Training

A recent article printed in the Christian Science Monitor covered the issue of teacher training (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0327/p01s01-ussc.html?page=1). The key controversy is that ”Some policymakers say the focus needs to be on improving traditional education schools, which produce 4 out of 5 teachers in the United States. Others are strong advocates of so-called alternative models designed to streamline entry into teaching for exceptionally talented students or mid-career professionals.”

As I sit through yet another sound bite for differentiating instruction based on the needs of my students, and as I am being asked to contemplate taking part in an alternative academy for low-performing ninth graders next year, I marvel again that we, as educators, don’t practice what we preach. Why should we expect every prospective teacher to flourish under the exact same training? We certainly don’t expect that from the kids in our classrooms.

There are so many issues just within education (e.g. phonics vs. whole language) where we are asked to take a stand on one side or another, when in fact the better option is to include both approaches to make sure that in any given classroom a greater number of kids with diverse learning styles and educational backgrounds will be reached. Why can’t we open multiple avenues into the teaching profession?

We come into the field with such diverse experience. Some of us have already been parents, some have the experience of younger siblings, some only have their own public or private school experiences to guide them. What ends up making a teacher great isn’t necessarily the training they have received. It is sometimes just an instinctual ability to communicate with and understand the needs of students. There are so many things that we do on an everyday basis that simply aren’t quantifiable. I have seen teachers trained by the “best” programs flounder in the classroom, and I have seen teachers from much less distinguished programs become master teachers. Sometimes it’s a matter of aptitude rather than skill (the former being inherent, the latter being learned).

The question isn’t which type of program is better. It should be “How do we match up prospective teachers with the program that will work best for their skills and aptitude?”

Comments

[Kim]

I think that sometimes it seems that teachers who have been in the profession for a while are more stuck in their ways, but in my experience, that's not necessarily the case. I've worked with some very young teachers with narrow ideas of how to teach (what worked for me when I was in school will work with all kids).

Differentiation is really the key to a lot classroom issues that we face. Unfortunately, it's too often see as the latest trend that will disappear again in a couple of years.

Maybe because I started teaching the year I turned 40, I missed getting stuck.

[Peter Fogarty]

I agree that we do have different learning styles - but that teachers need to be much more open to the different ways of learning - I have noticed that teachers in their 40s seem to stop trying to do things differently. Things like multiple intelligence in other teachers and students is important.

[Bob Heiny]

Thanks, Kim, for clarifying your meaning. I prefer optimistic, civil, databased, straight forward and informed discussions, expecially in public, with people on public payrolls. As I'm guessing you do too. Kudos to you and others on this site for suggesting ways for other teachers to increase student learning with what we have and wherever we practice.

[Kim]

Conspiracy theorists always fail to include individualists in their equation. That is, there are people who have "bought into the system" before they are ever part of that system, and there are people who can go through the system and never have it impact their own attitudes and beliefs. I am seeing that every day in the recent and current political arenas. There are people who believe everything the media or their own party tells them about politics and politicians, and there are those who who go to primary sources and think for themselves. That works the same in education; the people who are inclined to toe the party line without question will always exist, not matter what the party line is at any given time. Likewise, there are those who will try to buck the system if it doesn't make sense to them. A little cynicism is a healthy thing, don't you think?

[Bob Heiny]

Interesting post, Kim. Another explanation exists for advocates of alternative entries into teaching and schooling. Some recognize value for learners in the divide-and-conquer strategy against the groupthink of a too powerful, monolythic, union dominated public education bureaucracy. Sounds cynical, but I know public ed policy and philanthropic people who hold this view privately. They've given up on trying to influence U.S. teaching and schooling. I think their point and reasons have some value, although results of their efforts appear scattered at best. What do you think of this view?

[Mark Gardner]

Good post... I think one of the reasons why it seems we don't practice what we preach is that we are practicing it (in the classroom) but the powers that be operate in a different realm with a different clientele. I have learned the hard way that teaching adult learners is (not my cup of tea) and much different from teaching younguns. I'm not sure how this precisely fits in to the discussion, but I have a feeling it does.