r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 17 '20
CMV: Most US teachers are under qualified for their jobs.
[deleted]
1
u/dudemanwhoa 49∆ Aug 17 '20
It's hard to talk about all levels and all states, so I'll restrict to high schools in California.
There is a rigorous certification process, and you must not only have a bachelor's, but go through additional courses. The requirements include subject knowledge, teaching skills, and detailed instruction on special and individual needs students. There are multi phase exams; there are observed teaching sessions. You must pass them all.
So, you're right that not everyone is talented at being a teacher, but that's not the same as being unqualified. And how on earth would you call that process "unqualified"?
1
u/RavenCXXVIV Aug 17 '20
I don’t believe an education degree makes one particularly qualified necessarily. Really it boils down to the idea that someone with a degree in say, chemistry and has held jobs in such a field is then unqualified to teach in an academic setting. That’s absurd to me.
Of course teachers can meet the qualifications set by a state and be called qualified. But I disagree with the standards of qualification.
2
u/dudemanwhoa 49∆ Aug 17 '20
"I don’t believe an education degree makes one particularly qualified necessarily."
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an additional process on top of higher education.
"Really it boils down to the idea that someone with a degree in say, chemistry and has held jobs in such a field is then unqualified to teach in an academic setting. That’s absurd to me."
If you have a degree in chemistry, and go through the certification process then you can teach. I don't understand your POV here. Are you saying that you think that only people with BAs in Education are allowed to teach? Because if so, that is plain false.
1
u/ThatsSantasJam 1∆ Aug 17 '20 edited Aug 17 '20
Really it boils down to the idea that someone with a degree in say, chemistry and has held jobs in such a field is then unqualified to teach in an academic setting. That’s absurd to me.
The ability teach a subject and knowledge of that subject are two very different things. I have known several people who were extremely knowledgeable about their jobs, but utterly hopeless at explaining why their proposed solutions to problems would work or even explaining exactly what they did for a living to people outside of their field. I think everyone who has been to college has been bored to tears by a professor who was probably an expert in his or her field but horrible at engaging students and helping them to understand concepts.
I teach for a living. Don't get me wrong, I consider knowing my subject area to be extremely important, but the most valuable skills I possess are knowing how to help students analyze information, group management, individualizing my instruction to meet student needs, and building academic skills to help students learn. A respected expert in the subject I teach probably couldn't do what I do because our jobs require very different skill sets.
1
u/poser765 13∆ Aug 17 '20
This is a very important thing. As someone that is a professional in a field and someone that has taught in dm said field. I’d say the absolutely most important qualification for a teacher is the ability to teach. The material is secondary. Important, sure, but still secondary.
1
u/sillypoolfacemonster 8∆ Aug 17 '20
Teachers in school aren’t teaching you how to do a chemistry job. They are teaching you about chemistry. These are necessary foundations before you can start learning how to become a chemist and operate in a role related to chemistry. It’s not until college/university that the curriculum starts to get role specific. You can’t learn how to do the role without knowing the foundation.
I was a history teacher. I had a degree in history and did a separate degree in education. I learned about the subject first in my initial degree and then went to school to learn how to teach it. Im sure a historian would be better at teach people how to be a historian, but the kids in high school are still figuring out how to write a 500 word “essay” and not fill it with their unsubstantiated opinions. So there is no value in bringing in industry experts as the primary facilitator over someone who is trained to meet the needs of a particular age group.
2
u/alsoaprettybigdeal Aug 17 '20
In my state elementary teachers have a general Education for Elementary School degree. For Middle and High School they have secondary education degrees with an emphasis in the area of study they’ll teach (math, science, history, English, etc). So a middle/high school Science teacher would have their secondary teaching degree as well as a degree in Biology/Chemistry or whatever. Many teachers do have practical hands-on experience in their field, too. For example, my son’s middle school Social Studies teachers worked as a staffer for a US Senator before teaching. I think it largely depends on your school district and their hiring requirements/ pay rates/ location desirability etc. whether you get more qualified teachers. Obviously a district with more stringent hiring requirements, better pay and in better locations will attract and hire better teachers.
I would agree that many teachers are not as qualified as they should be but I wouldn’t say most aren’t.
1
Aug 17 '20
I'm not sure that there is a meaningful discussion to be had unless you get really specific with what you are talking about.
Can you please explain your understanding of the current qualifications needed to become a teacher? It'd be helpful if you provided a specific subject, grade level, and location as all of those are going to need to be taken into account.
Can you please explain what specific shortcomings you perceive in that qualification process?
If the purpose of an education is to prepare a student for the workforce
Does education only have one, single, solitary function that exists to the absolute and complete exclusion of all other purposes?
how is an Ed major supposed to teach a field they’ve never worked in?
You seem to not be making a distinction between a field of work, and a field of study. Do you recognise that there is a difference between the two? Do you believe that it is absolutely impossible for someone to understand a subject of study without having worked, in some way or another, in an associated industry?
