So far, my student teaching experience has gone very well. All the students are nice, my cooperating teacher is extremely helpful, and I have even been allowed to already take the lead in teaching a couple of assignments. Really, there hasn't been anything negative to report about the experience so far. However, I can already tell that my schedule for the next few months is going to exhaust me.
There is the student teaching itself, which is basically a full time job I don't get paid for (I actually have to pay my college extra for tuition because it is extra credit hours). Then I have 3 classes to take 2 nights a week: one is a graduate class, and one is a class where I am putting together different pieces of my teaching portfolio every week. I also have to keep my part-time job because I am poor, and have bills to pay (I mainly work on the weekends, when I do have time off from student teaching). Finally, I have a wedding to plan with my fiance, who I am already seeing a lot less of due to my busy schedule (and we live together). Free-time, and regular sleeping hours will be rare, if existent at all.
Fortunately, there are things to help me with the stress. The Daily Show is one of them. Here is a link to a couple of web clips to an education related story: the Obama girl's first day of school.
Showing posts with label Teacher Training. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teacher Training. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Student Teaching: First Day
I am both nervous and excited because in less than 2 hours, I begin my student teaching. For the next six weeks, I will be working with high school freshmen at one of my hometown's high school buildings. At the end of those six weeks, I will then student teach at an elementary school. Although I am earning my certification to work with students with mild disabilities, I believe I will be working with some students with more "severe" or "multiple" disabilities as well. I'll correct that if I am wrong though. I should also note that the teacher I am assigned to is someone I personally know, and is very nice. This should make things a little bit easier.
What do I hope for in the next 6-12 weeks? I hope to learn new skills, and gain insights as to what it will mean to become a good teacher of students with special needs. This includes learning more about the IEP process, which I am currently not as familiar with as I need to be. In addition, I hope to boost my confidence level that I will be able to become a teacher, and a good one at that. Although I know this is what I want to do for a career, I still have my doubts as to whether or not I will be an effective teacher in the end. The last teaching job I had as a preschool teacher was a nightmare where a) I never really had control over my students, and b) I was always arguing with my boss. Plus, I know several people who trained to become a teacher, but then changed their mind after horrible student teaching experiences. I will try not to fall into that pit that happens all to often to aspiring teachers. Rather, I hope to rise to the challenges that come before me, and to make a difference in the lives of the students.
While I was trying to fall asleep last night (earlier than I normally do), I did something I don't do that often: I prayed. I know it is strange thing for an agnostic to do so. But then again, as a Christian Agnostic, it is not that much of a stretch to pray. I may or may not be praying to someone or something, but it doesn't hurt to do it anyways. Anyways, I prayed not only for guidance and success in my student teaching experiences, but I also prayed that guidance will transfer over into everything else that is to come for me: marriage, the beginning of my teaching career, etc. As I mentioned in my last post, this is the biggest year of my life because it is the first year of the rest of my life in so many ways. And it all begins today. Wish me luck!
What do I hope for in the next 6-12 weeks? I hope to learn new skills, and gain insights as to what it will mean to become a good teacher of students with special needs. This includes learning more about the IEP process, which I am currently not as familiar with as I need to be. In addition, I hope to boost my confidence level that I will be able to become a teacher, and a good one at that. Although I know this is what I want to do for a career, I still have my doubts as to whether or not I will be an effective teacher in the end. The last teaching job I had as a preschool teacher was a nightmare where a) I never really had control over my students, and b) I was always arguing with my boss. Plus, I know several people who trained to become a teacher, but then changed their mind after horrible student teaching experiences. I will try not to fall into that pit that happens all to often to aspiring teachers. Rather, I hope to rise to the challenges that come before me, and to make a difference in the lives of the students.
While I was trying to fall asleep last night (earlier than I normally do), I did something I don't do that often: I prayed. I know it is strange thing for an agnostic to do so. But then again, as a Christian Agnostic, it is not that much of a stretch to pray. I may or may not be praying to someone or something, but it doesn't hurt to do it anyways. Anyways, I prayed not only for guidance and success in my student teaching experiences, but I also prayed that guidance will transfer over into everything else that is to come for me: marriage, the beginning of my teaching career, etc. As I mentioned in my last post, this is the biggest year of my life because it is the first year of the rest of my life in so many ways. And it all begins today. Wish me luck!
Friday, November 14, 2008
What is so wrong about Traiditional Teacher Training Programs?
A few days back, I posted on a story from Eduwonk having to deal with "traditional teaching programs" vs. newer, alternative teaching programs. The program I am currently in probably falls under that first category. I am not against the alternative programs, but the more blogs and education websites I read, it seems the more hostility I find towards programs like mine. The attitude seems to be, "alternative programs like Teach for America are the wave of the future, and more traditional programs need to get out of the way".
