Note: the author has taught education courses both at the undergraduate and graduate level.
The MA in Teaching, required for permanent teacher certification in grades K-12 in most, if not all American states, is misguided requirement, at least as it is now generally designed. The degree is based on the premise that the craft of teaching can be transmitted through formal study, when in truth it can probably best be acquired through experience and guided practice. The Master's is meant to give professional as well as a kind of intellectual status, but only succeeds in conferring the former -- and this only because diplomas do, after all, foster respect, but also because the degree itself is a prerequisite for permanent teacher licensure. If you don't have a Master's in Education, you simply can't have a career as a teacher.
The body of knowledge acquired in the Master's in Education course of study is oftentimes lightweight. Graduate schools of education expose prospective teachers mainly to theories about how children think and learn; these theories tend to reflect educational fashion and are often pseudo-scientific in that they are can’t be proven (leaving aside that many of them have been shown to be ineffective or even deleterious over time). Other coursework tends to center around 'issues' in education: addressing the different 'learning styles' of children, 'teacher-centered' (old-fashioned teacher-led) instruction versus 'student-centered' (in which teacher acts more as an enlightened guide) instruction, and the like.
Oftentimes, graduate education course material can verge on the silly and irresponsible. For example, students may be asked to read a set of articles representing different points of view on the topic of giving homework (some will be for it, though it is also likely that many of these articles would be against giving homework). All will cite research that supports their positions. However, when teachers arrive at their first teaching job, it is almost certain that they will have to follow school and district mandates regarding homework. Teachers may rightly question the usefulness of an intellectual debate in an area that really isn't debatable in actual practice.
I am not suggesting the study of education theory should be done away with altogether. Any seriously-intended theory of education is worthy of study. Teachers should be exposed to all ideas current in educational thought, especially given the complex teaching environment we find today. But entire courses and units should not be dedicated to many of the topics that are considered the most important in education theory; they should be condensed, and approached from a more common-sense point of view*. Additionally, knowledge not only of one's core subject area, but general knowledge should be placed at greater value in teaching schools than it now is. I don't want to be lectured ad nauseum on the different 'learning styles' I will encounter in my classroom. Must I constantly distinguish between 'visual' and 'kinesthetic' learners**, and be obliged to come up with ways of engaging them at all times? Or might I just be trusted to come up with a common sense approach on my own or in collaboration with fellow teachers? As a graduate student, I was appalled at the lack of emphasis on learning how to instruct properly in the actual subject area you would be teaching. I was forced instead to learn about the aforementioned 'learning styles', 'democratic classrooms', the umpteen different ways of arranging one's classroom, the pros and cons of having students contribute to making classroom rules, and other soul-deadening material -- never once was I taught how to, say, teach a substantive American history lesson to an elementary school class.
*The writing quality of the contemporary educational education theorist also needs to be addressed. I wince when recalling all the polemical literature I had to endure both as a graduate student and later as a professor who had actually to teach it. Education writers seem not to believe that their audience is capable of making an inference. I should mention that a good deal of the education-related reading material of recent authorship is much in need of editing for style and form.
**visual learners learn best through pictures, graphs, films, etc.; kinesthetic learners apparently learn best in ways that allow them to move about freely (!); 'tactile' learners must handle objects that represent geometric shapes (if they are learning geometry), etc.
The MA in Teaching, required for permanent teacher certification in grades K-12 in most, if not all American states, is misguided requirement, at least as it is now generally designed. The degree is based on the premise that the craft of teaching can be transmitted through formal study, when in truth it can probably best be acquired through experience and guided practice. The Master's is meant to give professional as well as a kind of intellectual status, but only succeeds in conferring the former -- and this only because diplomas do, after all, foster respect, but also because the degree itself is a prerequisite for permanent teacher licensure. If you don't have a Master's in Education, you simply can't have a career as a teacher.
The body of knowledge acquired in the Master's in Education course of study is oftentimes lightweight. Graduate schools of education expose prospective teachers mainly to theories about how children think and learn; these theories tend to reflect educational fashion and are often pseudo-scientific in that they are can’t be proven (leaving aside that many of them have been shown to be ineffective or even deleterious over time). Other coursework tends to center around 'issues' in education: addressing the different 'learning styles' of children, 'teacher-centered' (old-fashioned teacher-led) instruction versus 'student-centered' (in which teacher acts more as an enlightened guide) instruction, and the like.
