only 27 percent of the teaching candidates pass.
The discussion on Peoria Chronicle is hot and heavy about how well educated teachers may or may not be, well take a look at this...
MALDEN, Mass. (WPRI) - According to state education officials, nearly three-quarters of the people who took the state elementary school teacher’s licensing exam this year failed the new math section.
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released the results Tuesday. They say that only 27 percent of the more than 600 candidates who took the test passed. The test was administered in March of this year.
The teacher’s licensing exam tested potential teachers on their knowledge of elementary school mathematics. This included geometry, statistics, and probability.
Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester was not surprised by the results. He told the Boston Globe that these results indicate many students are not receiving an adequate math education.
Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents , said
"The high failure rate puts a shining light on a deficiency in teacher-prep programs."
12 comments:
In spite of my support of teachers, I am not surprised by these statistics--especially, in large city and inner city school districts. I have long held the opinion that students majoring in elementary education are forced to spend much too much time taking methods courses in college--instead of getting their own education, so to speak. At least, that's the way it was when I was in college--but hopefully things have changed. Personally, I would have no objection if teachers could become certified without the education classes--or just the most essential courses (but the education schools and department lobbies are too strong). My opinion--I believe that the colleges who are not training teachers properly should get more of the blame--instead of placing all the blame on teachers' unions--for unqualified teachers. Unqualified teachers shouldn't even get to the personnel departments to be hired--their incompetence in subject matter should prevent them from graduating--and school districts should stop hiring teachers who have low grades, especially in their subject matter classes. We could have unions of qualified, uncertified teachers--of course, what is the guarantee that uncertified teachers are make better teachers. In 150, I believe the administration stresses how a teacher teaches more than on what the teacher knows about the subject matter to be taught. I know for a fact that when Manual hired its new teachers for this year, they paid little attention to credentials but more to how well the teachers were perceived to be "team players"--I printed the criteria for hiring on the blog and there was no mention of subject-matter competence. That doesn't mean that the teachers aren't qualified--that just wasn't the hiring criteria. Education courses teach very general concepts of how to teach--instead of how to teach specific subject matter. Bradley's English department (not the Education Department) how teaches courses geared to teaching teachers how to teach writing, etc.
P.S.--How many highly qualified math and science majors from college do you think will opt to take low-paying jobs in teaching when their math and science qualifications can earn them so much more money in the private sector? Not to mention putting up with discipline problems that exist in so many schools, especially inner city. Also, it is doubtful that college grads who are strong in math would be opting to teach in elementary school--they would want to teach higher level math (and science) courses in high school or college, if they are going to teach. People can complain all they want to about unqualified teachers, but something has to be done to draw qualified people into teaching. The unions get a bumb rap--no union would object to school districts hiring highly qualified teachers. It is the union's fault if administrators hire teaches with C's, D's, maybe even F's in subject matter classes. That's all on the administrators. Once the administrators hire unqualifed people, the unions get the blame for representing them--how is that fair?
Sounds like another reason for education to be part of the private sector. Then it could compete for the math and science people.
73% failed an exam on elementary school math - and you're going to blame the teacher education programs in college? It seems like you should blame their elementary school education. Elementary math isn't something anyone should be studying in college.
Agreed! But the tests test high level math--so do elemetary teachers have to be proficient in high level math to teach primary grades? Remember Emerge is speaking of elementary teacher tests. Even if schools can hire uncertified teachers, will they teach for the low salaries that say--the charter school in 150 will be paying?
Where does it say the tests cover high level math? I think you would be appalled by how elementary the test actually was, if we were allowed to see it. Generally, teachers don't want the public (i.e. the people paying their salaries) to see tests like this because they know how embarrassingly easy they are.
I agree--the test was for elementary and secondary and may not have been high level math. I certainly don't advocate hiring unqualfied teachers--but my question still is: How did these people earn a college degree and why do school districts hire students with lower subject-matter grades? And why are unions blamed for qualified teachers when they didn't hire them. Unions may represent teachers; however, if these teachers have low grades, should they have been hired in the first place? Then we have the question of teaching temperment. Just because a teacher is a math "genius" doesn't he/she would be a good teacher--they may have no patience with kids who find the subject difficult. Do you think Hemingway would have been a good English teacher? It's possible, I guess, that some highly qualified math teachers without education hours (therefore, not certified) might be willing to teach--and I for one have no objection to them teaching--I just think they should be able to represented by unions.
You can see practice tests - inlcuding math - at this website. Math questions don't seem like 1st grade stuff but they don't seem to require a math degree.
http://www.mtel.nesinc.com/MA_PT_opener.asp
Well... I will weigh in with this. Education majors do not, are not, and don't delve into the subject matter that is supposedly their expertise in a way that a pure major in that subject would. I don't see that as being much of a problem at the elementary school level but it certainly becomes one at the junior high and high school levels.
I don't think there should be 'Education' majors at all. The education training and certification process should come after the completion of a pure major, as a professional program.
Yes, teachers don't make enough. For years people have told me I should teach. The money isn't there.
Regarding elementary math... I have taken coursework through Calculus. My wife has gone way beyond that as an engineer. He comes and asks for help and occassionally we are stumped by what the book is asking. Once we have figured it out we can see why it was taught that way but it isn't something you would remember in the long run. Honestly some of the stuff, I don't recall ever doing. I could see where in a timed testing environment you might get tripped up by the little stuff.
Mahkno: All you say here makes perfect sense--because it agrees with my views. Ha! It just all seems logical. From my own experience as a teacher, I learned more and more as time went on--teaching is the best way to learn. Also, dedicated teachers will try everything in their power to explain material that stumps their students--to get into their heads to figure out why they don't understand.
My teacher prep courses certainly focused more on how to teach as opposed to delving into content area. Child psych, education philosophy, ethics, etc... Many of us know people who are quite intelligent in any particular subject area but who could never stand in front of a class and not only manage behavior but also impart that knowledge to others. Additionally, these days educators much have a grasp of educational law on state, local and federal levels. So, there's an awful lot more that goes into training a teacher besides learning subject matter and teaching them how to make pretty bulletin boards. I'm guessing the "average" person doesn't have a whole lot of knowledge when it comes to what most teacher training programs entail.
Give me a teacher who can work with all students, manage bad behaviors, keep 25 kids engaged for 50 minutes, and is willing to engage parents over a brainiac any day.
I wonder if those who failed that test had been given a quick review of the material if they would've done much better. It's rare that I'm asked to teach subject matter on the fly....without a chance to review it backwards and forwards myself.
Post a Comment