...content knowledge or curriculum knowledge?
What I'm trying to ask is do you think schools care more about a teacher who knows their curriculum or one with stronger knowledge of the content they teach? As in, would a school prefer someone who has 2 years teaching experience and both years are IB or 10-15 years teaching experience but no IB experience?
(Clearly I'm not great with words)
Bonus points to any administators who can bring some clarity to this question.
What's more valuable...
Re: What's more valuable...
Not an admin, but my 2c, at least for secondary level:
Content knowledge is more important to a point, after which it has diminishing returns. If you're teaching DP/AP/AS Math, having a strong command over that content trumps curriculum-specific stuff. But if you have someone with Math BA + 2 years IB vs. someone with a Math PhD and 10 years teaching university level math, the Math BA with IB experience would *usually* win out IMO (at an IB school anyway). There's also schools where this is not the case though.
Content knowledge is more important to a point, after which it has diminishing returns. If you're teaching DP/AP/AS Math, having a strong command over that content trumps curriculum-specific stuff. But if you have someone with Math BA + 2 years IB vs. someone with a Math PhD and 10 years teaching university level math, the Math BA with IB experience would *usually* win out IMO (at an IB school anyway). There's also schools where this is not the case though.
Re: What's more valuable...
Content knowledge and your knack of explaining clearly; Here's a thought experiment, with the best and worst-case scenarios depending on the perspective: picture yourself teaching a higher-level math class. You're standing in front of a group of gifted students with strong mental math abilities, individuals who have spent years in enrichment classes. It won't go well if you consistently make mistakes and then present them with challenging tests, expecting excellent results.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you must explain concepts clearly for students who believe they can handle rigorous courses with the guidance of their teacher's expertise.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you must explain concepts clearly for students who believe they can handle rigorous courses with the guidance of their teacher's expertise.
Response
Of the two you inquired about, and all other factors being equal or removed (rarely are the other factors equal), Content is more critical than Curriculum. ISs can teach/train curriculum, and as curriculum evolves over time there is typically some degree of curriculum training that happens regardless of how cued or knowledgeable an IT is. An IS cant make you a scientist, mathematician, artist, dancer, musician, etc. if you are not already in possession of those KSAs. The sending side of the classroom isnt the place to develop those. ITs and ISs have weaknesses and strengths and its a matter of recruiting an ITs strengths that fulfill the ISs weaknesses. It may be that an ISs science department has the upper secondary core courses of biology, chemistry, and physics covered and well staffed and what they need is an IT who can teach to 11 and 12 year olds that is both engaging and experiential, (which really comes down to 'fit') and having a well developed understanding of the curriculums scope, sequence, alignment, etc. as well as advanced content knowledge is less crucial. Kids are pretty good at susing out an IT who lacks competence since its often reflected in their confidence. They cant answer questions, they stumble over vocabulary and their lessons are little more than page turners who follow the text.
Re: What's more valuable...
It's kind of a difficult answer (at first, I thought you were asking which was more important, strong curriculum knowledge or strong teaching, which is a whole other argument.)
I think content just edges it. Knowing your subject in a much wider way than the focussed elements of IB, IGCSE etc, allows you to provide a much wider context to the topic. For example, in my Y10 History class the other week we were looking at how Hitler in particular was able to manipulate public opinion to gain support for the Nazis - this actually developed into an interesting discussion about Machiavellian politics. In addition, to teach about the rise of Hitler you need to at least be aware of what was happening in Russia after 1917 (even if you don't actually teach that bit of the course.)
When I've picked up a new subject, I have just been a 'curriculum' teacher and had to follow the syllabus point - and hated it. I found it boring, so I can't imagine what the kids would have felt!
I think content just edges it. Knowing your subject in a much wider way than the focussed elements of IB, IGCSE etc, allows you to provide a much wider context to the topic. For example, in my Y10 History class the other week we were looking at how Hitler in particular was able to manipulate public opinion to gain support for the Nazis - this actually developed into an interesting discussion about Machiavellian politics. In addition, to teach about the rise of Hitler you need to at least be aware of what was happening in Russia after 1917 (even if you don't actually teach that bit of the course.)
When I've picked up a new subject, I have just been a 'curriculum' teacher and had to follow the syllabus point - and hated it. I found it boring, so I can't imagine what the kids would have felt!