You have to admit the whole fact there are unions says volumes about primary teaching.
My mother is/was a teacher, an excellent 1. So good she was "teacher in charge" (like a principal) for her emotionally-disturbed (read: teenage malcontents) school (which was attached to my high school) when in her 40s, and kids - most of them - liked her despite her no-nonsense toughness. She started in regular elementary and middle schools, but wanted to teach high school and ended up mastering in emotionally disturbed.
She ended up going back to teaching (ED) at a middle school. Several years later she still has a "'hood" boy from there call her and visit her for lunch periodically. She's tough but fair and ultimately complimentary and giving.
The truth is, though, that "education" majors aren't needed. "Education" is a boondoggle and Tom Sowell can point it all out to you. Mother was a major in US History, and was excellent in math and English. She had to go through the motions to get a license way back early '60s but it wasn't full-up "education college". And somehow not only did she end up teaching History, but also English and math because she was PROFICIENT. She didn't prove it with silly nice-nice courses in "education".
I agree that some things are needed to do well in basic teaching, such as handling communication, especially public speaking. But surely all these things can be handled as a minor in undergrad college.
It scares me what especially high-school teachers actually know about their respective subjects, if they only went to "education college" for 4 wasted years.
Many good teachers? Of course. But again, "education" education isn't really needed. In fact, it can waste time from what the person actually needs to know, in order to impart! Why waste time on "education" when you SHOULD be learning all you can about history in order to really be qualified to TEACH it?
"The truth is, though, that "education" majors aren't needed. "Education" is a boondoggle and Tom Sowell can point it all out to you"
Agreed.
The trouble is...how to better identify teaching "talent". How to better train them and prepare them for the real world of standing in front of a classroom.
"She had to go through the motions to get a license way back early '60s but it wasn't full-up "education college"."
Yes...hubby referred to it as "jumping through hoops"
"But surely all these things can be handled as a minor in undergrad college. "
yes they can.
"Why waste time on "education" when you SHOULD be learning all you can about history in order to really be qualified to TEACH it?"
Well that is the quandary isn't it?
There are plenty of "experts" in history with great knowledge but don't have a clue as to how to relate to kids - how to speak to them - how to motivate them - and how to keep them in line.
And then there are those who are fantastic with kids - but don't have the knowledge base - or they were indoctrinated at the university and don't know enough to know their curriculum is crap.
I went back to school in my forties to get certified to teach and was very surprised at the quality of my education classes. There was some junk, but most of it was surprisingly solid. A thorough background is very definitely needed in the subject discpline and I was fortunate enough to go to a school that had higher requirements for its ed majors than its regular majors (English). But I have learned a lot from the ed courses.
My husband decided in college that he wanted to teach college. While he taught in grad school, he did a terrible job teaching, thinking subject matter was all he needed. Students complained and his adviser discussed it with him. When he realized that he wanted to teach, he enrolled him in ed courses even though he was enrolled in a research-oriented Ph.D. curriculum. Even today, he credits his ed courses for helping him be a good teacher.