Head of Nat'l Edumakshun Assoc. in Tulsa yesterday.

[Okla-homey]

Just read this stuff...some of it is patently outrageous. Especially his contention some d00d with a teaching certificate is better qualified to teach kids than someone with an ordinary degree in his subject area.

Also, like the Energizer bunny, he beats the "we need more money" drum.


NEA chief points to urban schools' needs

By ANDREA EGER World Staff Writer
11/2/2007

The national president of the National Education Association on Thursday urged local teachers to demand more resourcesin their efforts to improve urban public schools in Tulsa.

Reg Weaver, who is in his second term as president of the 3.2 million-member NEA, delivered the keynote address at the inaugural symposium of the Oklahoma Center for Innovation in Teaching Excellence.

"In a nation as wealthy as ours, there is no reason why we cannot afford to give every child a quality education," Weaver told the 40 to 50 people in attendance at the symposium, held at Oklahoma State University-Tulsa. "We don't mind being held accountable, but give us the resources." [right bub, suuure]

The Oklahoma Center for Innovation in Teaching Excellence was established with federal funding through the No Child Left Behind Act as a collaborative effort between Langston University, Oklahoma State University-Tulsa and Northeastern State University. The primary goal of the center is to improve subject mastery and classroom effectiveness among teachers in Tulsa Public Schools. [IOW, teach the teachers the stuff they would have learned if they hadn't gotten their lame education degree and instead studied in their subject area.]

Weaver served as a middle school science teacher for 30 years. He rose up through the ranks of the NEA after first serving as president of the local NEA affiliate in Harvey, Ill., and then becoming president of the NEA statewide affiliate in Illinois.

He said he has observed several common elements in low-performing schools in his travels across the U.S.

"There are teachers who are teaching outside their areas of expertiseand struggling with the fewest resources, but are teaching the children who have to leap the highest barriers to success," Weaver said.

Low-performing schools also tend to have a disproportionate number of students, especially black students, who are suspended or expelled from school, which can lead to higher dropout rates, he said.

He called on higher standards for teacher certification, noting, "There's a group out there that thinks all you need to be a teacher is a bachelor's degree, a background check and to pass a computerized test, but you know they're not going to send them to teach where the wealthy folks are. [BS! when our kid was in school, we were delighted to learn her private sector math and science teachers had degrees in their fields and were not "certified" by the state. We paid good money for that.]

"They're going to send them to teach where Ray-Ray, Little Willie, Little Man, Too-sweet, and Chiquita are in the classroom." :eek: :eek: :eek:

He defended the role of the teachers' union in politics by saying from the school board, to the state legislature, to Congress, and even the president of the United States, "every decision that is made for us is political.

"For us not to be involved in the political process is wrong." [just like the Teamsters. got it.]

[MiccoMacey]

I agree. Teachers should have some type of experience in the field they are going to teach. Except for emergency cases where you need to fill a hole until a qualified teacher can be found. I did this once...taught out of my area of expertise for one year to teach special ed kids because they couldn't find one after the original teacher quit in October. But I either had to go back to my area of expertise, or take college classes toward special ed. I moved instead and became a firefighter. I showed them. ;)

But yes, I'd like my kids' teachers to be knowledgeable at whatever they teach. It makes more better sense.

Having said that, there are things that people who have no experience or education in education typically lack and struggle with the first few years on the job. Classroom management is the biggest. You can't just walk into a classroom and be successful. It is waaaaay more difficult than that. Kids are much smarter than the teacher in that situation.

Also, it is kind of ironic that you want teachers to have education in the field they are teaching, but don't require teachers to have education in education. It is very much akin to saying that anyone can fly a plane because they've flown in planes before (I know you'll appreciate that analogy :)).

Either or, I'd be willing to bet you and I would agree that the best scenario would be for a qualified teacher to teach in an area that he/she knows and has knowledge in.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Well yeah. That's a no brainer. (that last part about the thing with the teacher and the stuff.)

Lesson planning, classroom management, all that good stuff can be learned under a mentoring program. Heck, under a mentoring program, most folks could and would have a decent enough grasp of the process in a semester. Take lesson planning out of the mix with standardized curriculum and all your fledgling new alternative placement teacher has to do is learn how to keep punks straight and kids interested.