Oftentimes, graduate education course material can verge on the silly and irresponsible. For example, students may be asked to read a set of articles representing different points of view on the topic of giving homework (some will be for it, though it is also likely that many of these articles would be against giving homework). All will cite research that supports their positions. However, when teachers arrive at their first teaching job, it is almost certain that they will have to follow school and district mandates regarding homework. Teachers may rightly question the usefulness of an intellectual debate in an area that really isn't debatable in actual practice.
I am not suggesting the study of education theory should be done away with altogether. Any seriously-intended theory of education is worthy of study. Teachers should be exposed to all ideas current in educational thought, especially given the complex teaching environment we find today. But entire courses and units should not be dedicated to many of the topics that are considered the most important in education theory; they should be condensed, and approached from a more common-sense point of view*. Additionally, knowledge not only of one's core subject area, but general knowledge should be placed at greater value in teaching schools than it now is. I don't want to be lectured ad nauseum on the different 'learning styles' I will encounter in my classroom. Must I constantly distinguish between 'visual' and 'kinesthetic' learners**, and be obliged to come up with ways of engaging them at all times? Or might I just be trusted to come up with a common sense approach on my own or in collaboration with fellow teachers? As a graduate student, I was appalled at the lack of emphasis on learning how to instruct properly in the actual subject area you would be teaching. I was forced instead to learn about the aforementioned 'learning styles', 'democratic classrooms', the umpteen different ways of arranging one's classroom, the pros and cons of having students contribute to making classroom rules, and other soul-deadening material -- never once was I taught how to, say, teach a substantive American history lesson to an elementary school class.
*The writing quality of the contemporary educational education theorist also needs to be addressed. I wince when recalling all the polemical literature I had to endure both as a graduate student and later as a professor who had actually to teach it. Education writers seem not to believe that their audience is capable of making an inference. I should mention that a good deal of the education-related reading material of recent authorship is much in need of editing for style and form.
**visual learners learn best through pictures, graphs, films, etc.; kinesthetic learners apparently learn best in ways that allow them to move about freely (!); 'tactile' learners must handle objects that represent geometric shapes (if they are learning geometry), etc.
Education theory is seemingly willfully separated from classroom experience, particularly from the experience of teachers in low-income schools. For example, the aspect of teaching that most bedevils teachers, particularly new teachers -- classroom discipline -- is rarely treated with the proper urgency in teacher-education courses. Though the topic is covered over several different courses in the typical graduate education program, it is rare to see a course solely devoted to classroom management.
Let's take this matter of teaching discipline in graduate education programs separately for a moment. Classroom discipline problems are the main reason new teachers become frustrated with the teaching profession. And the problem of classroom discipline is seldom approached honestly. In the public schools, the regulations governing discipline are fairly weak -- they are usually an inadequate deterrent to the student who misbehaves chronically. In all teaching settings, the teacher is and must be the primary disciplinarian. But teachers must also receive the unequivocal, firm backing of their school administration and their community to give the proper weight to their own disciplinary actions.
Regrettably, teachers do not always receive proper support in matters of discipline. To digress for a moment, this is ultimately a reflection of contemporary society's ambivalence about controlling the will of the individual; it also reflects our collective view that the rights of the few should be considered on an equal basis with the welfare of the many. At any rate, many teachers, particularly (but not exclusively) in disadvantaged areas, are left to get along as best they can with the most challenging students. Many teachers with disadvantaged student populations find themselves overwhelmed, and leave the profession within a few years.
Teacher education programs idealize the classroom setting, and would have us believe that there is no such thing as the classroom where a program of behavioral modification would not be sufficient to control an unruly student. I have taught graduate students who are working in challenging urban schools, and the difference between the largely middle-class school settings profiled in the course readings and those where my grad students have to work is truly galling. In their coursework, education students are taught how to deal with students who possess some sense of remorse, who have 'internalized' the norms and expectations of society, at least to a degree; they are not taught what they really need to know: how to deal with students with overwhelming behavioral and social problems.
Let's take this matter of teaching discipline in graduate education programs separately for a moment. Classroom discipline problems are the main reason new teachers become frustrated with the teaching profession. And the problem of classroom discipline is seldom approached honestly. In the public schools, the regulations governing discipline are fairly weak -- they are usually an inadequate deterrent to the student who misbehaves chronically. In all teaching settings, the teacher is and must be the primary disciplinarian. But teachers must also receive the unequivocal, firm backing of their school administration and their community to give the proper weight to their own disciplinary actions.
