I am not one to post to blogs of others much, because I don’t have much time, but this week, I did post a comment in response to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education on the federal government’s intention to “improve teacher preparation.” The article,Education Dept. to Move Forward With Plans for Improving Teacher Preparation, and the comments that followed it illustrate the unrealistic notions of officials and scholars who do not work in and do not understand P-12 education. This is the response I posted:
“This conversation is terribly frustrating to this longtime teacher educator. While continually working to improve, we endeavor to educate teachers who are scholars and practitioners focused on meeting the needs of every student. We teach and model many wonderful ways to integrate technology into instruction, and how to plan and deliver meaningful lessons that meet academic standards, while engaging all students in critical thinking and inquiry. However, when we send candidates into the schools for practicum experiences and student teaching, they are often confronted by classrooms where teachers are forced to teach whole class, scripted
lessons delivered, verbatim , to raise test scores. Teachers are even monitored for demonstration of “fidelity” to the lockstep scripted lessons, down to the timing and voice with which they deliver them. They are not allowed to integrate technology, because “there is not enough time for that. As for the concern about retention of new teachers in schools, many leave because they are so frustrated by their inability to actually use the research based, good practices that we teach them.”
Another teacher educator responded that I had uncovered “dirty little” secrets about teaching and teacher education by revealing the situation with scripted curriculum, which was designed for struggling learners, but is now forced on many and that there is an assumption that educator preparation programs can choose the cooperating teachers for their student teachers.
Leave a Reply