I suspec this is an attempt to claim increased education equals increased professionalsim which deserves increased compensation and so forth.  What strikes me is how teacher education has remained relatively stagnant at one year while more and more people are achieving an undergraduate degree.  I wonder if, as some suggest, there’s less regard for the profession is a result of more and more parents having very nearly the same level of higher education.  They don’t stand in awe of people with 8 months of “professional training” beyond what they have.

On the issue of what is currently a one year program evolving into a two year program I’d imagine the value of the change will depend on what actually happens in the second year.

One of the more outspoken ex-teachers at another site forever extolls the value of teachers having a Masters degree.  I’d argue that the value is conditional on what the person actually uses it for; more responsibility, a leadership or mentoring role, etc.  If Jones, with a Masters degree, simply teaches in the room beside Smith, without an advances degree, where’s the benefit
beyond Jones getting a higher salary?

Although I agree that another year of teacher’s college would be a complete waste of time in its current format, I can’t see it as a guise to raise salaries further.  Another 3%/year for four years (a la the last two rounds of bargaining) would not even be considered.  That would put the max pay rates (which most teachers have) over $100k.  Even McGuinty is smart enough to foresee the negative press when about 50-60,000 teachers suddenly show up on the Sunshine list.

If, according to reports, Ontario is the last jurisdiction in Canada to have the Bed. program only one year, then that would imply that all other teachers training programs are two years (or more?).  I assume that Ontario is not the only province to be training teachers - logically then, adding one more year to teacher’s college will not prove to be the insurmountable impediment to applicants that you portray.

However, the entire program must be reformed to be of any use.  That reform is where groups like SQE should be focusing their efforts.

Why not call it what it is? A cash grab for Faculties of Education so they can graduate more with “highest distinction”.

John L. - you raise an excellent point in this “What strikes me is how teacher education has remained relatively stagnant at one year while more and more people are achieving an undergraduate degree.  I wonder if, as some suggest, there’s less regard for the profession is a result of more and more parents having very nearly the same level of higher education.  They don’t stand in awe of people with 8 months of “professional training” beyond what they have.”

Engineering for example…where you are not fully certified until you’ve got a few years under your belt.

Same with many other professions.

I have just returned from the Dog Park where a teacher held us in engaging discussion of their PD day today spent learning how to use their new I-PADs.

Perhaps that will morph into a second year faculty course?

The McGinty gov’t is being too cute by far.

He thinks we’re stupid.

I’m betting that the truth behind adding a year to teachers’
college the back-door suck up to the faculties because of the hard cap to funding the McGuinty gov’t bragged about in June.

This is Dalton’s style you see.

Makes news to pacify all of those new teacher graduated for jobs that don’t exist by putting a hard cap on money to teacher faculties this year, and then out of the other side of his mouth promise to extend the faculty teacher training program by an year - so the post-secondaries get their money anyway.

Now, where have we heard THIS before from McGuinty?

Think pay freeze for public service workers one week….while slyly negotiating increases behind closed doors.

I’m glad to see that someone is actually beginning to move on this. Some Ontario faculties now have two-year options, and the response from both faculty members and students has been positive.

I’ve been to a Faculty of Education, I’ve taught at one, and continue to be closely connected with several.

I agree that programs need to be revamped and, if that means extending time, then let’s look at that. But we have to be careful not to assume that, as has already been stated, more of the same will work.

I think that one of the biggest changes needs to be in the amount of time spent in real classrooms. Schools should be the centre of teacher education with more partnership between universities and real, live, functioning school communities. If we were to imagine faculty of education programs that began with the school experience and then moved to bringing theory to bear on that experience, we would have more powerful options for our new teachers.

As it stands, too many faculties of education stand physically and ideologically apart from schools, and that is unfortunate. A two year program could open up more space to make stronger connections!

Stephen,

I don’t know about your experience, but the biggest problem I had as a new teacher was facing my first classes.  The practicum experiences I had were great, but they did nothing to prepare me for the first few weeks of school.  We were warned by our faculty members in college, that the practicum was not necessarily the best introduction to the teaching experience.  In the practicum, we would be getting classes part way through the year - where the teacher had already set the tone, classroom behaviour expectations and so on.  Starting teaching on your own, you had none of that.

Beyond revamping the content of teachers college, I would suggest that the second year begin with a practicum session so that the students could learn to start a new year on their own with the mentorship of the classroom teacher who could take over later.

