This week I've ran into a lot of teacher bashing for some reason, and being a former teacher myself, I'm getting a little sick of it. Teaching is one of those professions that everyone thinks they can do, thus they think they actually know something about it. There is much of thee talk out of thee asses regarding this subject. It's mainly used as a scapegoat for What's Wrong With American Schools.
My irritation began when I read this thread on Metafilter about John Stossel's report about Belgian kids kicking the clocks of some American kids on an academic achievement test. First of all, John Stossel is a Rat Bastard. I say this not because he is a raving lunatic libertarian; everyone is entitled to their views. What bothers me about Stossel is that he somehow passes off his work as being journalism, when it is really ill-researched, illogical, opinionated crap. How does this paragraph get into a NEWS program anyway?
"This should come as no surprise once you remember that public education in the USA is a government monopoly. Don't like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it's good or bad. That's why government monopolies routinely fail their customers. Union-dominated monopolies are even worse. "
Although most of the MeFite commenters were on target with Stossel's lousy reporting, some of their comments were very anti-teacher as well.
Then, today, my ECE teacher from Healthy Start came over, and my dad does what he always does when she comes: he disappeared. When she left, he asks, "Does she get paid to do that job?"
There are two main problems with the flack that teachers get. One is that everyone thinks that teaching is a job that takes no skill or education because, hey, how hard is it to sing songs and teach two plus two to little kids all day? The second problem is that every single failure in the American education system is blamed on "bad teachers" and how we "can't fire them."
Skill and Education
I think the problem here is that the dumb-asses who say this are too ignorant to look past the content of what you are teaching, which may be very simple, to the methods you are using to teach it. Simply, they don't think there are any. You just fill the kid's day with some numbers and some colors and some picture books and later, maybe a bit of Algebra from the textbook and that's all you have to do and kids will learn. Exposure to information is certainly a start, but there is much more to it than that.
A MeFi commenter snarked, "C'mon, do you really need a Master's Degree to teach preschool?" My answer would be yes and no. I say no in the same way that I would say that a CEO doesn't necessarily need an MBA to run a successful business. He may have picked up the information and skills experientially, he may have just intuitive good common sense about business, he may have been lucky, he may have had a great mentor, or he may have book learned on his own. But somehow, he got the skills and know how to run a successful company.
I also think someone can be a good teacher without going to college. But this is because they must have picked up the skills and knowledge in some other way, have a natural talent for it, etc. Not because there are NO SKILLS NEEDED. Probably, in most every field, you could be self-taught and do great without the college degree. There are certain professions, we all might agree, that we want to REQUIRE that people be formally educated. A doctor, for example. Yeah, you could probably self-teach yourself medicine, but because the stakes are so high, we want to cover our bases and require a formal education. Also, there are certain things that are very hard to self-teach without the right environment. Surgery, for example, would be impossible to self teach. Formal education puts the student in the OR, with skilled supervision, with a relatively safe and gradual process for practicing the skill.
So I say, yes, formal education should be required for teachers because it is so important of a job I wouldn't want to risk any gaps in knowledge from a self-taught person. We are handing our kids over to these people for 6 hours a day for thirteen years. A majority of their basic education is in these people's hands. I want to make sure they at least have the basic skills and knowledge to do the job. I would like them to spend some apprenticeship time being supervised in the classroom before they are given the reins. In Stossel's report, he mentions that US kids beat the Belgians until about age ten, when our kids transfer to middle and secondary schools. (So our elementary schools are not union-based government monopolies?) I theorize that this is because elementary teacher training focuses equally on curriculum and instruction, whereas, secondary school teachers usually major in their subject areas, but take far less educational methods classes. (Special Ed teachers focus almost entirely on instruction. I learned how to teach from special ed far more than regular ed.) I'm sure that isn't the whole reason, but perhaps part of it.
This is because teaching requires more skills than singing songs or knowing two + two = four or even having a degree in chemistry to teach chemistry. I'm going to pick on my dad here because he is such an easy target and because he doesn't care if I pick on him publicly. My dad, who thinks that any moron can teach, has said the following things to me in regards to my children:
"You don't need a gate. If they fall down the steps a few times, they won't get near the steps again." (Yeah, then they'll either get a spinal cord injury and never use steps again, or be so afraid of them I'll be carrying them up and down steps until they are 18.)
"He's got a couple of teeth, can I give him some of this meat to eat" (at four months).
