tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post5505488867820418206..comments2024-01-03T02:31:48.560-08:00Comments on <center>Dewey to Delpit</center>: Psychoanalyzing the Politics of Teaching (part 3): the Would-Be ProfessionMax Beanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411037394257752336noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-44261627097362239542021-07-19T23:22:00.458-07:002021-07-19T23:22:00.458-07:00Great post i must say and thanks for the informati...Great post i must say and thanks for the information. Education is definitely a sticky subject. However, is still among the leading topics of our time. I appreciate your post and look forward to more. <a href="https://newsweek.top/dont-strive-for-the-soft-image-of-pakistani-politics-nation/" rel="nofollow">politics nation</a>Article Submission Projecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18176556182274944726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-62995786593145456172011-08-24T09:31:38.578-07:002011-08-24T09:31:38.578-07:00Agreed, Anonymous. That seems to be the general st...Agreed, Anonymous. That seems to be the general state of things.<br /><br />I do think, though, that qualitative, observational research, especially when carried out first hand by teachers and teachers-in-training, or when documented with the aid of video recording, can yield useful ideas about instructional and managerial techniques. <a href="http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/p/glossary.html#lemov" rel="nofollow">Lemov's Taxonomy</a>, which I mentioned above, is a good example, but it seems to me there's plenty more work do be done in this area.Max Beanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09411037394257752336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-40248348202643322062011-08-24T09:26:07.128-07:002011-08-24T09:26:07.128-07:00Thanks for your comments, Brainopennow.
I think ...Thanks for your comments, Brainopennow. <br /><br />I think what you’re seeing here are two different kinds of status. On the one hand, we have public perception: the American public purports to hold teachers in high regard. (Although, I don’t find the number of people who would be in favor their children becoming public school teachers so impressive. Do we think that only two out of three people would be in favor of their child becoming a doctor?) On the other hand, as the article you linked to points out and as I discussed at length in my second post on the professional status of teachers, we have a federal government that is enacting policies that fly in the face of long-held union goals and undermine teacher autonomy; on the state and local level, we are seeing much more active campaigns to vilify teachers, to revoke their unions’ bargaining rights, and to shut the unions—and thus the teachers themselves—out of all decisions about education policy.<br /><br />What’s interesting is that much of the public policy that, I have argued, undermines teacher autonomy is carried out amidst rhetoric about the value and nobility of teachers themselves. The disconnect is probably not exactly conscious. I doubt that politicians see the debates over merit pay and high stakes testing in the terms that I do, and they probably do not see the conflict between those policies and teachers’ professional status. They don’t see it, I believe, because they have never considered what it would look like to have a professionalized teaching force. I’ll talk in future installments of this series about what I think that would look like.Max Beanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09411037394257752336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-24762379589836589372011-08-24T06:18:03.083-07:002011-08-24T06:18:03.083-07:00Max, with a few exceptions, research on instructio...Max, with a few exceptions, research on instructional methods does, as you note, fall short of being able to name the precise actions a teacher should take in order to teach a subject or skill most effectively. It seems to be most helpful in identifying the hierarchy or order of content/skills that needs to be followed, plus some specific instructional rules (make one point at a time, do some reinforcement in various ways, check to see if children understand, have them use the skill or content in a naturalistic or interest-based way so they'll understand why they're learning it, etc). Good teachers either know these rules before they start, or learn them very quickly. Good teachers are also willing to learn from the experience of those who went before, and understand the importance of structure in a curriculum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-85450878168207598602011-08-23T08:14:22.064-07:002011-08-23T08:14:22.064-07:00Here's a thought: is it possible that the rece...Here's a thought: is it possible that the recent "attacks on teachers" are somehow just a symptom of an increase in teacher status? For comparison (though on a totally different level), consider how a number of aspiring presidential candidates have adopted anti-gay platforms. Is this not in response to the real successes of the gay rights movement? In both cases, there is always a certain aspect of society that will react to changes in the status quo.<br /><br />Just a thought, at any rate, though I did find a recent poll that provides some support.<br /><br />"Nearly three out of four of those surveyed said they had confidence and trust in teachers today, and two out of three said they would be in favor of their child becoming a public school teacher. It wasn’t just their own children they wanted to become teachers—they wanted the highest-achieving high school students to be recruited for the classroom."<br /><br />http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/17/01gallup.h31.html?tkn=YUTF032Mn2f0fovJWtTb2O3zNgtsSY4UssIF&cmp=clp-edweekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-82357260773717321012011-08-23T01:28:31.237-07:002011-08-23T01:28:31.237-07:00Hi Anonymous,