Regrettably, teachers do not always receive proper support in matters of discipline. To digress for a moment, this is ultimately a reflection of contemporary society's ambivalence about controlling the will of the individual; it also reflects our collective view that the rights of the few should be considered on an equal basis with the welfare of the many. At any rate, many teachers, particularly (but not exclusively) in disadvantaged areas, are left to get along as best they can with the most challenging students. Many teachers with disadvantaged student populations find themselves overwhelmed, and leave the profession within a few years.
Teacher education programs idealize the classroom setting, and would have us believe that there is no such thing as the classroom where a program of behavioral modification would not be sufficient to control an unruly student. I have taught graduate students who are working in challenging urban schools, and the difference between the largely middle-class school settings profiled in the course readings and those where my grad students have to work is truly galling. In their coursework, education students are taught how to deal with students who possess some sense of remorse, who have 'internalized' the norms and expectations of society, at least to a degree; they are not taught what they really need to know: how to deal with students with overwhelming behavioral and social problems.
II.
So, far too often, graduate education courses are intellectually stultifying and, worse, do not do a good job of preparing teachers to lead classrooms. The teachers who do succeed are the ones who somehow manage to survive their first years in the profession, finding the toughness and possessing the dedication to weather challenges that very often have to be experienced to be truly believed. Their master's degrees are decidedly not what give them the resources to be successful.
Yet dispensing with formal training altogether is not the solution. Instead, we ought to restructure the training to make it both more intellectually invigorating as well as more practically oriented. We should keep what I believe was the original intent of the master's in education (training people to teach), but revise and shorten the degree course, combining it with a more rigorous apprenticeship than we generally have had prospective teachers undergo up to now.
Teaching is not a science or an 'art' but a craft. Master's degree courses are taught as if education were a kind of applied social science -- through readings, lectures, and discussions, though without the enjoyment of getting to do experiments. It would be better instead to have the students watch videos of actual classes, for example -- not as a special feature but as a regular element of class. Instructors could select readings that support (or refute) the practices that the graduate students witness in these videos. Any papers the students write could be in response to the teacher practice that is observed, using the theory to comment on the practice. Other creative teaching methods should be freely employed: student dramatization of discipline problems, instructional films made by the graduate students that illustrate educational theory, debates, mock trials, and so forth.
Aside from one or two courses on classroom discipline and behavior management, I wish I'd had one on managing paperwork, record-keeping, and other administrative tasks. Like the class discipline course, it would be practical in nature. Class time could be spent grading sample homework assignments, learning to enter grades, do report cards, etc. Videos could again be used to show how teachers can best manage classroom routines.
I'll say again that it would be unwise to dispense with educational theory classes altogether. Students should be able to choose from among courses that emphasize different educational philosophies. A useful (and interesting) course would be on the problems and history of urban education since World War II (ideally, the course should be as free as possible of an ideological slant), with an emphasis on the recent innovations that are showing so much promise in inner-city settings.
In order to allow these or any other suggestions for change in the teaching master's program to work, the teaching quality at schools of education simply must improve. Teachers are incessantly reminded that they must be 'engaging' in their own classrooms by education professors who are anything but engaging themselves. While there is a minority of professors who strive to engage their students, to connect the (at times) disconnected or abstruse theory to classroom reality, many (intentionally or not) treat their graduate students with condescension, believing that Gardiner's theory of intelligences or Piaget's stages of development are sufficiently interesting on their own to stimulate graduate student interest. No educational theories have any real interest save when they are thoughtfully connected with real teaching and learning experiences. We need more professors of education who can teach educational theory creatively and with a more practical aim.
I am not as familiar with student teaching internships as I am with graduate education courses. I'm sure some student teaching experiences are invaluable to prospective teachers. However, if we could follow the principle that greater rigor in teacher training should always be the goal, we might create apprenticeship experiences that demand more of participants. I'm not sure if serving as a teacher assistant for a semester is adequate preparation for taking on the responsibilities of a classroom single-handed. Graduate teaching programs should be leading the way in devising internships that give a realistic experience of working with children, especially the kind of challenging student teachers are ever more likely to encounter, and that allow one to handle, in some small way, the many demands of teaching (paperwork, lesson planning, parent contacts, etc.).
