but I DO know that merely being competent in the subject one is required to teach is a far cry from one being an effective teacher. Teachers don't teach subjects, we teach students...and there's a HUGE different between the two.
IMHO, that's one of the things that's been wrong all along...too many teachers who in fact may know their subject matter but very little about how to impart that matter in meaningful, authentic, and adaptive ways so that students of various ability levels can be successful.
Yes, teachers absolutely do need to be competent in their subject matter but they also need training...in many areas..such as behavioral sciences, child psychology, classroom management, just to name a few. Training does not, nor has it ever, devalued teachers. It is simply a way to improve one's performance by increasing his/her skill level. Training for teachers is not the same as training for dogs and to compare one with the other could certainly be considered as a devaluation of teachers and the role they have in the future of our children.
Our students are rapidly changing due to many cultural and environmental influences...social issues, economic variants, technological advances. Teachers must keep up the pace and change with the student population in order to be successful and that requires ongoing training.
Will Obama trained teachers have better success rates than current teachers do? We'll have to see. But my guess is that as advances in education occur with each generation of teachers, we'll see more and more success.
= new reply since forum marked as read