Univ prof, want to teach secondary level. Please help

[sdakota]

No offense, TonyM...but just from reading your posts I can see why heads of school would be reluctant to hire a teacher with a PhD. You really seem keen on getting the last word in and also telling teachers, who already do what you aspire to do, about the real qualities that make up good teaching. Not a great look, in my view.

[wrldtrvlr123]

Bottom line: If you think you would be a great K-12 teacher then get/take a K-12 teaching job for two years, practically any K-12 teaching job, and prove yourself right. Then take that successful experience and trade up school, location, etc. for the type of position/life you really want and will find challenging and rewarding.

Otherwise you will just keep talking about it, wondering about it and complaining about how the whole educational system is unfairly stacked against you (and apparently should just hand you the keys to most competitive/sought after schools, programs, etc. due to your university experience and collection of credits/degrees.

Sorry if that sounds overly presumptive or judgmental but that is basically how you are coming across (to me at least) on this forum for int'l K-12 teachers (and those seeking to become them).

You sound like you are very passionate about teaching and I wish you luck with whatever you decide to do.

[chiliverde]

The fact that you don't think classroom management should have anything to do with teaching shows that either you don't know what that term means (probable) or that you haven't fully grasped what it means to teach children. And secondary students are children. Children who have shorter attention spans, difficulty focusing, and impulse control, among other things. This isn't because there's anything wrong with the system - it's because they are children! Your behavior management repertoire is what keeps your classroom happy, functioning, and productive. It takes an understanding of best teaching practices, child development, and EXPERIENCE. It is the basis of everything you do. Without it, you can't teach.

What we are hearing is someone who has never done the job we do. We are hearing that person presuming to tell us what our job is like, and also what is wrong with our field. Is there anything about that that seems off to you? I understand that you would like this conversation to stick to the subject of "quality teaching." What we are trying to show you is that your definition of quality teaching at the secondary level is incomplete, and needs to be expanded for you to understand what it is like to teach children.

Hopefully this is all as simple as you're confused about some of the terminology we're using, and what that really looks like in education.

[TonyM]

I can see I've touched some raw nerves, and honestly, I am sorry if I've hurt feelings. That was not at all my intention. I also had no intention of discussing the relative merit of pedagogy -- I only did so in response to other posts.

I fully accepted the facts of my situation once the member of this group kindly helped make me clear, and I also got confirmation from the DoDEA. I said I was ready to move on in another direction, and I was. And I still am.

But since it was germane to the discussion, I did think it was appropriate to respond honestly to those who obviously hold the complete opposite view that I do. I did this with the intention of engaging in a discussion that might change my mind. I value listening to others opinions who disagree with me so that I can change if needed. I distinguish quite clearly between "the system" and "persons within the system", in the same way, for example, that I dislike organized systems of the Christian religion, but love Christians.

But for some reason, the points I've raised have not been responded to. Rather, negative things have been assumed about me, and there's even been some attack.

I'm still ready to change my view, however, and hold those who give themselves to teaching in the highest regard.

[TonyM]

chilliverde's post was made while I was still writing mine, so I'd like to say that I appreciate the substantive response to my points that were made there.

First, I did not say that I think classroom management should have nothing to do with teaching. That is not my position. Rather, what I am doing is distinguishing between what is, strictly speaking, "teaching" activity from other activity. It is quite true that if the atmosphere is not at a certain level, teaching becomes nearly impossible. With that I completely agree. Furthermore, I also agree that there is valuable skill and wisdom in arranging things so that an atmosphere for teaching will be possible. But that doesn't mean those "atmosphere activities" (for lack of a better term) are "teaching"

That is what I meant when I made the distinction "between being a 'good teacher' and being an effective employee in what is supposed to be teaching institution".

Perhaps we are having a difference regarding the definition of "pedagogy". I believe that my position adheres to the definition of that term, while what I'm calling "atmosphere activities", as valuable as they are, are not part of pedagogy.

[MamfeMan]

I agree with many people here: get certified through a state and take two years to teach at a domestic high school. The ONLY reason I say this is because you could, very well, get a job at a Tier 3 or 2 school with your background and no experience at the high school level, and never actually become 'better' at your job. The domestic experience gives you the opportunity to hone your teaching chops, and then when you actually do go overseas you will feel like you have died and gone to pedagogical heaven. And with your background, and two years of domestic experience at a US high school, you'll be pretty darn desirable. Good luck either way!

[chiliverde]

As long as we are trying to have a productive discussion that sticks to the facts, yes, you did say that:

<<All the things you mentioned about managing a class I have no issue with. I just don’t think they have anything to do with “teaching”.>>

Your views of pedagogy are outdated for education today. They are. You cannot separate good pedagogy from classroom management, because it is part of your teaching philosophy; it is the basis behind every decision you make. One doesn't spend five minutes on "atmosphere activities," as you termed it, and then teach. It's all interwoven, and comes from experience.