You don't need a four year degree to pull that off. Not in my opinion.

Hence why the alternative placement program makes sense in how it's set up.

[MiccoMacey]

TF,

I don't disagree with you...but in the interim while they are learning most non-teachers (for lack of a better word) are going to fail miserably. If it's just a semester class it's not that huge of a deal because s/he will get new kids. It's only one bad semester.

If it's a year long class, most new teachers with no experience or education in a teaching environment don't have the ability to recue a class like that. Usually these are the type of teachers you hear parents complain about.

Once that classroom gets out of hand (which is usually quickly done when kids notice their teacher doesn't know how to handle a classroom), it is VERY difficult to get that classroom back and manageable. Everyone complains about kids not getting taught...it's tough to learn when the teacher sucks.

Classroom management is BY FAR the most important aspect to teaching kids. Having a background in the field you're teaching is secondary (although still very important in the long run). You can more easily get by initially with a minimum amount of knowledge of what you're teaching (except for the hard sciences like math and...well...science ;)) and a broader knowledge in education than vice versa.

If this sounds like I'm swithing sides, I promise I'm not. I'd still rather have my daughters taught by a teacher who knows what s/he's teaching.

But I promise thre is waaaay more to teaching than just having knowledge in an area. Trust me...I was this person when I started out. I got my lunch handed to me, and the kids suffered until I could find my way.

Then I became the greatest teacher ever. :D

[MiccoMacey]

BTW, I hate people who respond with 50 paragraphs of response. I hate reading the whole thing. Sorry for that.

[MiccoMacey]

Also, I hate people who post consecutive posts. Sorry about that also.


MiccoMacey=post padder. ;)

[sanantoniosooner]

Micco is pwning you guys and you just don't know it. If I didn't hate these twisted discussions so much I'd contribute to his point more.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I don't disagree with you...but in the interim while they are learning most non-teachers (for lack of a better word) are going to fail miserably.

Prove it. You're making an assumption here.


But I promise thre is waaaay more to teaching than just having knowledge in an area.

I know. From experience. Remember?


Classroom management is BY FAR the most important aspect to teaching kids. Having a background in the field you're teaching is secondary (although still very important in the long run). You can more easily get by initially with a minimum amount of knowledge of what you're teaching (except for the hard sciences like math and...well...science ) and a broader knowledge in education than vice versa.

This I agree with in that yes, it's important, yes, teaching can't be done without a well-managed classroom, and yes, control needs to be established early because recovery from a class one has let slip is tough. But they're kids. You can threaten a child with absolute destruction. You can go from happy lovey want-some-candy to hellbitch 5000. You can DEMAND of children and expect results leveraged by making good on your promises. It's just like parenting, but on a larger scale. And easier in that peer pressure, expectation, and even a lil' fear will work for you as a teacher.

Whichever way is used, discipline is the root of it all. Establish order from jump and everything else can fall into place at one's leisure. A semester tops under a mentoring program.

[Widescreen]

"They're going to send them to teach where Ray-Ray, Little Willie, Little Man, Too-sweet, and Chiquita are in the classroom."
I seriously can't believe that he said that. I wonder if there will be any actual repercussions.

[Okla-homey]

Okay, maybe i'm missing something here, but what does a young person learn in college enroute to a BS or BA in Education that teaches them classroom management?

Now, I presume they still "student teach" for a semester, but as I recall, the chickies and fellers who did that when I was in high school just stood up in front of us and taught while the "real" teacher sat in the back and read the paper, or went to smoke ciggies and drink coffee in the teachers lounge. I don't remember those student teachers getting much classroom management stick time.

Has something changed to imbue these young teachers-to-be with classroom management skillz as undergrads?

Or, are they after hiring, as I suspect, just tossed in and to sink or swim? Kinda like I was when they first turned me aloose with a jet?

[sanantoniosooner]

Homey, I can't tell you the number of classes I have had to take for my current degree plan that are directed at classroom management, variety of assessments, understanding learners from a developmental and cultural standpoint, and lesson preparation that borders on crazy.

