<p>Zoosermom, We absoulutely need stellar people like you daughter to be teachers. Imagine the inspiration for science someone like her has the potential to instill in our children. At a time when we are crying for more math, science & engineering grads, one would think that professors in that field would encourage her. My daughter has experienced similar attitudes. However, now that she's in a school that she loves, she gets mutliple rewards on a daily basis from her fellow teachers, her administrators & more importantly from her students.</p>
<p>I am a HS science teacher in Montana. I don't see public schools as dangerous places. I have friends teaching in large inner city schools and they do get a bit nervous from time to time. Some would love to escape to the smaller cites and towns and have fun teaching again.</p>
<p>I taught for 12 years in Wyoming and then did 8 years in private industry as a Product Director. I am now back into teaching. I made a lot more money in the telcom world, supervising engineers, but came home to teaching. It is just more rewarding for me to teach.</p>
<p>Whenver I see someone discouraging would be teachers from entering the field I just look at them and say .. man you must hate your kids and grandchildren. Why doom then to poor teachers by encouraging the best to go elsewhere?</p>
<p>BG,
The timing of this post is so coincidental...I was just reading about Trinity U since D2 is looking at engineering as well as education (spec ed). Trinity, along with Smith, are one of the few colleges that have both.</p>
<p>Archermom,
I don't know much about the engineering program, or the special ed program at Trinity. We have a neighbor who is in the engineering program and seems to like it. My daughter did a special ed sort of practicum as part of one of her classes during her undergrad years. Her focus was on middle school math though. Let me know how it goes and what you think of Trinity's programs.</p>
<ol>
<li> A few years ago I read an article decrying teacher education, I thinkly largely for being too theoretical. I think that article had good things to say about Kansas State (or maybe it was UK). Locally, Willamette U. has a strong reputation for its teacher certification program. One way to look for a program is to ask local teachers which programs produce the best-prepared student teachers. (Hopefully not just that teacher's alma mater.)</li>
<li> Someone once once pointed out to me that 50 years ago teaching was one of two professions open to bright women, so we had the very bright going into teaching. Expanded opportunities for those women means that we can't always get the very best of the best into teaching.</li>
<li> One argument for extensive course work in other areas is that it models interest in learning for its own sake (or to better understand and appreciate the world around us). I believe that the teacher who takes only what he or she needs to obtain a credential is not well-qualified to credibly answer the perenial question "why should I learn this?"</li>
<li> I took one teaching techniques class (considering second career). It was worthwhile. I wasn't fond of the theoretical parts, but the practical parts definitely enhance teaching effectiveness.</li>
<li> There is a trend toward assuming some graduate work before employment (at least in my mind). Is this frivolous?
(D2 has a very strong interest in teaching, possibly special ed.)</li>
</ol>
<p>mom58, I agree, and I'd expand your point #3 to say that many students who choose an undergraduate major in education, thus dodging extensive course work in other areas, are, by making that choice, indicating their lack of interest in learning for its own sake. A classroom full of such dullards, led by profs accustomed to such an environment, is by definition an intellectual wasteland.</p>
<p>mom58- point #2 is something I also heard. It was said that education (teachers) and health care (nurses) were both subsidized by the lack of other opportunities for women. This lack of opportunity kept wages down and gave both professions unlimited access to highly qualified women.</p>
<p>One of the best high school teachers my kids both had was a math teacher who was actually a research scientist before going the alternate route to teaching. The absolute worst was a former scientist (for a very prominent company) who clearly knew his stuff, but was an AWFUL teacher...and it wasn't just my kid who said that. In addition to "knowing their stuff" (very important), teachers must also deal with the "other stuff" of teaching....committees, attendance, report writing, meetings, etc. I have known folks who came from private industry into teaching and the first thing they were astounded to find out was that they did NOT have any clerical help...no secretary, no one to enter data, no one to make copies, etc. That is PART of teaching these days.</p>
<p>Chedva - I totally agree with your comments. My younger D is in the second year of a four year elementary education program at a private college in MA. We spent a great deal of time researching various elementary education programs and felt that this program offered her the best education and with that, she would be better prepared to be an elementary teacher. She is also required to double major and will begin her first field experience next week. We were criticized by family and friends for spending so much money for her to prepare for her career, many telling us we were wasting our money. My husband and I feel we are making a very good investment because we feel that ultimately, our daughter is there for an education first, then for job training. I can not figure out why people want to send future teachers to schools they would not consider for other professions, that teachers can get their training at any old school. Elementary teachers need a very good liberal arts education, not a second rate experience. By the way, we did look at the program at UVA. My daughter loved it, but did not want to go to school so far away.</p>
<p>"Elementary teachers need a very good liberal arts education, not a second rate experience. "</p>
<p>I completely agree. Too many Elem Ed programs are the easiest majors on college campuses. I was reading a college class schedule and was surprised to see that they now offer a "dumbed down" version of biology called: Bio for Elem Ed majors. I asked about it and was told that it was the "easy biology class". When I was in college, non Bio majors often took "Bio for non Bio majors" (a class that is still offered) but my college didn't use to offer a further dumbed down class for elem ed majors. That is a serious sign of a problem!</p>
<p>My daughter is a level-headed kid, but all the press about this in the last few days or so has really been disheartening to her. I keep telling her that the double major is the way to go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was reading a college class schedule and was surprised to see that they now offer a "dumbed down" version of biology called: Bio for Elem Ed majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i cant comment on this specific course since i don't know the school or the course itself -- but in general, the fact that a math or science course might be structured specifically for those interested in teaching need not be a sign that it is just a dumbed down course -- if done properly, it is a chance to explore the subject with a view to what a prospective teacher should know. </p>
<p>a typcial intro bio, which at many schools is a weeding out course for pre-meds, is not necessarily the best way to teach the subject when the goal isn't to get 1/2 the kids to change career paths. yes, it may be easier, but if the goal is really to transmit the knowledge necessary, as opposed to be a hazing process for pre-meds, i don't know that that is a bad thing.</p>
<p>I agree with bizymom. My daughter had a class entitiled, Math for Elementary and Middle School teachers and one on Science Methods for K-9 and another on teaching Reading. Pre-rec's were actual Science and Math, English classes.</p>