Then Monday, Alexander Russo (my favorite education blogger), posted about Linda Darling-Hammond as a potential appointment to Education Secretary by Obama. Russo's post is as much about Obama as it is about Darling-Hammond. But he warns that if Darling-Hammond is Obama's nominee, there could be a backlash against her by those in the education community who believe in major reforms in education. The reason for such a backlash? She was one of the earliest critics of Teach For America:
"The possibility of Darling-Hammond being named Secretary has emerged as an especially worrisome possibility among a small but vocal group of younger, reform-minded advocates who supported Obama because he seemed reform-minded on education issues like charter schools, performance pay, and accountability. These reformistas seem to perceive Darling-Hammond as a touchy-feely anti-accountability figure who will destroy any chances that Obama will follow through on any of these initiatives."
Russo goes onto explain:
"Yes, Darling-Hammond is an ed school professor who talks in nuanced, academic terms--not scripted talking points (see her debate here). Yes, she was among the first and most prominent critics of Teach For America--and still favors a more intensive, residency-based approach to training new teachers.
But she also has authored a recent study that acknowledged T.F.A. teachers were in some ways better than traditional teachers. And she has helped start several charter schools in California. Darling-Hammond says there's no real daylight between her positions and Obama's policy proposals, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to contradict that claim.
So what's going on then? Part of it is just a knee-jerk response against someone who dared criticize T.F.A., the reformistas' most cherished accomplishment to date. Another part of it may be the desire for a younger, fresher name picked from their own ranks--D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee, or New Leaders founder Jon Schnur."
I have been trying to figure out the genesis of this movement among different education wonks that alternative programs are better than traditional teaching colleges. I know I am a somewhat of a novice when it comes to education policy, so will someone please explain this to me? Have I waisted the past 2 1/2 years in my college program? Would I have been better off to have gone into Teach For America? Somehow, I don't think so.
Reading about this continuing debate reminded me of an editorial I read a couple of years ago when I first started attending my program, and I wanted to learn more about education policy. It is a column from George Will entitled "Ed Schools vs Education" (my apologies for this being in Word Format. It was the only way I could look it up on the internet as it is no longer easily accessible from the Newsweek archives). He begins the article with the following:
"The surest, quickest way to add quality to primary and secondary education would be addition by subtraction: Close all the schools of education."
Will believed this was because education schools are only focused on espousing progressive political beliefs, not teaching teachers how to teach. He does a good job at pointing out SOME extreme examples of teacher colleges where such activities take place. But he seems to have no problem branding ALL teacher's colleges as following this phenomena. While I can only really talk about my program, I think he is generalizing, to say the least.
By what Mr. Will and these "reformistas" appear to say, you would think that teachers all across the country are being taught to have the students sit in circles, give each other hugs, sing "Kum Bi Ya", and finger paint. True, things such as trying to promote change and fairness are themes that I have learned about in some of my classes (as if those are evil things to promote). But by and large, the overwhelming majority of what is taught in my classes are highly technical skills and techniques that are needed to teach in a variety of areas in the pubic schools (contrary to what some think, these do include the importance of discipline and accountability). We are taught how to be professional teachers, and we take it seriously. If you disagree, please speak up. I am ready to win that debate.
Then Monday, Alexander Russo (my favorite education blogger), posted about Linda Darling-Hammond as a potential appointment to Education Secretary by Obama. Russo's post is as much about Obama as it is about Darling-Hammond. But he warns that if Darling-Hammond is Obama's nominee, there could be a backlash against her by those in the education community who believe in major reforms in education. The reason for such a backlash? She was one of the earliest critics of Teach For America:
"The possibility of Darling-Hammond being named Secretary has emerged as an especially worrisome possibility among a small but vocal group of younger, reform-minded advocates who supported Obama because he seemed reform-minded on education issues like charter schools, performance pay, and accountability. These reformistas seem to perceive Darling-Hammond as a touchy-feely anti-accountability figure who will destroy any chances that Obama will follow through on any of these initiatives."
Russo goes onto explain:
"Yes, Darling-Hammond is an ed school professor who talks in nuanced, academic terms--not scripted talking points (see her debate here). Yes, she was among the first and most prominent critics of Teach For America--and still favors a more intensive, residency-based approach to training new teachers.
But she also has authored a recent study that acknowledged T.F.A. teachers were in some ways better than traditional teachers. And she has helped start several charter schools in California. Darling-Hammond says there's no real daylight between her positions and Obama's policy proposals, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to contradict that claim.
So what's going on then? Part of it is just a knee-jerk response against someone who dared criticize T.F.A., the reformistas' most cherished accomplishment to date. Another part of it may be the desire for a younger, fresher name picked from their own ranks--D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee, or New Leaders founder Jon Schnur."