I had to take two more classes because I was lazy and didn't apply to the certification program as quick as I should have and now they've added more that students behind me will have to take.

My degree plan is for Math major with Teaching Certification.

http://www.utsa.edu/cosuac/documents/MAT-GMS-WITH%20CERT%202006-2008.pdf

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Speaking from the alternative placement program, which the blonde bombshell that's chose to be at my right hand (for some unknown reason) is currently going through...

The emphasis is on the information delivered. Pass the gen-ed, pass the subject specific test, be reviewed by a board, and AFTER all that, if approved, we'll get you started in a program and you must complete X number of hours in education stuff in a year's time dependent on what you have already in your transcript. Which sounds to me like the emphasis is on the material, getting you set up for practical experience under the guidance of a teacher, add some actual book knowledge to back THAT up, and call you good.

Which to me makes sense.

I can read manuals, study within a degree program, read trade publications and peer reviewed journals, even interview and discuss experiences with existing firefighters to learn how to fight fire. All that helps and builds a base to reference. But when the nut cuttin' gets to it, learning to fight fire is done by fighting fire, period. I'm also a fire service instructor with Oklahoma State. I know the material I teach, forwards and backwards. I picked as many brains as I could, read up on instructional techniques, and set myself up by becoming certified by the standard to be able to teach. My first class, in my opinion, was a train wreck. And it wasn't long before I learned to read a class, find the connection between the material and the class, and present it so that the class will not only regurgitate the information, but be able to relate to the information so that it's something they WANT to pay attention to, not just something some clown is standing in front of the class barking about. But the base, the root of it all, is in the information itself. I could be trained to the nines on how to manage the classroom environment but if I don't have beyond an intimate knowledge of the material, a sense of authority with the material, I'm worthless. Even kids will pick up on that and slaughter you as a teacher because of your lack of credibility alone. Sure they'll be quiet and let you teach, but you won't HAVE them. They'll be dead sockets in chairs, paying more attention to the booger they're about to wipe on Suzy's coat and the spitball they've just loaded into their pen than what you've got to bring.

I learned it in a trial by fire under the guidance of an experienced instructor. Took what suggestions and input he had, combined it with my own experiences on what different class types need to be engaged, and have become, in my opinion, a fairly decent, engaging, sometimes even exciting instructor. The material was the lynchpin for again, credibility. The classroom management came almost entirely from experience.

[sanantoniosooner]

Teaching middle class male adults is one thing.

Teaching a variety of kids with varying socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnic differences, learning disabilities, and parental interest is something else.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Teaching middle class male adults is one thing.

Teaching a variety of kids with varying socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnic differences, learning disabilities, and parental interest is something else.

Thank you for assuming the role of the fire service instructor in the state of Oklahoma is restricted to middle class male adults.

You fail.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That should've been a given.

I'm just a dumb ol' middle class male adult.

[sanantoniosooner]

That should've been a given.

I'm just a dumb ol' middle class male adult.
That's all I am. But I'm willing to admit there are things I don't know and learn them.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

BTW.........part of the point is that teaching a bunch of people in your own peer group, or want to be in your peer group is way different from teaching people who have no intention of every being in your peer group or even care what you are trying to teach them.

Again, an assumption of the fire service instructor in the state of Oklahoma.

Another false one.

[sanantoniosooner]

Again, an assumption of the fire service instructor in the state of Oklahoma.

Another false one.
Do the people you are instructing want to be fire fighters?

[MiccoMacey]

I don't disagree with you...but in the interim while they are learning most non-teachers (for lack of a better word) are going to fail miserably.


Prove it. You're making an assumption here.

No, I'm 100% basing it on years of experience and watching it happen (not just to me). I've taught at the Elementary, Junior High, Middle School, and High School levels. I've taught honor classes and special ed classes. I've taught in some extremely poor areas, and I've taught in some more elite settings. I've taught in the Southeast part of the country, and the Midwest. I've got quite a bunch of knowledge and experience to draw from, at least enough to make a knowledgeable and informed opinion.

