http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_o...d_teachers

I wonder if teachers playing on-line poker helps students learn.

Quote:For example, in Arizona in 2004, the state said 94.4 percent of core classes were taught by highly qualified teachers. But Arizona teachers told the federal government in 2004 that 58.4 percent of core classes were taught by someone certified in the subject he or she was teaching. That was the most recent year in which the teacher data was available.

That quote really got me, b/c I have a friend w/ a PhD in chemistry teaching in AZ. However, he's still not certified to teach, b/c the educational professionals have a racket going...he needs to PAY for a bunch of extra classes, and even "student teaching" which he is expempted from.

These teachers insulate themselves from SMEs, don't take the time to learn their subjects, make up irrelevent coursework in order to obtain advanced degrees, and protect themselves with unions. Then student don't learn.

And 80% of these folks are on the political left. What a surprise.

I know a lot of people who know their subjects very well but can't teach for crap. I have no problem with teachers being expected to take some classes related to how to teach, come up with lesson plans, etc.

mlb Wrote:I know a lot of people who know their subjects very well but can't teach for crap. I have no problem with teachers being expected to take some classes related to how to teach, come up with lesson plans, etc.

That doesn't seem to be the problem though, does it?

Every teacher should go through some sort of training. I don't know what the requirements are there.

I know in Ohio all teachers have to have continuing education credits that they pay for out of their own pocket. In order to hit their number of hours needed they have to go back to school every year or every other year I believe.

DrTorch Wrote:

mlb Wrote:I know a lot of people who know their subjects very well but can't teach for crap. I have no problem with teachers being expected to take some classes related to how to teach, come up with lesson plans, etc.

That doesn't seem to be the problem though, does it?

No. You are right. It is those damn unions.

They should make it easier for people from the community to teach subjects. I'll be happy to teach something, but I am not going back to school to do it.

mlb Wrote:Every teacher should go through some sort of training. I don't know what the requirements are there.

I know in Ohio all teachers have to have continuing education credits that they pay for out of their own pocket. In order to hit their number of hours needed they have to go back to school every year or every other year I believe.

You keep taking this off topic. I wonder if you'd be able to focus if you'd had decent teachers.

firmbizzle Wrote:They should make it easier for people from the community to teach subjects. I'll be happy to teach something, but I am not going back to school to do it.

Qualified people. Qualified.

DrTorch Wrote:

firmbizzle Wrote:They should make it easier for people from the community to teach subjects. I'll be happy to teach something, but I am not going back to school to do it.

Qualified people. Qualified.

I guess my 3 degrees and years of teaching college anatomy make me not qualified.

I can't figure out what your point is then, DrTorch. To be qualified you MUST have education classes as far as I'm concerned. I'm not disagreeing that you should be good at your subject as well. Of course, if you want to get good science and math teachers you must pay them more than you pay the average teacher now.

I'm not sure I follow DrTorch's point, either.

mlb Wrote:I can't figure out what your point is then, DrTorch. To be qualified you MUST have education classes as far as I'm concerned.

The article wasn't about your concerns over education classes. The article was about being adept w/ the class' subject.

As for education classes, I'm sure younger people need them. Some older ones too. I've no ax to grind w/ organization or class prep. However, our education professionals make requisite techniques (and dubious ones at that) over knowledge, aka style over substance.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I'm not sure I follow DrTorch's point, either.

I know exactly what he is getting at. Certifications in any field are a professions way of limiting competition. While I agree that there is a methodology to teaching and that in a valuable thing to know, it in no way makes one a good teacher. We all have had good and bad teachers..so..its an obvious fact. I agree that it would be very valuable to have someone come into a biology class that works in the field to lend additional insight into the subject from a practical standpoint. The same could be said of lots of subjects taught in school. Volunteer lecturers from the private sector could be invaluable in the teaching process and might actually "excite" a student into further study on their own.

Our public school systems are very resistant to "'outside the box" ways of teaching.

My mother taught at the primary level for over 30 years and often complained of the lack of "imagination" that many of her fellow teachers and the administrations had. One exception was "whole language" which she abandoned by herself and continued to teach phonics instead. She always said phonics is the ONLY way to teach a child to read. I think she has been proven correct since the literacy level has declined since whole language has been introduced.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:One exception was "whole language" which she abandoned by herself and continued to teach phonics instead. She always said phonics is the ONLY way to teach a child to read. I think she has been proven correct since the literacy level has declined since whole language has been introduced.