A very valid point Wayne. York has a good idea in that they start teacher candidates in their practicum placements day one. I’ve had a number of York students in my classroom over the past several years, and it has been great for the very reason that you state: it gives them insight into setting up a classroom, setting tone, building rapport and getting things going!

Thanks for bringing that point forward.

stephen

Our government hasn’t delivered to date, so although I agree that we need changed in the faculty of ed (if we need foe at all), they won’t materialize.
Some countries don’t even have foe’s; yet they score extremely well on interenational tests.  They seem to focus on expertise in the subject matter—just the oppostie of Ontario…

excellent piece from the National Post on this issue

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/01/ontario-suggests-doubling-teacher-training-time-but-cant-explain-why/

One of the ongoing discussions is whether alternatives to the current Uni/FofEd/school paths to teaching, such as Teach For America, direct entry for people in other careers, etc tends to be very heavily condemned by the various teacher organizations.  I don’t have a strong opiinion one way or the other, however if, as some say, the theoretical or classroom portion of a BEd program is of moderate value I wonder if there’s a need to reconsider alternative /parallel means of entry.

I guess I’m thinking of a scenario where someone in a career area or academic background in short supply could avoid the need for a full year at a FofEd before he/she can enter the profession.

Put another way is the FofEd really a requirement before teaching or simply a hurdle to be jumped?

I’m always intrigued at the references to Finland as amodel for education.  There may well be some truth that Finland has some things for us to consider however, given all the non-education differences, I’m not conviced it makes a very good example.  I guess I tend to see it as an apples-to-oranges argument.

The question as to the value of a teacher education program is important. FoE programs have fairly recently been drawn into the university system and, while I would be reluctant to abolish the need for teacher preparation programs, the nature of the programs, as well as who has control over them should be open for conversation. At the very least ,the discussion could help us envision/re-envision the purpose of a B.Ed.

With regard to it being just a hurdle, I think that the same could be said of many university programs.

What is it that the Faculty of Ed programs offer that couldn’t be learned in the field?

I would hope that we wouldn’t need to go the Teach for America route. Our programs here are bursting at the seams; we have teachers who need and want jobs and the pool that we draw our teachers from is of much higher quality than south of the border.

Just some thoughts!

Let’s start with what teachers teaching different grades need to be able to do well.

Grade 1 to 4 teachers: They need to be able to teach young children how to read, write, spell, do basic math, develop basic motor skills in phys-ed, teach some drawing and painting basis and some music.
In order to teach these basic skills well you need somebody with good class management and very organized. In addition you need an extremely patient person since in order to teach basic skills accurately to mastery one needs to repeat and give feedback on the same small steps again and again and again.

Where I’m from, my elementary teacher and all the elementary teachers in all schools only had high school; allas a specialized high school.
To be considered for attending that specialized high school, one had to pass basic physical testing (since they will be teaching phys-ed) and have a good musical ear (not to be able to play an instrument or read music but have rhythm and be able so sing in tune).
Then all the candidates write 2 tests: math and language. They are admitted in the order of the results to these tests into the available spaces.

The graduates were only allowed to teach grade 1 to 4, but they could start working as an elementary teacher right after finishing high school.
As a consequence the admission into these types of schools was quite competitive: about 500-800 would pass the phys-ed and musical ear testing and would compete based on the results of math and language test for 100 spots.

During high school they had about 1 month of hands on training helping in real classrooms and kindergardens every year of high school (4 years).
Also, they were specifically taught how to teach reading, how to teach penmanship, how to mark. Textbooks were used in all schools and each elementary student had its own textbook, the elementary teachers did not have to re-invent curriculum and the correct sequencing of learning was insured.

Not even one of my 36 classmates at the end of grade 4 was unable to write in legible cursive, to decode any text and to understand age appropriate texts , to do addition, subtractions, multiplications, long division with number having any number of digits(!).

I had two classmates who were a bit slower one was dreamy and somehow slower and the other one had a harder time seeing logical connections. They were both reading and writing well at the end of grade 4, in fact they were solidly in the middle of the pack due to the fact that other “smarter” kids were not paying attention or not trying very hard.

Did they have to work harder than us? Looking back as an adult I would say yes, most likely they did. Were they told they needed to work harder? Yes, quite often actually. However nobody gave up on them and nobody lowered the standards for them thus narrowing their future choices.

I think that for teaching grade 1 to 4 patience, attention to detail, ability to repeat the same skills again and again are paramount. I think that most BA graduates after 4 year of university studying let’s say modern english or basic psychology or medieval history would have a hard time reconciling their former aspirations with teaching a 6 year old with a runny nose how to hold the pencil correctly and how to form the letter “m” for the fifth time in the last two weeks. Or imagine the same graduate teaching long division!