Do I have hard numbers...no. It's is all observation. But I've watched a lot of knowledgable folks drown in a classroom becasue they think the answer is "discipline". No offense, 'cause you know I have a lot of respect for you, but that's a statement made from someone who's never done it. There is absolutely no comparison to what you've done (admirably, I might add), and public education. Not in the same category, not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport.

People have to pay you to come to your class. They have a choice to be there or not, they are older than and by extension at least one year more mature, and you have a much smaller sampling to draw from because of requirements to enter your class (they have to at least be able to enter the university, have graduated from high school...versus trying to teach every sampling group out there including kids who do not care). Therefore they will to a larger degree be more behaved...teachers have a disporportionate amount of kids who don't want to be there (some at least), for about one thousand different reasons.

And yet I tell you...we're not far off on our opinions. We both see knowledge of the area being taught as very important. Even the alternative certification process (which is me) has a test for emphasis in an area (mine were typically in the Social Studies umbrella). But it also has a test for classroom abilities, or at least it did when I certified.

Classroom management is a skill, an art, and an experience. It is something you learn to do. Like you said, and I think you're making my case stronger, you can read all the books you want, take all the classes available and test till your blue, but until you get into the classroom and "learn" to be a teacher you are just a person with an education in education.

Your argument (as I see it) is that you don't need any of that knowledge and can still learn by trial and error. You can, if you want to suck. But why not have the best of both worlds? Why not get teachers who have a working knowledge of "how" to teach and "what" to teach?

Whom do you think would make a better "starter" teacher...one with an education in teaching and at least some time in front of a classroom with a certified teacher (read: mentor), or someone with no knowledge of how to teach but armed to the teeth of knowledge in a subject area? Seriously, and I'm not trying to belittle anyone's opinions, but it really isn't even close (from my experiences). You can be Einstein, but if you can't get it across to your students, you suck as a teacher. End of story. I don't care how much you know, the bottom line is getting it across to the kids. If you can't do it, you lose.

Like I said, none of this is directed at you. I thought you did well in front of our class, and it's not really in this discussion because we're talking about two different animals in what you do and public education.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Do the people you are instructing want to be fire fighters?

Not all of them. In fact, here lately, I've taught less firefighting and firefighters than I have Joe Citizen.

Just a few weeks ago I taught a classroom of predominantly women who are members of various tribes across the state needing NIMS instruction to become compliant with HSPDs. These were a cross-section of clerical, health services, and administrative roles within their respective tribe. A few months ago I taught yet another class in the ramp up to meet the HSPDs consisting of the Cherokee County Health Dept. administration, representatives from the Cherokee Nation, emergency management coordinators from Cherokee and Muskogee counties, and representatives from Tahlequah City Hospital. I've taught classes in fire safety and planning to classes as young as four years old. Not to mention the regular stream of station tours, community contacts, and requests for non-emergency assistance.

The role of the fire service instructor isn't the old drill instructor type anymore. You have to be able to adapt to whatever the teaching environment calls for, and that isn't always firefighters and prospective firefighters. It's actually been a heck of an experience, and by no means does it equate precisely to the classroom of our children. But they DO have a lot of similarities, predominantly in how the instructor's methodology has to change to reach the appropriate audience, just as it would between different class compositions.

[sanantoniosooner]

Well, Micco has stated what I was trying to say more eloquently.

[MiccoMacey]

Just a few weeks ago I taught a classroom of predominantly women who are members of various tribes across the state needing NIMS instruction to become compliant with HSPDs. These were a cross-section of clerical, health services, and administrative roles within their respective tribe. A few months ago I taught yet another class in the ramp up to meet the HSPDs consisting of the Cherokee County Health Dept. administration, representatives from the Cherokee Nation, emergency management coordinators from Cherokee and Muskogee counties, and representatives from Tahlequah City Hospital. I've taught classes in fire safety and planning to classes as young as four years old. Not to mention the regular stream of station tours, community contacts, and requests for non-emergency assistance.

Again, not even close. And the fact you think it's remotely similar speaks more to what you've already admitted...you don't know everything about this subject. And I don't mean that in a negative way. It's a function of what you've chosen to do. But these adults are there for their job...they are...adults...they are professionals. They have the ability to see a tangible reward for attending your class...keeping their job or a raise. Not all kids can see their reward. Actually, most can't. Yet you still have to reach them as well. The dynamics are 100% completely different. I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining the differences. I'd love to sit down and pick your brain on this subject sometime at the firehouse.