Some graduate programs probably are not in need of any alteration. Institutions such as the Bank Street College of Education are philosophically perfectly attuned to the kinds of learning environments to which they send so many of their graduates. The preparation they offer is probably more than adequate for the teacher at the 'progressive' school. However, many schools are (sadly) too overwhelmed to be progressive, and the only way for teachers to do well in such schools is to be as well prepared as they possibly can be before entering the classroom. If they are teaching and getting their Master's at the same time, they should not be made to suffer through coursework that has little connection to their everyday teaching experience -- that will make them cynical, and ultimately disheartened. The Master's in Education should be looked at just as closely as all the other elements of public education that are currently being subject to revision and reform.
Yet dispensing with formal training altogether is not the solution. Instead, we ought to restructure the training to make it both more intellectually invigorating as well as more practically oriented. We should keep what I believe was the original intent of the master's in education (training people to teach), but revise and shorten the degree course, combining it with a more rigorous apprenticeship than we generally have had prospective teachers undergo up to now.
Teaching is not a science or an 'art' but a craft. Master's degree courses are taught as if education were a kind of applied social science -- through readings, lectures, and discussions, though without the enjoyment of getting to do experiments. It would be better instead to have the students watch videos of actual classes, for example -- not as a special feature but as a regular element of class. Instructors could select readings that support (or refute) the practices that the graduate students witness in these videos. Any papers the students write could be in response to the teacher practice that is observed, using the theory to comment on the practice. Other creative teaching methods should be freely employed: student dramatization of discipline problems, instructional films made by the graduate students that illustrate educational theory, debates, mock trials, and so forth.
Aside from one or two courses on classroom discipline and behavior management, I wish I'd had one on managing paperwork, record-keeping, and other administrative tasks. Like the class discipline course, it would be practical in nature. Class time could be spent grading sample homework assignments, learning to enter grades, do report cards, etc. Videos could again be used to show how teachers can best manage classroom routines.
I'll say again that it would be unwise to dispense with educational theory classes altogether. Students should be able to choose from among courses that emphasize different educational philosophies. A useful (and interesting) course would be on the problems and history of urban education since World War II (ideally, the course should be as free as possible of an ideological slant), with an emphasis on the recent innovations that are showing so much promise in inner-city settings.
In order to allow these or any other suggestions for change in the teaching master's program to work, the teaching quality at schools of education simply must improve. Teachers are incessantly reminded that they must be 'engaging' in their own classrooms by education professors who are anything but engaging themselves. While there is a minority of professors who strive to engage their students, to connect the (at times) disconnected or abstruse theory to classroom reality, many (intentionally or not) treat their graduate students with condescension, believing that Gardiner's theory of intelligences or Piaget's stages of development are sufficiently interesting on their own to stimulate graduate student interest. No educational theories have any real interest save when they are thoughtfully connected with real teaching and learning experiences. We need more professors of education who can teach educational theory creatively and with a more practical aim.
I am not as familiar with student teaching internships as I am with graduate education courses. I'm sure some student teaching experiences are invaluable to prospective teachers. However, if we could follow the principle that greater rigor in teacher training should always be the goal, we might create apprenticeship experiences that demand more of participants. I'm not sure if serving as a teacher assistant for a semester is adequate preparation for taking on the responsibilities of a classroom single-handed. Graduate teaching programs should be leading the way in devising internships that give a realistic experience of working with children, especially the kind of challenging student teachers are ever more likely to encounter, and that allow one to handle, in some small way, the many demands of teaching (paperwork, lesson planning, parent contacts, etc.).
Some graduate programs probably are not in need of any alteration. Institutions such as the Bank Street College of Education are philosophically perfectly attuned to the kinds of learning environments to which they send so many of their graduates. The preparation they offer is probably more than adequate for the teacher at the 'progressive' school. However, many schools are (sadly) too overwhelmed to be progressive, and the only way for teachers to do well in such schools is to be as well prepared as they possibly can be before entering the classroom. If they are teaching and getting their Master's at the same time, they should not be made to suffer through coursework that has little connection to their everyday teaching experience -- that will make them cynical, and ultimately disheartened. The Master's in Education should be looked at just as closely as all the other elements of public education that are currently being subject to revision and reform.