At the end of the day, it's not your qualifications that aren't good enough. Teaching is 50% natural talent and pedagogy, and 50% experience, and you don't have the latter.

I think I'm done here, because you do continue to try to speak from authority about something you don't have experience in. People keep responding to you because there are misconceptions within your premise (good teacher vs. effective employee), and you have some misunderstandings about some basic teaching terms. No hurt feelings, I'm just not sure that this is being productive.

I highly suggest you:

-Get the chance to spend some time in quality classrooms. I do this as often as I can, because the teaching profession is an art, and I always need to be inspired to improve my teaching.
-Pick up Saphier and Gower's The Skillful Teacher. It's a tome, but a classic, and very enlightening.

[chiliverde]

Getting back to the beginning - with international education being what it is, I am sure that there are many schools around the world that would hire you based on your qualifications/experience: 3rd and maybe 2nd tier. Depending on your personality and what you're looking for, it could be an enjoyable experience if you do your research and find someplace tolerable. Let us know if you're interested and I'm sure this board can advise you where to look.

[shadowjack]

Tony M - my advice after all this discussion - try teaching community college. They want teachers, not researchers, the students will be more at your level, and there are some openings overseas in various educational institutions, particularly in Dubai, UAE, and Kuwait.

As to being attacked, no offense, but if you think these are "attacks" on you, you're in for a rude awakening in the world of K to 12 teaching.

That said, good luck in whichever endeavor you ultimately undertake!

[TonyM]

Thanks for the book reference, and other advice. I did my best to stay open regarding my views on the value of pedagogy, and maybe the book will help. This whole discussion has caused me to reflect upon it, and I think the strongest influence on me has been the relative incompetence of the secondary school teachers that I’ve met in (1) content, and an arrogance that I sensed in them when they suggested that pedagogy expertise made up for that.

So, in conclusion I will admit that nothing has persuaded me to change my view, but I still value the discussion.

Thanks

[shadylane]

TonyM wrote:
This whole discussion has caused me to reflect upon it,
> So, in conclusion I will admit that nothing has persuaded me to change my
> view, but I still value the discussion.

I think that the best way of putting it would be to say that while you teach a subject, K-12 teachers teach children. There is a different emphasis. Naturally as the students get older, this emphasis does shift, but even in Grade 11/12 there is a obligation to the whole child that simply doesn't exist at University level.

Now I have to say, that I have taught with University lecturers that have made the switch, and most have made outstanding educators. However, a few don't, and it's largely because they don't want to / can't acknowledge the difference between the two sectors.

[chilagringa]

That's interesting, shadylane, what do you think made the difference between the successful and unsuccessful ones?

[shadylane]

chilagringa wrote:
> That's interesting, shadylane, what do you think made the difference between the successful and unsuccessful ones?

From my limited observations there was a willingness to accept (or not) that the context had changed. Proper teacher certification and K to 12 experience also made a difference. These online courses do seem to tick a box, but don't seem very effective in doing what they are actually supposed to do. Train people to teach.

[wrldtrvlr123]

TonyM wrote:
> Thanks for the book reference, and other advice. I did my best to stay
> open regarding my views on the value of pedagogy, and maybe the book will
> help. This whole discussion has caused me to reflect upon it, and I think
> the strongest influence on me has been the relative incompetence of the
> secondary school teachers that I’ve met in (1) content, and an arrogance
> that I sensed in them when they suggested that pedagogy expertise made up
> for that.
>
> So, in conclusion I will admit that nothing has persuaded me to change my
> view, but I still value the discussion.
>
> Thanks
----------------------
Ah, yes, because we are obviously the arrogant and incompetent ones in this scenario. TFF.

Your comments are now starting to verge on troll like and inflammatory so I will leave you to it. Good luck to you sir.

[fine dude]

Some valid points have been made. It is true there are a few teachers at all levels, even at elite schools, lack sound conceptual understanding to the point that they might mislead students occasionally as they don't invest the time to clear their own misconceptions. You can't compensate these mistakes with pedagogy, although you can apologize and reteach the content wherever mistakes have been made. Not sure how many teachers have this willingness. I came across an ex-marine-turned-math teacher a few years ago who is a prime example.

Having said that, there are teachers with just bachelor's degrees and use their pedagogical content mastery to connect with students and got better results than those with master's and PhDs. Having an advanced degree might give you an initial edge, but in the long-term, it's all about delivery and test scores provided you are above average at classroom management.