The role of the fire service instructor isn't the old drill instructor type anymore. You have to be able to adapt to whatever the teaching environment calls for, and that isn't always firefighters and prospective firefighters. Probably the best statement either of us has written today.
It's actually been a heck of an experience, and by no means does it equate precisely to the classroom of our children. But they DO have a lot of similarities, predominantly in how the instructor's methodology has to change to reach the appropriate audience, just as it would between different class compositions. Again, without sounding like a broken record or condescending toward you, it is a statement born out of a lack of experience. You do have to adapt in any teaching role, but that's the only similarity between your level of professional teaching and secondary or primary education, as I see it.

[MiccoMacey]

Well, Micco has stated what I was trying to say more eloquently.
That's because he's a good friend of mine and we see where each other is coming from, attitude wise. We're not here to bash each other, which often happens in threads like these.

[sanantoniosooner]

That's because he's a good friend of mine and we see where each other is coming from, attitude wise. We're not here to bash each other, which often happens in threads like these.
And I'm not trying to bash anyone either.

It seems that it's tough to convey a concept without spelling out every last syllable around here though. People aren't looking for the information in your posts. They are looking for the possible mistakes.

90% of the time, people know what you meant to say, but they'd rather rake you over a tiny little symantic than address the meat of the topic.

[MiccoMacey]

And I'm not trying to bash anyone either.

It seems that it's tough to convey a concept without spelling out every last syllable around here though. People aren't looking for the information in your posts. They are looking for the possible mistakes.

90% of the time, people know what you meant to say, but they'd rather rake you over a tiny little symantic than address the meat of the topic.

Why would you assume it's 90%? Your whole point is wrong because it's clearly 84%. Here's your place...I just put you in it. Noob.

;)

[sanantoniosooner]

87% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[royalfan5]

And I'm not trying to bash anyone either.

It seems that it's tough to convey a concept without spelling out every last syllable around here though. People aren't looking for the information in your posts. They are looking for the possible mistakes.

90% of the time, people know what you meant to say, but they'd rather rake you over a tiny little symantic than address the meat of the topic.
I believe the proper word is semantic.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Do I have hard numbers...no. It's is all observation. But I've watched a lot of knowledgable folks drown in a classroom becasue they think the answer is "discipline". No offense, 'cause you know I have a lot of respect for you, but that's a statement made from someone who's never done it. There is absolutely no comparison to what you've done (admirably, I might add), and public education. Not in the same category, not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport.

I put a lot of weight in observation. Don't belittle it. You can learn a ton from simple observation, and it gives credence to your position. HOWEVER, I think the difference is actually based in one's belief. I believe in strong discipline, an established order, a well prepared set of material, a vibrant delivery, and reinforcement through engagement. That particular method isn't kind to those that don't wish to be there. It isn't kind to those that flat out don't care. The mark of a good instructor (in my opinion) is making a connection outside of the ruler to the hand that brings in an indifferent student, reaches to that student, and allows that student, of his or her own recognizance, to realize that either A) I need to learn this, or B) I'd LIKE to learn this, with B being the preference from the instructor's standpoint. If that connection can't be made, through fault of either party, the student is lost. That's where in my opinion belief kicks in. As an instructor, do you continue to press the student to the detriment of the rest of the class? Or do you let the student do his or her thing as long as they don't become disruptive, and let their lackluster performance speak for itself? I'm in the camp of the latter. If you insist on being a goof, I'll let you be a goof and smile as the noose tightens around your own neck. Come to me for help, and I'll be there. Hence why discipline probably wasn't the best choice of words.


People have to pay you to come to your class. They have a choice to be there or not, they are older than and by extension at least one year more mature, and you have a much smaller sampling to draw from because of requirements to enter your class (they have to at least be able to enter the university, have graduated from high school...versus trying to teach every sampling group out there including kids who do not care). Therefore they will to a larger degree be more behaved...teachers have a disporportionate amount of kids who don't want to be there (some at least), for about one thousand different reasons.