You're right that there's m...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />You're right that there's more scholarly agreement regarding certain pedagogical questions in the early grades, but I think the example you provide shows the difficulty of applying quantitative pedagogical research to actual classroom teaching.<br /><br />I haven’t read the quantitative research on early literacy instruction myself, but I have gathered that there’s general agreement on the need for some direct instruction in phonemic awareness. This does not, however, tell us what portion of students’ time should be spent on such instruction. My understanding is that research has shown only that pure whole-language instruction with no phonics component is ineffective, but that a mixture of whole language and phonics may still be preferable to either approach on its own. <br /><br />The research also doesn’t tell us how direct phonics instruction should be implemented. Phonemic awareness can be taught in many ways: through reading real words, either in isolation or in sentences or stories; as an isolated exercise with nonsense syllables (as is done in some <a href="%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">No-Excuses schools</a> I’ve observed); with the use of specialized strategies, like “tapping it out;” etc. I learned the basics of reading from my parents and from the teachers at my Montessori preschool, but my instruction was grounded in direct instruction in phonemic awareness: I learned to read by sounding words out. I’ve also observed highly scripted phonics interventions at contemporary charter schools that look nothing like the instruction I received but still meet the criteria of giving direct instruction in phonemic awareness. <br /><br />The conclusion that early readers need direct instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness provides a good demonstration of the problems with quantitative, experimental research in pedagogical methods: it tells us something so broad as to have a thousand possible implementations. It may help to resolve the literacy wars, but it does not tell real teachers how to teach.<br /><br />I suspect, too, that hardline whole-language proponents would argue that mainstream research on reading instruction has relied on ineffective and adulterated versions of whole-language instruction and has therefore obtained invalid results. In the murk of pedagogy, there will always be room for plenty of doubt.Max Beanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09411037394257752336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-79051682496776196962011-08-20T19:37:00.474-07:002011-08-20T19:37:00.474-07:00Max, some subjects, at some grade levels, do have ...Max, some subjects, at some grade levels, do have a research basis. Direct Instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics for beginning readersis one example. But the older the students are, and the more content-based the subject is, the less research has been done (or, as you point out, even could be done).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-78929954154211556132011-08-20T11:47:26.328-07:002011-08-20T11:47:26.328-07:00Thanks for your comments, Cal and Anonymous. This ...Thanks for your comments, Cal and Anonymous. This is some useful data on the history of teacher credentialing. My expertise is in pedagogy, and my knowledge of education history is not nearly as thorough. It's nice to have well-informed commenters weighing in on the blog.<br /><br />Anonymous, I agree with most of your analysis. Unlike Cal, I do not find the idea of research-based instructional methods laughable (Cal, it's not clear to me why you find it so; just because you haven't encountered them doesn't mean they're a joke, does it?) but I do think the phrase needs some refinement, specifically with regard to the word "research." <br /><br />I'm skeptical, for example, that quantitative research methods can yield useful information on instructional techniques. A quantitative study needs a clearly defined method, applied consistently to a test group. I don't think that effective instructional techniques can be defined narrowly enough nor implemented consistently enough, from teacher to teacher, to be susceptible to this kind of evaluation.<br /><br />Effective instructional techniques are hard to isolate and to pin down, but that doesn't mean they cannot be researched. <a href="http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/p/glossary.html#lemov" rel="nofollow">Doug Lemov</a> has done some fantastic qualitative research on good teaching practices; <a href="http://edcommentary.blogspot.com/2011/05/attaining-intangible-states-personal.html#main" rel="nofollow">I've been trained in his techniques</a>, and I found them insightful and effective.<br /><br />The questions we're dealing with here (what constitutes effective teaching methods? How do we identify them? How do we describe them to others?) are central to the problem of improving teacher education. I intend to write more about this in future posts.Max Beanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09411037394257752336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-29256467945427314052011-08-19T20:32:18.689-07:002011-08-19T20:32:18.689-07:00What you describe is what I would consider "b...What you describe is what I would consider "basically non-existent" (given that I was asserting teachers did have some credentialing). <br /><br />Why should the college courses be more demanding? There's really not all that much to teach about teaching. If they can pass the content test then they are "reasonably" well-educated, and as for "research-based instructional methods"--well, let's all laugh. There's no such thing.<br /><br />Remember, too, that before and after the changes we're describing, elementary school teachers continued to do the same solid job of educating middle and high income kids. Apparently, "researched-based instructional methods" (oh, lord, there I go laughing again) are something that's not necessary for teaching everyone, just those who we are tasked with teaching more than they can effectively learn.<br /><br />But my point here is that teaching *did* have some form of credentialing, weak as it was for elementary teachers for many years.Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-87071482039816441012011-08-19T15:38:02.082-07:002011-08-19T15:38:02.082-07:00"Elementary school credentialing was basicall..."Elementary school credentialing was basically non-existent until a decade ago." I beg to differ. Once the 2-year normal school preparation path was left behind in about the 1950's (with grandfathering for those who were trained earlier), elementary ed teachers had to acquire a degree in that subject or an el ed credential on top of a different major. In most states, they also had to pass a laughably easy test. There was credentialing, but it permitted almost everyone who could pass some not-difficult courses to become a teacher. The tests have become somewhat more demanding, but many of the college courses have not. Of course, there must be exceptions. But out of the many hundreds of teacher preparation programs in the US, the proportion that have a rigorous curriculum and high standards is way too low. Elementary school teachers don't need to be huge contente experts, but they do need to be well educated and aware of research-based instructional methods, and many are not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-54570907116387683752011-08-18T22:12:40.219-07:002011-08-18T22:12:40.219-07:00Part II (lordy, I write long posts here. Sorry.)
