<p>I know nothing of Arkansas since I’m from CT. But I can assure you that the state schools here are very capable of producing elementary school teachers including my wife, sister - in -law and most teachers at the elementary school where my wife is the principal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your claim was that they produce (equally) capable teachers, not that they are capable of producing (ie, certifying) teachers. That the unselective programs are “producing” lots of teachers is not something to be proud of, given the results.</p>
<p>Specify the results that you’re referring to.</p>
<p>I’m not going to weigh in on whether one gets better or equal training as a prospective teacher at UVM or Harvard.</p>
<p>But I will weigh in on the side of Siserune regarding the importance of subject matter knowledge. I, too, am a strong advocate of Liping Ma’s book. And not only that, my S experienced teachers who knew less math than he did (5th grade) and clung desperately to the textbook procedure, obviously unaware that there were different methods for getting to the correct solution. Read Liping Ma’s chapter on how American teachers try (and fail) to explain fractions. Unfortunately, it is all too common a sight in American classrooms.</p>
<p>Sometimes a teacher may know the subject but may not know how to convey that knowledge to young students. I don’t know how well schools of education train prospective teachers to do so. But without subject knowledge, all the training in the world may be useless.</p>
<p>Teachers graduating from our state schools know 5th grade math. Now if your son in 5th grade was studying differential equations or group theory etc., then they would be ignorant of this topic. The main issue is not subject material knowledge but conveying the information - just like some of the famous (presumably brilliant) professors at Harvard who read out of the textbooks that they’ve written without explaining anything and are so boring the students to the point that they’re asleep in class or just skip it completely.</p>
<p>DocT:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s cute. S might have wanted to tackle diff eqs but he had to cover 5th grade math.<br>
I am talking about how teachers go about teaching 5th grade math or even first grade math. They probably know one procedure; they probably know how it works but not why it works and therefore why a slightly different procedure also works. That is why they read from the text. That was exactly what my S’s experience was in k-8.
Bear in mind that in 5th grade, in this country, teachers are generalists and tend to be hired for their abilities to teach reading rather than math or science.
An 8th grade teacher had once been a music teacher. But she was responsible for teaching math as well as humanities and social studies. One of her students was the daughter of Bob Moses, the civil rights leaders. That was the genesis of the Algebra Project. </p>
<p>Subject matter knowledge is not just about being able to regurgitate what one has read or been lectured to in class. Do read Liping Ma’s book. It got raves from exponents of both sides of the math wars. It even has chapters on how to teach addition and subtraction far more effectively than what most US teachers do.</p>
<p>To go back to the OP’s question, “Did she make a mistake?” It depends what is taught and how it is being taught. It odes not have to be about Harvard vs. UVM. The Chinese teachers sampled by Liping Ma only had a 9th grade education before going to Teachers’ colleges, but their math education seems to have been much more thorough than that of their US counterparts.</p>
<p>The point that some are making here is that because a student going to Harvard (or for some reason Stanford - I guess Harvard doesn’t quite measure up) is presumably more intelligent than one going to UVM, they will make a better elementary school teacher. You have already validated my point of view by pointing out the Chinese teachers who only have a 9th grade education are successful. Going to Harvard in no way makes somebody a better teacher (or for that matter better in anything else) so whatever the choice made by the OP, its not particularly relevant. My view is that good teachers are born not made. Yeah to some degree they can be taught to be more effective teachers but to a large degree, having the patience to think out of the box and struggle to help students understand requires a certain type of personality. The teachers that I know deal with students with very traumatic life experiences. Perhaps in the 'burbs, teachers can get away without having to be so resourceful.</p>
<p>if I had the choice, I’d choose teachers for my kids who graduated from Harvard rather than UVM. While there is no guarantee that any given person can “teach” material well (I tend to agree that good teachers are born, not made), it is pretty certain that the Harvard grads will have superior knowledge of all subject areas through the 12th grade level, as this is required in order for them to be admitted. (I realize this would not apply to the student in OP, because she was admitted to H, but in the real world, we will never know who got in and didn’t go). I also think H grads would likely have a broader view of the world around us, as this is the point of going to H.</p>
<p>Yes 10char^^</p>
<p>^^In my view, you’re exaggerating the relevance of going to Harvard.</p>
<p>DocT:</p>
<p>Fair enough. I think that a Harvard education is by no means necessary to work with young kids, though I do not think that such an education is “wasted” on k-12 teachers. My Ss did have some student teachers who were doing their practicum and had graduated from Princeton, Georgetown, Harvard, and they were all fantastic. One MIT graduate had been hired straight out of college and did not know how to run a class. She burned out in two years.
Great teachers are born, not made. But good, adequate teachers can be made. The worst may be the “born teachers” who are ignorant and impart incorrect information with great enthusiasm or steer them in the wrong direction (remember The Prime of Miss Brodie?)</p>
<p>My wife was mentioning a new teacher who has a degree from a “prestigious” university. Although she is quite intelligent, she is a terrible teacher because she lacks classroom management skills and is meek.</p>
<p>I think there’s not much question that the whole concept of getting a degree in education is on its way out - whether that degree is from HYPS or state U. Deep content knowledge is necessary and spending four years getting a degree in elementary education is not. The whole credentialing process is changing - and I think it can’t be too soon. Education will improve and becoming a teacher will be more prestigious only when we get students pursuing teaching who can handle deep content material in the first place - at any university.</p>
<p>^Did she get any training in pedagogy? Even college profs and TAs need some training. The teacher who burnt out came straight from college (and was hired in August for a post-Labor Day start date!).</p>
<p>S went to training sessions for prospective TAs, although he does not yet have to teach. He said he got some very useful tips. I hope he can actually put them to use.</p>
<p>LOL - pedagogy!! So old school, the current fad is “data driven instruction” My D is a tf this coming semester which involves 20 hrs a week or so, making tests etc.</p>
<p>S was a CA in his sophomore and senior years. He learned on the job. He’s now in grad school. The tips he was given were quite simple, but I’m told, very effective. No data-driven instruction!</p>