I don't disagree that it's disproportionately so, but I also get a large number of students who are there because they have to be to remain a part of their respective organization or because they've simply been told to do so. Anything from "I don't want to be here" to "why am I here". A large majority, in fact recently ALL of my students haven't paid a dime for the course. You and I have through federal funding. Minimum standards also don't exist. Not every agency has a rigorous entrance process like our beloved TFD. So yes, I'll agree wholly that the number of students disinterested at the public school level is higher, but the fact remains it's still an issue with every classroom you'll find, regardless of what's being taught, regardless of who. The problem is identical. The difference is in the amount of the problem one must address.


Classroom management is a skill, an art, and an experience. It is something you learn to do. Like you said, and I think you're making my case stronger, you can read all the books you want, take all the classes available and test till your blue, but until you get into the classroom and "learn" to be a teacher you are just a person with an education in education.

Couldn't agree more.


Your argument (as I see it) is that you don't need any of that knowledge and can still learn by trial and error. You can, if you want to suck. But why not have the best of both worlds? Why not get teachers who have a working knowledge of "how" to teach and "what" to teach?

Why NOT have the best of both worlds? Heck yeah, set yourself up with every tool in the shed. But I believe the gist of the argument was either/or, and in that case, placing a prospective teacher under a mentor with a guided OJT style learning environment in my opinion is the BEST way with the shortest learning curve. Every person's teaching style is different. But volumes on teaching methods will not give you the necessary interpersonal relations skills one needs. Some people suck at public speaking for example. They could read volumes on public speaking, learn tons of valuable techniques and have a solid base to draw from when they do actually have to speak in public. But the actual act thereof is where the kinks are worked out. Where the true learning takes place. It's there, IN the environment, where one can learn to read an audience's posture, facial expressions, how different audiences respond to different postures and expressions of the instructor/speaker. Firemen mostly respond to authoritative, knowledgable, clear, and brief information. No BS. Many women I've taught respond to light humor, a personal connection to the material, an instructor as an educated equal, in a role of sharing some information that can and will help with the woes they experience. And they don't always shake out like that. Trying X, then Y, then sock 'em with Z if neither works comes from experience, not a book. Comes from having a mentor to ease the learning process so that in one method's failure, the class is not lost. There is a transition to another method, a "hey, try this with 'em" scenario from the voice of experience.


You can be Einstein, but if you can't get it across to your students, you suck as a teacher. End of story. I don't care how much you know, the bottom line is getting it across to the kids. If you can't do it, you lose.

I'll agree with this, too. But when Einstein builds an ability to teach through education and experience, I'll take Einstein hands down over that professional educator. Right now, we have a whole slew of Einsteins because the professional educators are bailing for the four winds because we won't pay them jack, hence our either/or scenario. I want Einstein in the front of my class. I want an experienced professional guiding Einstein in his early career so that he can become an Einstein that can reach a classroom with the mass of information he has to share. After all, they're there to learn, not be coddled. But I'm just a hard *** in that regard.

[MiccoMacey]

I put a lot of weight in observation. Don't belittle it. You can learn a ton from simple observation, and it gives credence to your position. HOWEVER, I think the difference is actually based in one's belief. I believe in strong discipline, an established order, a well prepared set of material, a vibrant delivery, and reinforcement through engagement. That particular method isn't kind to those that don't wish to be there. It isn't kind to those that flat out don't care. The mark of a good instructor (in my opinion) is making a connection outside of the ruler to the hand that brings in an indifferent student, reaches to that student, and allows that student, of his or her own recognizance, to realize that either A) I need to learn this, or B) I'd LIKE to learn this, with B being the preference from the instructor's standpoint. If that connection can't be made, through fault of either party, the student is lost. That's where in my opinion belief kicks in. As an instructor, do you continue to press the student to the detriment of the rest of the class? Or do you let the student do his or her thing as long as they don't become disruptive, and let their lackluster performance speak for itself? I'm in the camp of the latter. If you insist on being a goof, I'll let you be a goof and smile as the noose tightens around your own neck. Come to me for help, and I'll be there. Hence why discipline probably wasn't the best choice of words.



