Re: Failing our Children
- From: mg <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:37:33 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 25, 2:45 pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mg wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:36 am, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mg wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:34 pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mg wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:06 am, "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Here's an interesting discussion. Much thought provoking -
MR. KLEIN (Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education): The
countries that succeed, they tend to draw their teachers from the top
quarter, top third of their graduating college classes. These are people who
have been academically successful, who believe in assessment, because they’ve
lived under it and it’s served them well. In the United States, we draw
teachers from the bottom quarter of our college graduates, and our kids in
high-poverty neighborhoods get the bottom quarter of the bottom quarter.
http://blogs.wsj.com/ceo-council/2008/11/23/failing-our-children/
My personal experience has been that over-qualified teachers are a
bigger problem than under qualified teachers.
And why is that so? And what is the extent of your experience which
leads you to make that assertion?
After I got out of the Army in 1962, I almost become a professional
student, although not on purpose. I initially planned on majoring in
business administration, but then the call of the Nevada blackjack
tables along with a book entitled, "Beat the Deal" (Edward O. Thorp)
lured me away from my studies. Years later, I got a job at a local
steel plant and began going back to school again drawing my GI
benefits. The problem was that it was difficult to get the classes I
needed while working, but I needed a minimum number of hours to
maximize my GI benefits. In the process I also wound up switching
majors several times. I think I quit going altogether in my mid 30s.
By that time I had accumulated an unbelievable number of basket
weaving credit hours. I think it was well over a hundred, I can't
remember for sure. I once took a couple of short hand classes, for
instance. One interesting class was business machines. Do you know of
anyone besides me who learned how to operate a comptometer?
Over the years I learned how to assess each individual instructor and
his teaching methods. How closely did he follow the text book? Were
the tests based mostly on lectures? What kind of clues did he give
about the test material? Did he have pop quizzes? Did he do essay
questions? Did he test on a lot of small details or take a more
panoramic view? Undoubtedly, one of the reasons I focused on teachers
and their methods was probably because I mostly was burning the candle
at both ends while going to school.
Then in my mid-40s when the steel plant I was working at was getting
shaky, I went back to school and majored in electronic engineering.
Mostly, I worked full time and went to school full time until I
graduated. During that period I, of course, honed my instructor
assessment skills further. One thing I found was that an over-
qualified instructor teaching a lower-level course usually became
bored quickly. In addition, they usually weren't able to differentiate
between what material the students might find difficult and what was
easier. It had been so long since they learned the fundamentals, they
really didn't have a clue.
One over-qualified teacher I had in an introductory semiconductor
class, for example, used to give us the bum's rush through the theory
and then rush us off to the lab. Then in the lab he would either
wander off a lot or read novels -- he liked reading Ayn Rand. One
time, I told him right during class that he was giving us ten cents
worth of theory and ninety cents worth of labs. His reply was
something to the effect that us crusty, old steel workers were always
complaining about something :-). One time, incidentally, I put a
resistance wire in one of my lab circuits and pretended I couldn't
figure out what was wrong :-) It took him about two minutes to find
that wire and uncover my practical joke. There's no doubt he was a
smart guy.
I had another instructor, for example, that was teaching a calculus II-
type class. He had a list of degrees as long as your arm and was in
the process of writing a text book. He would have us study a little
bit from the text book and then he would copy some pages from the book
he was working on and sandwich those in also. Sometimes he would go
off on an irrelevant, unfathomable tangent on the black board that I
knew he wouldn't test on and I would fall asleep. Then he would say
something like "So v - M A X is . . .", or "i - M A X is . . .". He
would shout the "Max" part so loud they could probably hear it out in
the hall in order to wake me up :-) (My name is Max).
The bottom line is that there really is such a thing as being over
qualified for a job and teaching is no exception.
I appreciate your detailed summary of your experiences. But you should
be aware that you speak primarily about your experiences in college.
College 'teachers' really do not teach; they lecture. Very different
from what goes on in primary and secondary schools, where teachers are
expected to actually teach. There is a difference, you realize.
One does not usually find over-qualified individuals on those levels,
and even when one did, back in the 1930's, they were 'taught' how to
teach, and their superior academic abilities very quickly rendered them
as superior teachers, despite their extensive academic training.
In closing, regarding your experiences, I can only offer the sarcastic
comment frequently mouthed, that those who can, do and those who can't,
teach. And those who can't teach, teach college.
If I were a high-school principal, though, and I needed an instructor
for an Algebra I class, for example, a teacher with a Ph.D in
mathematics would be one of my last preferences.
As a former assistant principal, responsible for hiring those under my
area of supervision, my goal was to find good teachers. I would ask
prospective employees questions designed to elicit their knowledge and
understanding of pedagogy, class management and then knowledge of
content. I found it unproductive to simply make a judgment based on a
credential or lack thereof, despite the fact that apparently I have done
so with my comment in my last reply.
I suppose the difference might come down to the definition of "highly
qualified" vs. the definition of "overqualified".
I think I've answered that with my response.
The academic
profession should be one profession that prides itself on objectivity,
research and the empirical method, etc. This is obviously an age-old
issue. So, one would expect there have been lots of age-old studies
done and some new ones too. However, I don't see anything popping up
with a Google search and I would guess this is a sensitive issue in
the academic community.
I still think you're focused on the college or university experience,
which they admit are not actual teachers.
What I suspect and fear is that some politicians have jumped to some
conclusions, with no supporting evidence, on what the qualifications
for a teacher should be and both the students and taxpayer are paying
for their ignorance.
I know of no state that does not have a detailed and more than adequate
academic qualification for its teachers.
Does a teacher receive more pay if he has a second degree? Or, in
other words, if two teachers both have the same degree in general
education, but one also happens to have a degree in mathematics (not
in teaching mathematics), would the second make more money?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Failing our Children
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Failing our Children
- Prev by Date: Re: Nobody following Mumbai terrorism?
- Next by Date: Re: Liberals, too, should reject the Fairness Doctrine
- Previous by thread: Re: Civics test
- Next by thread: Re: Failing our Children
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
