Once again, thanks to Scott for sharing his thinking about the issue of whether teaching is more about natural talent, college training, or some combination of these. You can find his comment here. Though he believes that it is both, he leans more toward it being natural talent. How about some of the other 56 readers of this blog, what are your thoughts? Does it take a natural inclination to be an effective teacher or can one "learn" everything necessary in college?
He also shared his thoughts about NEA's concerns with Teach for America and the concern that these teachers are taking jobs that could be going to teachers that have come through a traditional teacher training program. In case you are not familiar with TFA, it is a program designed to identify and recruit bright college graduates to become leaders in schools with high levels of poverty. They receive intensive on-the-job training in exchange for a two year commitment to work in a low income community. From their webpage:
We recruit a diverse group of leaders with a record of achievement who work to expand educational opportunity, starting by teaching for two years in a low-income community.
This year I believe that there are teachers in Seattle from this program and also in Federal Way. The program is one cited by reformers as having a positive influence on learning for thousands of young people. So, if nature is more important than the college learning experience wouldn't we expect good teachers to come from this program as well as traditional programs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I also think being a teacher is mostly natural talent. I think skills can be refined and crafted through classes/inservice. But I think the strongest teachers are good because of natural talent.
Post a Comment