Do Teachers Need Education Degrees?

No.

But they do need to know how to teach— which is what education degree programs are supposed to teach. Being scary smart or possessing an elite Ivy League education is no guarantee on the “how” part of teaching K-12, I can assure you.

I was annoyed that I had to earn/pay for an ed degree to teach kids but I got two important things out of the experience: 1) I had to talk ab the how of teaching, or pedagogy, w/ a multicultural mix (specially funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, I was enrolled in a cohort w/ over 50% para-educators of color)(paras are non-certificated staff who assist teachers— usually only English Language or Special Education teachers— and they often comprise most of the non-white staff in the schools where I have worked) of 60 other would-be teachers and four professors (it was like a year in a cross-cultural encounter group); and 2) I got to apprentice in a couple public school classrooms with (if not amazing mentors) experienced teachers. The latter was invaluable if for no other reason than once you’re in a public school classroom you are mostly on your own. There just isn’t much room in the day for much mentorship or collaboration. It’s you and a bunch of teenagers in an overcrowded classroom. Sink or swim.

On the other hand, my degree program felt padded and a little disconnected. By the second year students were impatient and grumpy. Others have given me a similar impression of their ed degree program experience.

In some cases these programs even give off the fumes of a racket. The continuing ed program in Washington, instituted after I’d already entered the profession, thankfully, just reeks of backroom deals between state legislators and higher education: ‘okay, we’ll support raises for teachers if you make our continuing ed programs for teachers required.’ And it’s not that I’m opposed to continuing education. It’s a travesty that critics talk ab the importance of teacher academic preparation without bemoaning the fact that, of all professions, public school teachers rarely receive money for rigorous continuing education. And so it’s not surprising that most teachers fulfill their cont ed requirements with coffee and cookies clock hour seminars.

What ed degrees are supposed to do should probably really be part of an apprenticing, probationary, period for new hire teachers that includes a lot of collaboration and mentorship and participation in book groups on education theory. On the job training. Make it three year’s long, give new teachers three sections their first year, four their second, and a full schedule that final year of the apprentice program. (In fact, all Ed PHD candidates should, minimally, have to go through this practicum b/f they begin their research, if you ask me.) One advantage, here, is you’d reduce the number of unemployed teachers with education degrees and so this aspect of the higher ed racket. Most importantly, you’d separate the chaff from the wheat teacher-wise much more efficiently. Educators lament the number of teachers leaving the profession b/f they’ve taught five years, and this on top of their expensive one or two year ed degree program. It could be done better.

If you really want to raise teaching standards what is needed is more time for teacher planning collaboration and more money for continuing education. The fact that teachers have to pay for almost all their continuing ed out of pocket, in the field of education of all professions and w/ the current focus on raising teaching standards, is the height of hypocrisy.

Should people with undergrad and advanced degrees in subject matter (history, English, math, etc) be able to go straight into teaching? W/ some sort of on-the-job mentorship and pedagogy training program, sure.

(See the NY Times Room For Debate blog for other perspectives.)

Currently playing: "Tin Birds," Blank Dogs