Should teachers have a significant amount of subject knowledge (and not merely a liking for the young) as a basis for permanent certification?<\/p>\n
This title implies that we’re only talking about teachers, but what about administrators and teachers?\u00a0 If one had a building administrator who never set foot in the classroom as a teacher, how might that change their perspective and dealings with teachers?<\/p>\n
We will see that, with American education, this has never been the case–and for very specific historical reasons.\u00a0 I recall taking English courses at SUNY Potsdam in the 90s and having teacher training students about to graduate who would note “I hate poetry.\u00a0 I can’t tell you why. . . I just hate it.”\u00a0 While I wouldn’t require love of poetry to be any sort of litmus test for an educator, it’s surprising how many elementary teachers are incurious, actively lacking in curiosity.\u00a0 (Perhaps, for them, the cover of having the Next Generation modules speaking for them and planning for them is a good stand-in for actually knowing their subjects.\u00a0 For some, sad to say, this is the case.)<\/p>\n
Too often, one hears of teachers who do this work for the vacations.\u00a0 Even if only 3% of North Country teachers said this, they would have an oversized impact because of the perception that it creates.\u00a0 But the love of a specific subject and the ability to impart that. . .\u00a0 it can get lost in the discussion.<\/p>\n
So while I don’t believe we will or should arrive at consensus, we ought to discuss how well versed teachers should be in a field of study other than teaching.\u00a0 Again, we’ll encounter this idea repeatedly.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t