"Can you start potty training them now? (Six Months) But I don't want to look at one of those potty chairs. Can't they just learn on the toilet?"
Me: "But they can't even walk, dad, they have no way of getting to the toilet and going even if they knew they had to go."
"Well, you'd take them. It would be easier than changing diapers, wouldn't it?" (Oh, yeah, running two six month-olds to the toilet and undressing them before they peed and holding them over the toilet is much easier than diapering.)
"Why can't he talk yet?" (8 or 9 months.)
"They've outgrown these (board) books. You should get rid of them." (But, dad, they can't even read them or say the words in them. They haven't even seen real life examples of some of the pictures. They don't even turn the pages right. I think we can keep them for just a little bit longer.)
I try to imagine where the kids would be now if my dad was raising them. I think they still might be on their backs, in front of the TV, with poo and diaper rash all over them, massively underweight, no language skills, emotional attachment disorder, PTSD from my dad's loud nanocrises, muscles in atrophy from no physical activity, need I go on? Don't get me wrong, my dad loves the kids. He will get down on the floor with them and play with them for short periods. But he doesn't have a clue about how to raise them day to day. He does not babysit long term because he doesn't take care of their needs when he does do little short term bits. He knows nothing about child development, what they should be eating, when they should be doing what, what toys and activities are appropriate for them. Mostly I have to model for him how to interact with them. Hey, it's okay, but parenting (which is largely teaching) isn't in his skill set.
Because it is a skill, damn it. Moms, and sometimes dads, too, take a crash course when they become parents if they lack experience. Just look at the message boards and websites and books for parenting. There are millions of them and they are all teaching parents how to care for and teach their children. Teaching in schools is being a surrogate parent and more. You have to know behavior management (which goes MUCH, MUCH further than Nanny 911 and timeout), educational and child psychology, child nutrition, physical development, how the brain learns and processes information, how to get the most out of the kid's zone of proximal development, how to utilize short term and long term memory, how to evaluate what they are learning and what problems they might be having and why. The list goes on and on.
Someone said to me once that teachers were just trying intellectualize their profession so they could make more money. She was complaining about how they made up professional jargon to make themselves appear smarter. She said, "you can't just call blocks, blocks. Now they're manipulatives."
Well, I don't give a shit what you call a block, but what she didn't know was that using the word 'manipulatives' was a savvy political move made by the national association of math teachers (whose exact name escapes me). Here's what happened: For years, kids did lousy in math. Teachers and universities went out and did a bunch of research and found that pencil/paper and textbook style teaching is the WORST way to teach math concepts. This was about the same time Gardner came out with his work on multiple intelligences. Most kids learned math concepts WAY BETTER using visual -spatial and kinesthetic methods. Basically, it is a lot easier to teach a kid our base ten number system and its components (borrowing, carrying, long division, etc.) using base ten blocks. Kids who used to struggle with these concepts now powered through math because they actually understood what they were doing, not following a bunch of meaningless, rote instructions. The problem was that to outfit classrooms with blocks and other three dimensional real life objects that teach math and a bunch of other things costs a lot more than buying a few textbooks. When the teachers tried to get funding for 'blocks,' underwriters thought they were just toys--unnecessary optional items. But when they were called 'manipulatives' and the teachers never really stated that they were basically blocks, they got more funding for them. A lot of the stupid jargon from education started out this way. This is another example of people who think the teachers are just babysitters who play with blocks with kids; they actually show their own ignorance of the skills it takes to teach.
All teachers are bad, they are failing factor in American schools.
The next thing I hear all the time about teachers is how much they all suck. And if we could just fire them, or hire other professionals to do the job, all of our problems would be solved. Sure, there are some bad teachers out there, but for the most part; you don't go into teaching unless you really want to do it and care about it and want to do a good job.
Then the same people who think that it takes no skill to be a teacher are the ones who think that Schools of Education have no standards and need to make it tougher to get into and out of teacher training programs. Kind of a contradiction don't you think? I don't have a problem with tougher admissions and exit standards, but I don't think it is going to solve the problem.
My experience in teaching taught me that schools are assembly lines and teachers are the factory workers. I'm reminded of the scene in "Norma Rae" where Sally Field has to go monitor how many yards of textiles the other factory workers are producing and she has to threaten them with severely unrealistic production schedules. Then, when the products come out substandard, they get blamed. The way most teaching jobs are set up, it is impossible to be a good teacher.
