Training Programs for Teachers in Need of Some Beefing Up

Several readers have asked me to explain what happens in the additional year of college that constitutes teacher training, and which eventually leads to state certification.

Teacher credentialing programs differ among colleges, but because all California programs must meet some basic state requirements, most follow a general pattern.

Although it isn’t really graduate school--there’s no master’s degree or doctorate awarded--the admission process is similar.

Applicants must pass an admission exam, the California Basic Skills Test, which covers math, reading and essay writing.

Then there’s the application, which generally explores the candidate’s college education, work experience, and usually ends with an essay on the topic of “Why I Want to Be a Teacher.”

But the most important element in the admission’s application is the transcript that shows the applicant’s college courses and grades. Applicants must have at least a 3.0 grade-point average, the equivalent of a B, in courses in the subject areas they hope to teach.

The application process is meant to screen out candidates who aren’t qualified or have the wrong motives for teaching (such as “I want a job with a lot of time off”). But I don’t think it’s tough enough, and if I could open a Yarber University School of Education, I’d add some requirements.

The essay, for example, doesn’t go far enough in examining an applicant’s philosophies and interest in teaching. Since the average new teacher quits after three years, we need to better screen out people who aren’t committed enough.

I’d require a personal interview--anyone can come up with “deep” responses to a written question that they’ve had weeks to think about. But spontaneous, diverse questions would more likely reveal true motives, skills and attitudes.

Requiring a B average in one’s subject is fair and necessary, but Yarber University would also require an entrance exam in the subject. After all, grades are not as objective as we like to think, and a B at one college might reflect more or less knowledge than a B at another college.

At most colleges, the actual teacher training program is a combination of college classes and practice-teaching in a real classroom.

Many of my peers say the courses are a waste of time; I have mixed views.

On the one hand, most of these courses teach concepts and skills that good teachers use every day. Some examples: teaching firm but humane discipline techniques; showing steps to a good lesson plan; making tests that are fair, and using computers as teaching aids.

But the problem is that some of the courses go on longer than it takes to cover the material. So the remaining class periods often become “rap” sessions where trainees swap practice-teaching horror stories.

At my university, the time allotted for some courses would be shortened and completed at a more challenging pace, with no “dead” time.

The most important part of any credential program is the practice-teaching, which is usually done concurrently with the courses for the whole school year.

Elementary trainees usually teach one semester in first, second or third grade, then another in fourth, fifth or sixth grade. Secondary trainees spend a semester each in junior and senior high.

This is where the credential candidates try out the theories and methods that they’re learning in their education courses, discover which techniques work best for them and develop their own teaching styles.

More importantly, this is also where everyone finds out which trainees have the right stuff. Some may know their subject inside out, but can’t seem to make the students understand it. Or others may be able to explain the best discipline techniques in detail, but may be too passive to actually use them.

Practice-teachers basically take over classes for credentialed teachers who observe, coach and evaluate them. The experience is invaluable--but I think it should be a much better screening-out process than it is. Many candidates who simply can’t manage a classroom are allowed to continue and receive credentials.

A stricter evaluation process would help. In most programs, the master teacher must submit two formal written evaluations of the trainee each semester, as does a college supervisor. This isn’t thorough or accurate enough--especially since the practice-teacher is often told ahead of time when the observation will occur.

Along with the two major evaluations, master teachers should also make a random observation and informal critique at least once a week, even if it’s just a scrawled list of one lesson’s good and bad points. College supervisors should also visit more often, and sometimes unannounced.

This would also help curb another problem that practice-teachers often face, which I also faced: One of my first master teachers stayed in the room my first day, then wished me well and only returned on the days my evaluations were due.

That was a nice vote of confidence, but practice-teachers need to work closely with their master teachers.

Once the credential candidates have completed the program with at least a B average and decent evaluations (and fingerprints sent to the state that don’t reveal any felony convictions), they usually qualify for the state teaching credential in one or more areas of expertise. The credentials are renewable every five years.

Although California’s requirements are among the toughest in the country, the system still needs improvement. And that’s why the chancellor of Yarber University offers these recommendations.