Master Teachers and Subject Degrees
Yesterday, Indiana changed their certification rule for teachers. This rule states that teachers must have a degree in their subject area, not in education, in order to teach.
I’m unsure how I feel about this. After I graduate from grad school in May (!!!) I will have two degrees in my subject area – the first, from my undergrad, in English Literature with a specialization in Creative Writing and the second, from my grad school, in English Studies. I did this on purpose. Before undergrad started, I knew I wanted to be a teacher, but I really wanted a degree in English just in case I decided to do something different, and I chose my school accordingly. I also felt that a degree in English would help me be a better English teacher. I’d know more about literature and writing and would come up with some great ideas for teaching the subject in the classroom. I did the same with my graduate program. I chose it based on the ability to have a degree in English while still teaching full time and having classes in which I could talk about my job, but could also talk about English.
Honestly, having my degree in English has helped me more than I probably know, but I was fortunate to also have really, really good education classes for my certification, so I’m not sure which helped me more. They probably both work together in my brain – which is sort of the idea, right – but I wonder what would have happened if my education classes were totally useless or were just there for people who wanted certification and, therefore, not taken too seriously.
Several other bloggers on this site graduated with me from undergrad, and they can probably attest to this. We all graduated really knowledgeable about English and education, but separately. Since the degrees (or, rather, the degree and the certification) were totally separate, it was like we were constantly learning lofty English literature and theory and then practical education theory and the two didn’t necessarily ever congeal for us. The two programs were fantastic alone, but together, there was a bit of a disconnect. Those of us who could find some way to reconcile the two went on to become successful in the teaching field, but there were more than a few for whom the frustration of separate programs was too great and they gave up. There were many of us who took courses in literature that we would never teach, but had to take them because of degree-related requirements or time constraints (or because they were fun, which was the case for me) but then we spent a great deal of our own time reading and coming up with materials that other teachers had ready because their English degrees focused more on practical literature that they would most likely be teaching.
Part of the idea behind this law in Indiana, at least from what I heard on NPR, is to make it easier for people in the business, engineering, science, or math professions to become teachers later on in life. However, part of it seems to be about having higher standards for teachers. With all of the focus and money and time spent on professional development for teachers, I wonder why the focus shouldn’t be on education programs in undergrad. It seems that much of what we are being taught during professional development could be taught in undergrad classrooms. Also, I wonder if the education and subject-area degree programs will still work together in many universities to provide well-educated and well-rounded teachers.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against this policy at all. I appreciate every day that I have almost two degrees in English. I find I’m better equipped to recall information about literature and come up with exciting assignments and make important connections than I would be otherwise. I’m just not sure that any government can dictate what process is better for which teacher candidates.
What do you think? What is your degree in? Do you think you would be better or worse equipped to teach if your degree was in education?
Great post, Ashley. I think this is a very interesting move for Indiana. As you know, I just started taking classes for a master of science in education with a history concentration and will hopefully teach history to high school students. As someone who did not study history as an undergrad, at first I was overwhelmed by Illinois’ certification requirements for history alone (which will extend my program by another year). But I understand that in order to teach history, I need to become an expert in that area.
Also, as you had mentioned from your background, I think that education classes are important as well, and hopefully Indiana won’t forget that and will include that in their program. You can become an expert in a subject area which you will teach, but how will you possibly know how to teach effectively without learning how to teach that subject?
I graduated with my bachelor’s in English with an emphasis in education and wouldn’t have had it any other way. The emphasis means that there’s an education track in the English department (like a creative writing, literature, or linguistics track) where English ed students take particular courses to satisfy the track’s requirements in addition to typical English courses. It also means that there are specifically English education professors in my department — they teach both English and education courses that satisfy English and licensure requirements. I think the way my university runs these education/licensure programs is really effective because you get both the methodology/pedagogy instruction and the content instruction, and you get it from teachers who are well versed in both sides of that degree program.
As I mentioned on twitter, I am not in any way an expert on the topic of education but I would like to share my experiences and thoughts. Here in Florida all you need to teach (for a certain amount of time, not indefinitely) is a Bachelor’s degree (does not have to be in education OR the subject you are teaching, although you do have to pass a test of proficiency). In my experience, these standards disproportionately hurt lower performing students. The teachers with more advanced degrees (though my high school was one of the best in the area and we had very few teachers with advanced degrees) teach the more advanced classes (AP, Honors, etc) and those teaching in subjects they do not have degrees in are teaching the “average” classes. Our school system is consistently one of the lowest in the country and I have no doubt this is part of the reason.
A new law is on the verge of passing our state legislature to base teacher pay solely on student performance (more information here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/teachers-fight-back.html) so I’m not sure how the state expects to find people willing to get advanced degrees if there is no benefit to having one in the system.
Great post Ashley! I definitely prefer our path as English Literature BAs first, Education certification second. I feel that it does put more emphasis on being professional. A lot of teaching is practical and based on experiences. I’m not saying you can’t learn techniques, but for many teachers you really either naturally have what it takes, or you don’t. I prefer having deeper background knowledge of my subject that I can apply to the things I come up with to get that knowledge across. Making teachers major in their subject areas, I think, will make them more deeply engaged in their subject, and perhaps more enthusiastic. I always think students learn best from those that know and appreciate the literature more. Thanks for sharing this information – it will be interesting to see what kinds of effects this decision has.