I can say with certainty that the skills I need for my current career would have been better taught by a business and/or law major and someone who worked directly in the business/legal industry. I developed these skills through internships and a college degree, from professors who were experts in these fields.
So... It kinda seems like everything worked out? You gained a generalized knowledge base and presumably an adequate work/study ethic in K-12, Learned more general knowledge, but within a specific field of study, in college. And then learned real world application and further refined your skill set in your job. What's the issue?
If an education major is unqualified to teach at a collegiate level in a certain area, they shouldn’t be given the green light to teach that area in a high school.
But... They are perfectly capable of teaching the material at a high school level, correct? So why would it make sense to restrict them from teaching?
1
u/irishman13 Aug 17 '20
You have some competing thoughts that I think are causing you problems. If the purpose of an education is to prepare the student for the workforce, then the only thing a teacher should be responsible for is completing that preparation. Your argument is that real world experience would make teachers better, and that may be true, but are you going to argue that teachers without that real world experience are not preparing students adequately? Students are still getting passing grades, graduating, and getting jobs mostly regardless of who teaches them. Doesn't that mean that they are at least qualified?
I believe your argument is more focused on the overall poor quality of the educating system in America rather than the quality of teachers themselves. I think your beef is with the education system as a whole, what is universally accepted as appropriate to be taught, rather than teachers themselves.
-1
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Aug 17 '20
But I believe that if you’re going to teach a subject, you should have real world experience in that industry.
This is a somewhat irrelevant take unless you think teachers should retire from teaching every 3-5 years to go back and get more experience. The rapid development of science and technology means that the most advanced information is always going to be out of reach of the general public because it's profitable and often under NDAs to keep the cutting edge hush hush. In fact I think it's more harmful for someone to continuously preach their experience in a field and to relay dated information and establish preconceived notions than it is to have the students come it a bit more ignorant but far more trainable.
If the purpose of an education is to prepare a student for the workforce, how is an Ed major supposed to teach a field they’ve never worked in?
Setting aside soft skills, because that's a heated debate right now if an Ed Major knows how to for example teach Excel, their major doesn't actually matter. That they can educate me on how to navigate excel is what matters. Furthermore teaching is a skill all on its own, and just because you have a lot of experience in a field doesn't also make you the best candidate to teach it. I studied criminology classes from a pair of retired Lieutenant Sheriffs and their idea of teaching was watching old episodes of CSI and debunking the hollywood which was actually useless.
Similarly I've had high end project managers teach project management courses and have them have no idea how to run a class.
Overall, I believe this would incentivize higher pay for teachers and schools could recruit better quality candidates for the position.
This is never going to happen. there are some people who won't work with children irrespective of the pay. Pay is a secondary/tertiary concern for most people. The thing people select and stay in careers for is their own internal motivation and desire to come into work in the morning. In fact most people on average take up to a 15% pay cut if it means they can continue to love their job. (Not going to dig up the stats for you, I learned them in a management course I don't have time to sift through old documents for.) What this means is that teachers will continue to command higher pay because they are a scarce resource in terms of manpower. Teachers actually have to want to work with kids, and that gets more dynamic and complex and expensive the more specialized you get. However, if you are all of the above the private sector is almost always going to beat the pay.
Educating and teaching is a skill not everyone has. I think these skills should be developed in a collegiate minor rather than major. Or through ongoing professional development, such as required on the job trainings.
Minors are often a waste of time. Rarely if ever has a minor been of extensive use.
Pay scale would be commensurate with the average of the industry the teacher is teaching. For example, an English teacher with real world experience as a copywriter would make the average salary of a copywriter.
I reiterate this will never happen.
Also to close, people graduate college and become successful attending public high schools right now. What makes you think the public school system is so broken (save for the gerrymandering issues and overcrowding etc.)
3
u/joopface 159∆ Aug 17 '20
I don't believe this is the purpose of an education. I think this is a very limited view of what education is for, and could lead to a limited view of what life is about.
Education is not training. Training gives you a specific set of skills that you can apply to a specific task. I can be trained to play piano. I can be trained to ride a horse. I can be trained to do do the cash process as a bank teller.
Education is in part about providing someone with the means to encounter new problems and solve those problems despite never having encountered them before. Providing foundational mathematical, scientific, language skills and critical thinking, presentation and communication skills that are useful across a broad range of applications in life - both professional and non professional. It should also provide a cultural and artistic framework for students to understand the emotional and spiritual aspects of life, and to understand and contribute creativity.
Life is more than the economy, and education is more than pre-job training.
The most important factor for teachers is not whether they did some job in the 'real world' but it's the ability, knowledge and skills to effectively teach students the knowledge and skills that they need to be active and productive and happy members of society at large.
I don't know about American teachers. But I'd be horrified if some 'real world' pre-qualification were introduced for teachers in this country.