Are Teacher Colleges Producing Mediocre Teachers?

I just read an article with the above title on Time.com, by Gilbert Cruz dated Friday, Oct. 23, 2009. (See the article at: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1931810,00.html ) His article stipulated that the reason students are not performing as well as expected is due to poor teacher preparation and education. The author also reports too much time is spent on theory and not enough in-classroom experience. The author writes that some ways to improve teacher education in the United States include less theory instruction and a longer period of classroom experience under the guidance of a knowledgable in-service teacher.

I am currently a graduate education student at Mount Saint Mary College in New York. I have attended several other institutions and can honestly say that MSMC has one of the most comprehensive, well-managed, meticulously designed programs I have been lucky enough to learn from. We are taught to plan our lesson from the state standards, performance indicators and school curriculum. We learn to observe students during at least 10 hours of fieldwork (classroom experience) in most courses. We are taught to attend to a student's prior learning, home life, affective behaviors and attitudes, developmental readiness, individual talents and learning preferences while teaching the content. We are expected to keep our lessons relevant to our student's lives and above all keep the students engaged and actively learning. Understanding and using learning theories is vital for good instuction. You cann not tell me that the MSMC educaiton program is to blame for mediocre teachers.

In my present job I have the opportunity to observe student teachers from several institutions, including Mount Saint Mary College . Some are able to discuss theory and how it was used to plan their lessons and some are not. Some plan engaging lessons that incorporate technology for the "digital generation" and many do not. I even met a MSMC grad who could not tell me the goal and objective of his lesson. I can say I almost fell over since the Mount Saint Mary goals and objectives are so detailed and present for every single student lesson plan. The problem can't be the quality of instruction at the higher education institutions since I know the one MSMC student I encountered came from an outstanding program.

I do agree that although we are required to have fieldwork observations throughout our education, we do not have enough of the practical experience. A carefully planned lesson is often a different animal infromt of "real" students. Student teaching (I haven't done it yet.) is a valuable experience but it is cost prohibitive when, as a student, you can't work and must pay tuition at he same time. I personally like the idea of mentor programs in which an experienced teacher guides new educators for at least a year.

I also agree that the admission standards for entering a teaching program may be too easy. What type of standards should be considered? Should they be mandated by the state? We see how well that is working for students now - not well. Perhaps we should see if our future teachers have the innate qualities that make good teachers. Perhaps an assessment of tenacity, a sound work ethic, dedication and the knowledge that the teacher's prime purpose is to build independent, competent adults who base their opinions on fact, not opinion is necessary. However, how do we assess such qualities?

Teachers are responsible for creating the next generation of Americans. I find it strange that a lawyer has a more rigorous education that an educator. Although I am certain many institutions do not meet the grade as good teaching schools, I can say that I can recommend Mount Saint Mry College in Newburgh, NY for educating future teachers and nurses. Perhaps other institutions should take a look at their program and follow their lead.

See the Mount Saint Mary Website at: http://www.msmc.edu/home/

Why Doesn't it Work?

If someone complains about some facet of work, play or another matter that I control, I always try to do something to fix the problem. I recently presented a new idea at my job to alleviate the high cost of some student rewards that we offered for our Word of the Day Contest. I bought (with my own money but for a very fair price at a thrift store) a covered ceramic dish to hold unwrapped candy. The unwrapped gummy worms were much less expensive and I placed a spoon to serve 1 or 2 worms to each child.

The first reaction from two of my co-workers was a harsh, "This will never work". I've noticed in many situations both in and out of work that this is often the first reaction to many novel or unconventional ideas. Why is it so many automatically choose to focus on what MAY go WRONG rather than what may work right. I must also ask the question, "Why would this fail? Is it because there is a problem with the solution or will it fail because you are unwilling to persevere and find ways to tweak the solution to perfection? Is it too much work?"

I see this happening with many of our national problems. Americans want immediate sweeping solutions to the recession, health care problem and, the war overseas. We need to be practical and more scientific. We should make small changes, observe the results and either go ahead with further plans or change the plans to find a solution that will work.

Solutions to problems are not always perfect on the first try. It also takes authentic use before one can see the pros and cons of a solution. I only ask that we try and to make a solution work before we authomatically throw it in the waste can.