My point is that for the lower elementary grades, we don’t necessarily need people to have had a university degree, let aside 6 years of postsecondary education. In most cases is an overkill and most likely we will be selecting people that don’t have the right type of personality.

To be continued ...

fromEurope, is this a recent example of training and practice, or was this your own childhood example?

Europe, your points are good, and the school system which you were lucky enough to attend sounds as though there was a lot more common sense in Europe than here in NA. 
May I also add though, that teachers here don’t teach children how to hold a pencil; teach no penmanship; nor do they teach algorythmics.  They also don’t teach phonics; grammar; nor drill in math.  As a result, the lack of literacy and numeric skills in so-called professionals here in NA is staggering.  I’ve seen writeups from musicians with masters degrees write ‘here’ instead of ‘hear’; ‘had sang’.  Nurse practitioners write ‘to’ instead of ‘too’.
I know I’ve digressed, but the system is so poor that it should be entirely dismantled, as it’s too far gone.

Ontario’s system is so poor that it should be entirely dismantled? I assume that you’re talking about the teacher education system and not the school system?

I am referring to the whole educational system.  It should be dismantled entirely.  Please don’t be confrontational, with people whom you don’t agree with.

Thanks for the reminder, but I was just seeking clarification. I thought I may have misunderstood your point. Thank you.

Stephen,I have encountered you before as well,you are a very skilled politician for the status quo-why visit us?
To hush us or quiet our view point and tell us you know better?
Not going to work!
Bev`s right,a bomb is needed.

Perhaps I misunderstood the intention behind your querie, but I see a lot of the silly self-rightous indignation from the left.  They know full well that they’re the cause of a great deal of suffering.  I don’t have to state the obvious and tell you what it is.

Thank you Jo-Anne. I don’t know better, that’s for sure. I come here every day, but I rarely comment for this very reason. I’m not going to try to defend what I believe here. That’s not why I commented.

But I will say, that the term “status quo” and I are not friends. There’s plenty of evidence for that.

So, I will continue to “visit” you, but I will keep my head down and my ideas to myself.

Stephen,I don`t want to be responsible for you not blogging,blogging is for everyone,I get my head chewed off regularly,look what happened at CEA-How do children learn to read?
I differ in my view,don`t take it personally.

I just trained 14 teachers at a Reserve school,we eat lunch and have coffee on trainings,every single time,teachers say they were never given the tools to teach kids to read,spell,print,write,meaning evolve thought..
Direct instruction has been dumped,it`s just horrible!

“Perhaps I misunderstood the intention behind your querie, but I see a lot of the silly self-rightous indignation from the left.”

I sense from your reaction that you may have misunderstood my question.

I have found that the “left” isn’t the only place where we find self-righteousness.  But, I sense that you would agree that it’s not very helpful, no matter where it originates.

I’m very interested in the topic that Malkin opened up here. As a teacher, I have a stake in the quality of preparation received by my future colleagues. As a friend of mine was saying just the other day, “we need teachers that are effective, not just trained or prepared.”

Passion for teaching is one thing, but it needs to be grounded in a solid understanding of the learning process at all levels and how to use that understanding to be effective with a wide range of students. This is something that can no longer be done in an 8 month program.

I don’t think that this is a right/left issue. People of all ideologies need to come together to discuss in a reasonable fashion.

I have long dreamed of dismantling the current system and starting again (I wouldn’t use a bomb, though). But I realize that this is a dream and that we kind of have to rebuild the road while driving on it. Not an easy task.

Jo-Anne, I gave up taking things personally a while ago. Don’t worry, you won’t be responsible for me doing something that I have come to love!

It’s easy for me to share ideas with people I know will agree. A bit of an echo chamber at times, but that’s OK. It’s more of a challenge to wander into spaces where I know there is a good chance that my views will be challenged and criticized. That’s helpful too, but not always pleasant.

As I said, I come here every day, and I will continue to do that!

I agree that teacher ed is not a “left/right” issue.
It is interesting that the Ontario College of Teachers regularly reviews teacher ed programs but any changes are slow.
Why?
- change takes will-power as well as clear evidence as to what to change (hard in education)
- teacher’s colleges within university settings get it both ways- too theoretical or not theoretical enough- can’t win.

My would summarize 40 years in this business by saying.
Programs are MUCHG better than they were when I went through in the early 1970s
BUT
society and its demands have changed even faster.

BTW
I use direct instruction among other strategies!