.

hey @3TrueFans , here is a serious question.

In the past I have asked about becoming a teacher in my professional field, in which I have a Master's Degree. The response has been "teacher education isn't about the technical field, it is about how to work with children, the brain, etc." If that is the case, and it is not subject related, why does each subject have it's own endorsement? Wouldn't professional experience in a field count and you would only need the basic pedagogical instruction?
Have you considered community college?
It will depend on how many credits you have (my field it's 18 graduate level credits, which isn't uncommon for most specifically focused Master's Degrees), but that can open up the option there if you are willing to teach college aged students.
 
Assuming that courses equal competencies is quite flawed. Most people I know learn most of their competencies on the job. Interestingly, most people I know who hire recent college graduates are looking for people skills and critical thinking ability. And they are disturbed by how many grads lack them.

Assuming the exams (courses, ACT/SAT, boards) equal competencies is also quite flawed. The fact that you can teach to the tests shows that it is mostly about short term memory of content that is being assessed. Have you ever seen someone study for their medical boards? That is a process about as far from what I want my medical doctor doing as possible.

Ultimately, the market is the final arbiter on who is competent, unless some sort of protectionism prevents getting rid of employees who can't hold their weight.
 
hey @3TrueFans , here is a serious question.

In the past I have asked about becoming a teacher in my professional field, in which I have a Master's Degree. The response has been "teacher education isn't about the technical field, it is about how to work with children, the brain, etc." If that is the case, and it is not subject related, why does each subject have it's own endorsement? Wouldn't professional experience in a field count and you would only need the basic pedagogical instruction?

I mean, having experience in a field is different than knowing how to teach it, and teaching each area is different.

I would imagine it is a different skill to teach history, for example, than to be able to walk students through calculus.
 
do you think experienced teachers should be able to get that new certification while teaching or do you think they should have to go back to school for a "related yet different" area?

idk. i'm not talking about her specifically. and even then, telling people they better get all those certifications when they're 18-23 seems like an odd way to go about it.

in general i think the idea that you need a degree to get your foot in the door for most decent jobs is a bad thing for our workforce (***NOTE - NOT FOR TEACHING**) and i think it's bad that schools require so many certifications for related areas.

Hi,

In most circumstances, you will not have to go back to school full time and pay a ton of money to get your endorsement in another area.. It somewhat depends on how related it is to your current area, but often, you are able to get a temporary endorsement that lasts for a few years while you take the required courses. Where I am at, many teachers have done this by simply taking courses from Iowa State or even some of the local community colleges pretty inexpensively.

I also (anecdotally) got a job pretty easily with a music endorsement. There is a grain of truth in your last bit, though; if you DO have a special ed endorsement, you essentially get your pick of where you want to teach.
 
The same reason you need a license to cut hair or do peoples nails.... Its an economic barrier to protect those already in the field and gives money to the taxing authority.
 
Unless the rules have changed since my wife taught at Waterloo (10 years ago), there is no "K through 3" license - its K through 6. And in Iowa you are allowed to teach +/- 2 grades from your license. If you're talking endorsements, that's a totally different thing. I was never a teacher but was able to get an endorsement to coach football with a two weekend clinic.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: SoapyCy
No, slowed him down enough that you sneak through with some other Physics teacher you didn't like and kids a year or two later got to enjoy his teaching.

What part of this don't you understand? I had a teacher that had a technical degree, but was vastly unprepared for classroom teaching, which perhaps some more training and a more advanced license would've corrected for both him and whomever your hypothetical fake second option that assumes they would've been terrible too.

I usually think you get a bad wrap on here for being a know-it-all expert on everything, but the shoe fits.
 
Unless the rules have changed since my wife taught at Waterloo (10 years ago), there is no "K through 3" license - its K through 6. And in Iowa you are allowed to teach +/- 2 grades from your license. If you're talking endorsements, that's a totally different thing. I was never a teacher but was able to get an endorsement to coach football with a two weekend clinic.
I think the rules have changed, I don't know if any of that is true anymore. The endorsements on your license indicate what you're qualified to teach, there aren't different licenses for different grade levels.
 
I think the rules have changed, I don't know if any of that is true anymore. The endorsements on your license indicate what you're qualified to teach, there aren't different licenses for different grade levels.
Yes, should have said endorsement. When I asked her about this she launched into a 15 minute diatribe and I kinda tuned in and out. :rolleyes:
 
  • Funny
Reactions: NWICY and 3TrueFans
I looked into becoming a teacher because I need a change. Through my research I realized practically every different teacher needs a different license. Teaching license based on grade level, administration license, special ed license, special reading license, special license to work at the AEA, special license to coach, etc.

Are all of these really necessary? Do these licenses only serve the schools who grant them? Why can't you use experience with one to fulfill the others?

You are so stupid its not even funny.
 
I looked into becoming a teacher because I need a change. Through my research I realized practically every different teacher needs a different license. Teaching license based on grade level, administration license, special ed license, special reading license, special license to work at the AEA, special license to coach, etc.

Are all of these really necessary? Do these licenses only serve the schools who grant them? Why can't you use experience with one to fulfill the others?

During my PhD program, I had my moment of doubt (that most go through) and thought about getting a teacher's certificate. I went to one of the academic advisers in the College of Education, provided my transcripts (BS, MA) and asked what it would take to get certified. I was expecting a few classes in teaching methods and philosophy. But no - it was a laundry list of classes that would have taken me 3 years if I went full time. One of the classes was one that I had taught during my master's program, and another was one that I was currently teaching. Both at Big 12 universities. Both to many, many education majors. I said, "well gee, I took those classes years ago, and I am now teaching them, so at least I won't have to take those classes again." And he said no - you have to take them recently and have them on your transcripts. I responded "I will end up taking exams that I wrote" and he said "Great! You will get good grades in those classes."

Color me jaded...
 
I'm not sure how teaching works, but I'm not sure if I'd want a Social Studies licensed teacher moving to teach Special Ed without getting some training or a license to prove he knows what he/she is doing.
THIS is a great point. I agree with you.

But the transition from one field to another shouldn't be like changing from English to Physics. Well, OK I'm exaggerating, but look into it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isufbcurt
I am happy my field has license requirements. In fact I wish they'd make them more restrictive to get rid of all the yahoos at H&R Block, Liberty Tax, Jackson Heweitt, etc.
As someone who can represent clients before the IRS, an overwhelming YES!!!!!

Idiots with three weeks "training" do outrageously over priced work. If you want a well done hamburger, do you go to McDonald's, Sonic, BK,.... or to the local long-time establishment that might seem a bit more expensive but delivers so much more?

Require annual testing and CE for anybody signing off on something as important as an income tax return.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt
And it really slows anyone who needs a license from moving with demand. For instance, North Dakota had a huge influx of people but now they don't have enough of these people. If they also have strict license requirements they are hurting themselves from pulling qualified people from around the country.
North Dakota has had an influx of unemployed, very few with intact families. "Huge" up there might mean 150 in a county.

Have you ever been to ND? It is the most god-forsaken landscape in the USA. Nobody moves there for 7 months of winter, sand blowing 6 week summers or for the lifestyle. Trust me.

My parents grew up 3 miles from the Canadian border in the most NE corner of the state. ND is where the vast majority of my relatives live. My parents honeymooned in Winnipeg because it is closer than Grand Forks. Then they moved to Ames for my fathers second year at the College of Veterinary Medicine.

As usual, you don't know WTF you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matclone

Help Support Us

Become a patron