...Part II (lordy, I write long posts here. Sorry.)<br /><br />I've just pointed out the parts of lawyering that aren't taught in schools, that are an essential element of lawyering. But at least lawyers meet the "profession" criteria. Computer experts do not. Most of the famous technologists are college dropouts (Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Wozniak, although he finished his degree later, Ellison), and until Google came along and demanded comp sci majors for everyone, the field was notorious for valuing demonstrated ability over field of college study (I was in tech for years, ten of them as a tech consultant, with an English degree). <br /><br />Business? The MBA? Come on, let's all laugh. The MBA is basically an opportunity to review some case material and network. And that's for people who bother to get an MBA. There are people making millions in the financial industry, as well as thousands of government analysts deciding our policy, who have a BA or BS. <br /><br />Nursing, on the other hand, is a profession. Would you say it's more highly regarded than that of a securities analyst? I wouldn't.<br /><br />What's my point? Your article accurately captures the public perception of teaching, because the public thinks that teachers are failures. The failures, they think, are caused by all these problems that various experts have come up with as a cause. Yet, as I pointed out in earlier comments, all the supposed problems with teaching were inherent to the profession for generations, and we've made vast strides in "fixing" these problems in the past 30 years. And I think there's a good case to be made that all the "problems" can be found in all sorts of other professions held in much higher regard, while the "high standards" haven't helped some careers, like nursing, to be highly regarded or highly paid. <br /><br />The entire conversation about saving public education, about the terrible problem of low quality teachers, is based on a faulty premise. Until we get to that point, we'll maunder around talking about the wrong things. <br /><br />I want to be clear that I don't think teachers are noble public servants, nor do I think they are underpaid. I think they run the gamut from lousy to superb, just as they do in the legal, medical, and nursing professions. But I think all our so-called certainties about teaching (more professionalism, more training, more whatever) are based on the perception that we're failing to educate our population, and that's simply not true.Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2747343572713674312.post-50477713306482171142011-08-18T22:12:00.004-07:002011-08-18T22:12:00.004-07:00I think your post accurate captures the public per...I think your post accurate captures the public perception of the "problem" with teachers. It's just that the public is demonstrably wrong.<br /><br /><i>A professional is a recognized expert, an authority within a particular field. Any field that attains professional status needs at least these three ingredients: specialized knowledge and skills; specialized training; and a system of formal certification, marking mastery of the skill set, completion of the training, and membership in the profession. </i><br /><br />Teaching has all of those. I say this despite agreeing with your characterization, for the most part, of each component.<br /><br />1. Teaching does have specialized knowledge and skills. Just as not all beginning lawyers are good in the courtroom or deposing witnesses, so too are most beginning teachers inexperienced at classroom management and lesson planning. Law schools don't cover courtroom tactics or depositions at all; ed schools at least try to cover classroom management and lesson planning. Sure, ed schools disagree. So would law schools if they had to define the elements of effective courtroom behavior. <br /><br />2. Single subject (high school) teacher certification tests have been quite challenging for 20 years or more. The Praxis II and CSETs are comparable to SAT Subject tests, and high scores are about as difficult to get. Just as lawyers pass the bar by their fingernails or a mile, so too do teachers pass their certification tests by a little or a lot. Many highly educated non-teachers could get a passing score in one test or or maybe two, but relatively few could get a high score on any. (I've gotten very high scores on 9 CSET Subtests, and middle scores on one, and very few people can say that about three credentialed subjects, so I speak with some authority).<br /><br />Elementary school credentialing was basically non-existent until a decade ago, and the decline in teacher quality from 1970 to 2000 was severe. However, in 2003, most states instituted a much more difficult qualifying test, requiring a (genuine) tenth grade knowledge in all subjects. <br /><br />But then, no one really expects an elementary or middle school teacher to be an expert in a given subject, unlike those at the high school level. What they are "experts" at is understanding kids and having a reasonable level of well-rounded academic knowledge. <br /><br />(It's interesting to note that the tremendous increase in teacher content knowledge requirements over a decade have done nothing to increase scores. Don't know what that means, though.)<br /><br />3. Membership in the profession: oh, come now. This one has always been a given. Teachers have to be credentialed by the state, just as lawyers and doctors do.<br /><br />So teachers have all three components. I agree that most people look upon the components with disdain, but the disdain comes first, the components are just a convenient target.Calnoreply@blogger.com