Non-traditional certification tracks allow talented individuals to work in schools without forcing them to undergo standard education curricula of dubious value. Instead, they study academic disciplines, work in various sectors, etc. - then bring that experience and knowledge to the classroom. As recent GRE scores have shown, those pursuing graduate degrees in education-related fields are on the left side of the bell curve. We need all the talent we can get.

Non-traditional tracks have faults just like every other program. The Village Voice's recent article that purportedly eviscerates the Fellows program points out weaknesses that will, hopefully, be addressed. It should emerge stronger.

The NY Teaching Fellows program is quite new. Education curricula in our colleges/universities, however, are not, yet the NYC Public School System is rife with problems despite being staffed by practitioners from these tried and true programs.

I wouldn't place too much blame on NYTF just yet. There is a fair amount of work yet to be done, and programs like NYTF are most certainly part of the solution.

Matthew K. Tabor
http://www.matthewktabor.com

Both non-traditional programs and too many traditional programs fail to adequately provide initial preparation, then we do not give enough attention to supporting beginning teachers during their early years of teaching. In order to produce a stronger teaching force we need to increase pre-service preparation (not short-cut it) and provide better induction programs.

I find it interesting that teachers in colleges and universities for the most part are NOT required to be a "certified" teacher. But they must have a Masters and or Ph.D. I think all the hoopla over certification is a farce, and that qualified people (not teachers) should be hired based on their experience, their knowledge, and their skills, rather than just on the fact that they have a certification.

The first year or two of "teaching" should be with the understanding that they will be observed by parents, other teachers, administrators and students on a daily basis and evaluated by the same. This is exactly the way to find qualified teachers. If they don't "cut the mustard" through this evaluation process, then it should be understood that those doing the hiring have no obligation to offer them a long-term contract.

I had the privilege of observing several classes for two years on a daily basis, so that I became almost as one of the students, or part of the woodwork, so to speak. I know for a fact that the teacher was a completely different person when an administrator or parent was in the room than when it was just me and the students. I'm sure this is not an isolated case, either.

"Education" classes are not the answer either. The ones I have taken were a complete waste of my time. They do not teach one how to be an effective teacher, rather, they are more concerned with this philosophy or that.

A great teacher teaches his or her subject well because they LOVE it, not because some educator told them that they needed to do it a certain way.

We need to take a look at what private schools, alternative schools and such are doing because they are the ones that are being effective.

Dumbing down graduation requirements is doing no favor to the students. It's just telling them that mediocre work is acceptable, which goes on into the rest of their lives and work.

I do not believe that most teacher prep programs really prepare for teaching as it is. They tend to stress too much pedagogy and give very little practical knowledge that you can use in the classroom. The common feeling in my circle of teacher friends is that it is more of a hoop to weed out people not up to the teaching challenge.

An interesting poll to make would be "how well did your teach prep program prepare you?"

The only real way to earn to teach is to actually teach. THe biggest challenges new teachers tend to have are classroom management and developing curricula, both of which were poorly covered in my program. If the program is simply going to set you up with pedagogy and how to spend 2 hours writing a 1 hour lesson plan, then I would vote that a new teacher would be better of with a few binders of curriculum for courses they may potentially teach along with a workshop of presentation and disciplinary tools.

The average teacher-college program can in no way prepare a prospective teacher adequately to enter a classroom. Those skills can only be learned by doing, in the heat of the moment, before a live audience-student clientele. It's like an artistic performance: you can practice till the cows come home, but only the real event, ie., face time with an audience, with all the attendant risk and immediacy, pulls from you your true resourcefulness, confirmation in the moment that you have what it takes. Doing IS Learning, under those circumstances.
Whatever purports to do a sound job of preparing a teacher for the vicissitudes of the teaching profession, and the continual need for adjustment to Plan B will serve a teacher well. Sometimes, a highly-educated person coming from industry, etc. can step immediately into the shoes of teacher because life and work experience have prepared them well. That person deserves to enter the profession, after some kind of mentorship/screening/winnowing/prep process.
What disturbs me more about the issue is how strenuously we concern ourselves nationally with certification (for public education teachers,) while being so lax and undemanding with staff at charter schools. The two teaching contexts are in direct opposition, seemingly. Do we value certification or don't we? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander!

