On Teacher Training

I attended one presentation on education in college, in which the presenter, David Stroupe, compared teaching to medical practice. Stroupe, a Phd student in education at the University of Washington, described in detail the absurdity of a very intelligent, recently graduated biology major trying to perform a simple medical procedure. He concluded- correctly- that such an individual would have no idea where to start, before subsequently claiming that sending that same smart upstart to the classroom would have the an equally disastrous result. Teaching, he felt, was a profession that required a careful honing of talent and significant practice.

The context of this opening was a speech about the failings of Teach for America. Mr. Stroupe had not been a Teach for America corps member, but he had participated in an alternative licensure program that had sent him to the classroom totally unprepared. Teach for America, he failed to note, sends its teachers to an intensive training program the summer after they graduate. Students hear from current and former teachers, learn the best instruction methods, and most importantly practice in a classroom. They are taught how to manage a classroom and grade a paper. Though five or six weeks of training may not be enough, it is significantly better than zero days.

I don't know if any studies have been done which confirm the importance of intensive training programs, but I certainly feel more prepared after my four week induction. One of the key lessons I have learned is that boring monotony is bad: students will retain more if lessons are creative and varied. A teacher writing notes on the board is worse than boring for the students; it also decreases the likelihood that the students will learn the material. My practice sessions with real students were invaluable; all teacher training programs at universities should require externships at a local school (most do, in fairness). There is nothing like being in a real classroom with real students; on disciplinary issues I think this is especially important. Before my training program I didn't want to do a seating chart, but after two days of training I realized the folly of my thinking. A well-thought out seating arrangement will lead to better behavior, (making my life easier) and improved comprehension on the part of the students (improving their life come exam time).

I did have some issues with my training. First and foremost, our trainers presented some arguments made by education scholars as fact, when in fact they were not. We were told to adhere to many vague philosophies that had never been tested, and evidence coming from regression models was presented as gospel. There is an enormous amount of bogus social science studies floating about on jstor and google scholar; a researcher displaying his understanding of statistics hardly means his paper is correct, or even close to right. Data on educational attainment is especially spotty, making me even more hesitant to believe some conclusions presented to our team of teachers. In social science fields where statistics are better recorded and more widely available, say political science and economics, there is still considerable disagreement. Changing the parameters of a test or controlling for one variable, can dramatically alter the conclusion. Different datasets on the same topic- say the effect of low interest rates on net exports- can lead to contrasting conclusions. The quantity and quality of studies in these fields has helped teach us a ton about the world we live in, but education is still a new field. Everything needs to be taken, and should be presented, with more than a few grains of salt.

I also thought we should have given more time to plan our curriculum. It would have been nice to develop our long term plans more, especially as first-year teachers. As it is, we have only a rough idea where we will be at the end October, let alone May.

As for Mr. Stroupe, I still find his argument lacking. Teaching is not really comparable to medical practice; there is a reason physicians are required to spend four years in medical school and serve at least three years as a resident. Their jobs, quite frankly, are more complicated and the stakes are higher. The evidence is pretty clear that smarter teachers who thoroughly understand the material they are teaching produce better results than their less brilliant cohorts; thus, it is important to get these people in a classroom. And while Mr. Stroupe and others criticize TFA and other similar teachers for their youth and inexperience, I think these traits can be an asset as well. Young teachers will be more willing to adjust and act flexibly; they will not be set in their (potentially misguided) ways. Moreover, teachers who know they are only in this for a year or two are more likely to work hard and give it their all than a middle-aged man who has been teaching for twenty years and knows they still have twenty more left to go.

That said, my teacher training experience has been positive, and I think every individual who steps in a classroom on the first day of school should at least have been in a comparable situation at some point. Mr. Stroupe is right that teachers need to be taught. All alternative licensing programs in the U.S. and abroad should require at least a month of rigorous in depth training. Installing such programs would benefit teachers, and more importantly, their students. And whatever helps them should guide educational policies.