I have been trying to figure out the genesis of this movement among different education wonks that alternative programs are better than traditional teaching colleges. I know I am a somewhat of a novice when it comes to education policy, so will someone please explain this to me? Have I waisted the past 2 1/2 years in my college program? Would I have been better off to have gone into Teach For America? Somehow, I don't think so.
Reading about this continuing debate reminded me of an editorial I read a couple of years ago when I first started attending my program, and I wanted to learn more about education policy. It is a column from George Will entitled "Ed Schools vs Education" (my apologies for this being in Word Format. It was the only way I could look it up on the internet as it is no longer easily accessible from the Newsweek archives). He begins the article with the following:
"The surest, quickest way to add quality to primary and secondary education would be addition by subtraction: Close all the schools of education."
Will believed this was because education schools are only focused on espousing progressive political beliefs, not teaching teachers how to teach. He does a good job at pointing out SOME extreme examples of teacher colleges where such activities take place. But he seems to have no problem branding ALL teacher's colleges as following this phenomena. While I can only really talk about my program, I think he is generalizing, to say the least.
By what Mr. Will and these "reformistas" appear to say, you would think that teachers all across the country are being taught to have the students sit in circles, give each other hugs, sing "Kum Bi Ya", and finger paint. True, things such as trying to promote change and fairness are themes that I have learned about in some of my classes (as if those are evil things to promote). But by and large, the overwhelming majority of what is taught in my classes are highly technical skills and techniques that are needed to teach in a variety of areas in the pubic schools (contrary to what some think, these do include the importance of discipline and accountability). We are taught how to be professional teachers, and we take it seriously. If you disagree, please speak up. I am ready to win that debate.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Issue of Teacher Training (and How it relates to me)
I realize that I am about a week and a half late in responding to this post, but I have to address this. Eduwonk recently posted a piece dealing with the subject of "traditional teacher training" vs. more alternative training methods. I have to say that I am a little confused by what the author of this post is trying to say:
"It’s not that [teacher] training doesn’t matter, but training on the job does seem to make a lot more sense than the traditional education school approach."
I guess I don't know how a lot of states do it, but is the author saying that traditional teaching programs don't bother with actual classroom time? Is it generally an either/or, meaning either go through a training program period, or skip training and go right into the classroom? Why not a combination of both? That is what I am currently doing (it is required in the state of Missouri). The past couple of years, I have been doing nothing but taking education classes, and in a couple of months, I am about to start working directly inside an actual classroom (student teaching/field experience).
Unless he is saying that "traditional teacher programs" do require classroom experience, but that isn't working either. If that is the case, than this really scares me:
"In general the evidence from methodologically solid studies is not encouraging in terms of the value of traditionally prepared teachers being more effective relative to those coming through other routes."
So, if what I am in is a "traditional" teacher training, am I essentially waisting my time? Is my program doing me very little good other than helping me get certification? I have to say that my training so far has given me a lot more confidence in my ability to enter a classroom and teach (certainly more confidence than before I started in my program).
I understand the current trend of looking for new and radical ways of doing things in education, and I am certainly not against that (we do need a major paradigm shift in education). But I also worry that more traditional methods might be labeled as obsolete, and thrown away. Certainly, traditional teaching programs (like, I suppose, the one I am in) still holds some merit and credibility. Perhaps I am just hoping that my current program is actually going to help me be a better teacher.
"It’s not that [teacher] training doesn’t matter, but training on the job does seem to make a lot more sense than the traditional education school approach."
I guess I don't know how a lot of states do it, but is the author saying that traditional teaching programs don't bother with actual classroom time? Is it generally an either/or, meaning either go through a training program period, or skip training and go right into the classroom? Why not a combination of both? That is what I am currently doing (it is required in the state of Missouri). The past couple of years, I have been doing nothing but taking education classes, and in a couple of months, I am about to start working directly inside an actual classroom (student teaching/field experience).
Unless he is saying that "traditional teacher programs" do require classroom experience, but that isn't working either. If that is the case, than this really scares me:
"In general the evidence from methodologically solid studies is not encouraging in terms of the value of traditionally prepared teachers being more effective relative to those coming through other routes."
So, if what I am in is a "traditional" teacher training, am I essentially waisting my time? Is my program doing me very little good other than helping me get certification? I have to say that my training so far has given me a lot more confidence in my ability to enter a classroom and teach (certainly more confidence than before I started in my program).
I understand the current trend of looking for new and radical ways of doing things in education, and I am certainly not against that (we do need a major paradigm shift in education). But I also worry that more traditional methods might be labeled as obsolete, and thrown away. Certainly, traditional teaching programs (like, I suppose, the one I am in) still holds some merit and credibility. Perhaps I am just hoping that my current program is actually going to help me be a better teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)