Kudos to your mother. Scientific American had an article in 2005 w/ some rigorous testing that came to this very conclusion. The reaction of some teachers? "They're wrong...we learned it different in college."

Anyway, since then there have been experimental results suggesting there is an increase in dyslexia when using whole language learning. But it persists in schools...and then they need larger budgets for special needs kids.

Ok, I see your point, I just wasn't following where that was going. I think I drew the same conclusions that mlb did about certifications.

I'm not familiar with "whole language", but I'm against continuing something that has repeatedly shown to be faulty.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Ok, I see your point, I just wasn't following where that was going. I think I drew the same conclusions that mlb did about certifications.

I'm not familiar with "whole language", but I'm against continuing something that has repeatedly shown to be faulty.

Whole language teaches by word recognition but does not include sounding out words. People who learned to read using phonics are much better spellers because they understand the sound of the "parts" of a word and can piece them together. My mom always said...any word can be spelled by simply knowing the phonetic rules and "sounding out" the word.

My Mom graduated from what was known as a "normal school" in NC...Simply a teachers college. At that time it was known as ECTC...now ECU. She met my dad there in the early 50s and well...I graduated there in 83' where I met my wife.....and well...my daughter is now in the dept.of education at ECU studying to be a history teacher....Yep...LOTS OF PIRATES IN MY FAMILY!!!!!ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

I certainly agree that having a field background in the subject you are teaching is beneficial to the teacher and students.

Quote:That quote really got me, b/c I have a friend w/ a PhD in chemistry teaching in AZ. However, he's still not certified to teach, b/c the educational professionals have a racket going...he needs to PAY for a bunch of extra classes, and even "student teaching" which he is expempted from.

These teachers insulate themselves from SMEs, don't take the time to learn their subjects, make up irrelevent coursework in order to obtain advanced degrees, and protect themselves with unions. Then student don't learn.

This quote appears to me you are saying that your buddy with the PhD in chemistry should override any need to actually take classes related to teaching. Most school districts allow a person with an education directly in the field they will be teaching the opportunity to come in and teach while at the same time getting their education degree.

mlb Wrote:I certainly agree that having a field background in the subject you are teaching is beneficial to the teacher and students.

Quote:That quote really got me, b/c I have a friend w/ a PhD in chemistry teaching in AZ. However, he's still not certified to teach, b/c the educational professionals have a racket going...he needs to PAY for a bunch of extra classes, and even "student teaching" which he is expempted from.

These teachers insulate themselves from SMEs, don't take the time to learn their subjects, make up irrelevent coursework in order to obtain advanced degrees, and protect themselves with unions. Then student don't learn.

This quote appears to me you are saying that your buddy with the PhD in chemistry should override any need to actually take classes related to teaching. Most school districts allow a person with an education directly in the field they will be teaching the opportunity to come in and teach while at the same time getting their education degree.

There is a program here in NC that allows someone to do that. It has had some limited success.

I think he was going a round about to insult me, but he does have a point and it's misdirected. High Schools are starting to creep into higher ed's territory. At our high school we have teacher's who can give college credit for their classes. Their basically adjunct professors. Colleges are starting to feel the pinch. You get the accountability crowd riled up and you get laws that require teachers to go back to college one summer every five years. A nice little ancillary benefit to higher ed. If you think teacher unions want their members forking over 5 grand every five years your a loon. Personally, we are desperate for good people in education. It can be a thankless job. You wear way too many hats. Some kids need a hug while some kids need a kick in the ass for the same offense. In my high school 80% of the kids are awesome kids. I would have them over to my house and trust them with my own children. The other twenty. Half of them are raising themselves. Are dealing with problems that would sink most. You need different skill sets to be an effective teacher. I wouldn't necessarily put the PHD as a an indicator of an effective teacher. When things come easy to one person they may not understand why it doesn't come easy to others. A good example is the highly successful athlete who fails as a coach. You see it all the time. You have to find ways for kid's to buy into what you are trying to do. I would bet sales people would be the area I would recruit teacher's from. Show me an effective salesman, and I'd bet my poker stars account I'd find an effective teacher.

Machiavelli Wrote:I think he was going a round about to insult me, but he does have a point and it's misdirected. High Schools are starting to creep into higher ed's territory. At our high school we have teacher's who can give college credit for their classes. Their basically adjunct professors.

Now why would I insult you?

Quote:Personally, we are desperate for good people in education.

Yeah? I wonder if the poorly trained ones drive off the good ones. It's no fun talking w/ someone who has no clue about the subject they supposedly teach. Know what I mean?