several different colleges, a number of colleagues who characterized college students that way did not acknowledge the value of studying about the unique needs of adult learners (similar to TE) and many also had much lower expectations of students (though I don’t think TE does).
For example, one of my former department Chairs, who often said “13th Grade,” was aghast that I was requiring students to type their papers. I was also admonished for teaching students to write in APA style, because, I was told, “This is really high school.” I found that outrageous, since,learning how to write in an accepted writing style had long been a standard for middle school students in our school district.
Yes, teaching “English” is very much a part of the lives of most professors, regardless of field, and it has been for the entire two decades that I’ve been teaching college. That’s why I have a variety of resources that I share with students, to help them improve their literacy skills, mature as adults and find success in college, including this,
The-NOT-the-13th-Grade-Page:
http://webhost.bridgew.edu/jhayesboh/not13th/not13th.htm
To Other Spaces:
Good for you. Sorry I didn’t have your CV in front of me. Did you publish it in this blog? Otherwise how was I to know who or what you are?
I too am opposed to drilling and I too favor teacher autonomy, within certain bounds.
VG, Stop being so abrasive to people here. You were told that OS was a college professor, ignored it and then lectured as if you were talking to an ignorant fool. Few are likely to engage, let alone hear, anyone who comes across so snooty and hypercritical. And you reap what you sow.
Please show me where I was told that OS was a college professor.
I would suggest that Chi-Town Res contain his/her adjectives.
PLEASE start a blog with TE…a match made in heaven 🙂
Linda, that is not a response to my question. Where was it made known that OS was a college professor? This is a question of information.
VG, At the top of this thread, OS wrote “…as an experienced teacher, Child Development Specialist and college professor myself….”
And I will “contain” my adjectives when you stop making the very kinds of “snide” (your word) remarks that you accuse others of on this blog.
Hear Hear! Becoming an educator should be has difficult as becoming a lawyer and a doctor… they are caring for our future! However, no one will undergo such a rigorous process of education to become a teacher unless the pay increases. Great article and letter rebuttal.
Sorry,with all these blogs to read, I forgot that he/she indicated college professor as a profession.
I love your challenge to those who wish to discredit and destroy public education and for your emphasis on teaching and learning that actually empower teachers and learners! However, I do get concerned when you oversimplify your rhetoric just to discredit your opposition. There are those of us in those groups that do not completely fit the profile… yet we get taken down because not everyone knows the diversity of ideas/activism that exists within. For example, all online higher ed degrees are not bought (as said in the introduction)… not any more than degrees obtained on the ground… trust me, I have heard of rule breakers on both ends! Again, I don’t agree with all of your points but I do agree enough for me to be a fan of your work! I hope that you accept my respectful challenge… please STOP discrediting an entire group just to make valid points regarding a toxic subgroup (no matter how large or toxic the subgroup actually is). Thank you!
One of my dearest friends participated in the alternate route to teaching program. She observed a professionally trained educator in her teaching area for the better part of a year before she felt even slightly comfortable with teaching, and this was after a year teaching with emergency certification in another district. There are plenty who know about a subject area and even plenty who “know” a little about teaching and learning, but it is the practitioner who becomes expert in large group, multi-level instruction and classroom management.
Online schools may be adequate in higher ed, to some degree for some students, but young children need living, breathing classroom environments where they learn from academic, empathetic, and social points-of-view. Online learning takes the valuable human relationship away from the “learning” equation.
If you take issue with any stance represented on this blog, perhaps you should follow the blog for a while to learn more about the actual position of its host before politely admonishing anyone here.