I don't disagree that it's disproportionately so, but I also get a large number of students who are there because they have to be to remain a part of their respective organization or because they've simply been told to do so. Anything from "I don't want to be here" to "why am I here". A large majority, in fact recently ALL of my students haven't paid a dime for the course. You and I have through federal funding. Minimum standards also don't exist. Not every agency has a rigorous entrance process like our beloved TFD. So yes, I'll agree wholly that the number of students disinterested at the public school level is higher, but the fact remains it's still an issue with every classroom you'll find, regardless of what's being taught, regardless of who. The problem is identical. The difference is in the amount of the problem one must address.



Couldn't agree more.



Why NOT have the best of both worlds? Heck yeah, set yourself up with every tool in the shed. But I believe the gist of the argument was either/or, and in that case, placing a prospective teacher under a mentor with a guided OJT style learning environment in my opinion is the BEST way with the shortest learning curve. Every person's teaching style is different. But volumes on teaching methods will not give you the necessary interpersonal relations skills one needs. Some people suck at public speaking for example. They could read volumes on public speaking, learn tons of valuable techniques and have a solid base to draw from when they do actually have to speak in public. But the actual act thereof is where the kinks are worked out. Where the true learning takes place. It's there, IN the environment, where one can learn to read an audience's posture, facial expressions, how different audiences respond to different postures and expressions of the instructor/speaker. Firemen mostly respond to authoritative, knowledgable, clear, and brief information. No BS. Many women I've taught respond to light humor, a personal connection to the material, an instructor as an educated equal, in a role of sharing some information that can and will help with the woes they experience. And they don't always shake out like that. Trying X, then Y, then sock 'em with Z if neither works comes from experience, not a book. Comes from having a mentor to ease the learning process so that in one method's failure, the class is not lost. There is a transition to another method, a "hey, try this with 'em" scenario from the voice of experience.



I'll agree with this, too. But when Einstein builds an ability to teach through education and experience, I'll take Einstein hands down over that professional educator. Right now, we have a whole slew of Einsteins because the professional educators are bailing for the four winds because we won't pay them jack, hence our either/or scenario. I want Einstein in the front of my class. I want an experienced professional guiding Einstein in his early career so that he can become an Einstein that can reach a classroom with the mass of information he has to share. After all, they're there to learn, not be coddled. But I'm just a hard *** in that regard.


Nope. You're wrong. ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

No, 90% of it was wrong.

Which makes YOU wrong.

I win at the internets.

[MiccoMacey]

I see.

Kind of like my Drill Sergeant used to tell me.

"Boy, 90% clean is 100% dirty".

Then he'd make fun of me until I cried.




Thanks for bringing those repressed memories back, fresh in my mind.

:D

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You need to relax and enjoy life. (http://www.bikerfox.com/bikerdance/rump2.html)

[SoonerJack]

which the blonde bombshell that's chose to be at my right hand (for some unknown reason) is currently going through...


TTIWWOP ;)

[47straight]

And I'm not trying to bash anyone either.



Well you're doing quite the good job of it.

[sanantoniosooner]

Well you're doing quite the good job of it.
Explain who I bashed and how I did it.

This should be interesting.

[47straight]

I'm pleased to know that OSU and a lot of other public universities are spending a lot of time and money "collaborating" to figure this out.

The University of Tulsa solved it a long time ago. They require education majors to double-major in another academic discipline - French, math, history, chemistry, etc.

[47straight]

Explain who I bashed and how I did it.

This should be interesting.

Wow. Being snide when called out for being snide.

[MiccoMacey]

The University of Tulsa solved it a long time ago. They require education majors to double-major in another academic discipline - French, math, history, chemistry, etc.

But the schools that hire the teachers don't require this type of double-major to teach students. Although it would be great if they did.

[sanantoniosooner]

:rolleyes:

Let me restate something.

You made an accusation that is unfounded. Show me where I bashed somebody.

[1stTimeCaller]

The only people that work less than teachers are firefighters. Bunch a lazy ping-pong playing firefighters.


;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/aj6293/ping_pong_b.jpg

Want a piece a' this, buddy?