I have B.S. and M.S. degress in math and physical science with education courses that are over 18 years old and several years part-time college-level teaching experience. After trying for many years, I got a teaching position with a hometown school system last year under emergency certification. Some confusion occurred over course requirements I was to complete and now I must complete 40+ hours of college work in less than 2 years to earn a certificate to be able to continue teaching. I love teaching, but this is not a fast-track to certification. This may be the last year I get to teach, even though I keep hearing that qualified math teachers are needed.

At the community college/vocational college level faculty members are recruited from 'industry' assuring extensive practical knowledge and applications. However, that does not mean they are good teachers.

Necessary skills in supportive and appropriate communication, patience, understanding, lesson planning, appropriate supplemental material gathering, and the ability to create coursework from scratch (i.e.: syllabi, course outlines, etc.) is necessary.

At our college we have classes in education/teaching that new faculty members can take outside of their contract hours, thus receiving and immediately applying this new knowledge. In addition, new faculty members are assigned a faculty mentor within their department or division in addition to a senior faculty advisor. This supportive mechanism has produced excellent faculty while weeding out those who do not meet the student's needs.

The Bachelor in Vocational Education coursework I completed, was the first of it's kind. Access to a MVE is limited. I found the written information helpful and interaction with colleagues supportive and enlightening, however, the actual instruction was disappointing for the most part.

The ultimate challenge is presenting enough material to students to stimulate the analytical and cognitive functions, "feeding" more material as desired. We must also challenge students to think out of the box - while being fully aware the outcome may be something outside of our own knowledge base.

I fully agree that many programs fail to provide initial preparation and support for beginning teachers. Increasing pre-service may be a solution. However, many schools/institutions are bound by fiscal restrictions. Until the general public buys into fully supporting educational growth and evolution, we will be limited in what we can do while rapidly falling behind the rest of the world.

It is very disconcerting to read the comments that indicate no need for educator preparation. Working with students of all ages requires knowledge and understanding of child, adolescent and adult development, learning theory, and proven strategies for engaging students. Most educator preparation courses provide the content and then provide opportunities to apply new knowledge in the field under the supervision of a mentor teacher. All of this occurs in approximately one year's time. When a university student completes an educator preparation program, they are a novice teacher. Support and in-service training must continue. Alternative certification programs usually require participants to gain the knowledge and apply it daily as the teacher-of-record in the classroom without a full-time mentor. This can be quite overwhelming for many of the participants. Most good teachers are lifetime learners who continue to expand their pedagogical knowledge and practices daily; however, as in any profession, they must have a knowledge base on which to build new understandings.

While I believe that being a good teacher is an inborn passion, some good preparation would be useful. The problem is that many programs are not well thought out or have other irrelevant motives and concerns.

Half the classes I took to become a teacher had to do with discipline rather than pedagogy. It has been my experience that students who are kept at grade-level learning as a condition for promotion to the next grade do not exhibit significant behavior issues- they are too busy learning. Therefore, the present emphasis on behavior problems in credentialing programs seems to be about adapting the teacher to dysfunctional public education, rife with social promotion, rather than visa versa.

Many credentialing programs and subsequent continuing education requirements seem more about filling seats in underfunded colleges and universities than it does about serving the needs of future teachers.

Teach For America is an excellent argument for quality over quantity of preparation, given that they are at least as successful as fully credentialed teachers.

What is a "good" teacher?

What do the customers (the students) think? Does anyone ever ask?

Education is not about learning. Please read "Experience and Education" by John Dewey and "Education for what is Real" by Kelly.

The system of education in America, and much of the rest of the world, is best described with a quote from "Blessed Unrest" by Hawken,

"remedies from above imposed upon the excluded."