When I was an undergrad, I had a dual major in elementary and special education. At the time, special education was mostly all resource room based. I taught in small rooms at the end of the hall with no more than six or eight students at a time, and usually just two or three. I felt, in these settings, that I was a good, effective teacher and that the teachers I worked with were good, effective teachers. I also worked in regular classrooms. Here, I felt that my ability to teach diminished and so did those around me. So much time was spent in classroom management, or getting materials ready for 30+ kids, or just stuff like tying shoes and zipping jackets. And the distractions and the noise ALL DAY LONG.
When I was in graduate school, I majored in special education of children with severe and multiple disabilities as they called it then. By this time, inclusion was in full force. I worked in the regular classroom alongside the regular teachers. The regular teachers HATED inclusion. At first I thought they were just being prejudice and wanted my kids out of their classroom. Then, although I couldn't say it aloud, I started hating inclusion as well. Why? because you couldn't get a damned thing accomplished. Neither you or the other teacher had any time to coordinate and meet with each other to plan for all of the regular kids and make accommodations for the disabled kids with all those students with different needs in the class. She was working to generalize things, I was working to specialize things. We were working at opposing forces.
I really, really supported (and still support) the philosophy of inclusion, though. Kid's with disabilities should not be segregated down the hall away from their peers. Separate and different but "equal" education was not happening and it wasn't right. It's segregation. Then it occurred to me that special ed teachers can't get there from here. Meaning special ed should not be moving into the regular classroom model, the regular classroom model should be moving to the special ed model. Small classes with no more than ten or so students, different needs all addressed. Different kids in the class who are accepted for who they are and help each other out. No need to conform and assembly line everything just to get through the day safely. I realized that in the typical 30+ kid classroom, I was becoming a lousy teacher because I was being put into an impossible situation. All teachers are.
It's like this: Imagine our successful CEO running his company. MBA or no, we see him as a skillful, intelligent, respectable, productive, goal oriented, effective guy at his job. Now, let's take away his secretary and his support staff. Then, let's give him very little equipment and supplies to work on. No computer paper. The fax machine is down. The phone works inconsistently. He ends up buy supplies out of his own money on the weekend. Expense account, schmence account. Then, let's make him buy whatever product comes through the door. He cannot pick and choose his blueberries as it were, he has to take every blueberry, no sending back for the top stuff. No matter what its condition, he works them into his blueberry icecream product. Then, let's throw him some new territory, say he is now responsible for supplying blueberries to the United States AND Canada AND Greenland, AND Mexico, but we are not going to give him any additional capital or resources to manage that. And, just for kicks, let's give him 40 little puppy dogs to supervise everyday, along with getting his usual work done. This way, he can no longer go to the bathroom when he wants, step outside and take a minute of air, or get a drink if he's thirsty, except for his 20 minute lunch period spent in a dingy, smelly lounge with the torn, smoky garage sale couch and the broken door to the only bathroom he is allowed to use right there off the room. Then, remember he has to do all his power point presentations, websites, sales calls, bookkeeping, shopping, etc by himself, so he is required to work 16 hour days. Oh, and we want him to coach the puppy dog relay team as well in his free(?) time. And, when he does have any free time, he cannot publicly drink or smoke or hold his husband's hand or even get a traffic ticket, because he is supposed to be a role model for everyone. Now, let's compensate that guy with oh, about $30,000 and expect him to also raise his kids and pay the mortgage. And don't forget to have the public disrespect him every chance they get.
Now, make a wild guess. Is he as good of CEO as he used to be? Is his company doing as well? Might he look like a failure from the outside? Might he burn out? Is he still a successful business man?
The main reason I quit teaching (with much guilt) is because I knew I couldn't be a success at it under the conditions I was given to work in. And this is not because I don't care or was a bad teacher. I actually love teaching the kids now and am looking at having one or two more kids come in during the day. Any teacher out there who can handle it, who is doing it, and god bless 'em if they manage to be good at it, is probably making as much difference in people's lives as those firemen did on 9/11 and then were exalted to well deserved hero status.
Teachers need LESS STUDENTS, more resources, more support, and MORE RESPECT to save our schools. I also have a whole 'nother rant on school curriculum, but haven't you read enough already?
Guess what? I actually (for once) half proofread this entry! I knew if I didn't, I would get some comment like, "You think you are a good teacher yet you can't even make your subject and predicate agree? And your use of apostrophes! You SUCK!! Don't ever teach my kids!!!"