As everyone should know by now, teacher training in Ontario
will be increased to two years starting in September 2015. This will cut the
number of new teachers who graduate every year in half and increase the length
of time it takes them to complete a degree in Ontario. “The move is aimed at
curbing the growing glut of would-be teachers who cannot find work in their
field – not only in Ontario, but in several other regions of the country. It is
also designed to keep Ontario-trained teachers competitive with their
counterparts in other provinces and countries, who follow longer courses of
study,” The Globe and Mail (full article attached). It estimated that about
one-third of all teaching graduates cannot find work, even supply work. Each
year about 9000 students enroll in a teaching program and with this change each
cohort will contain only 4,500. It has been argued by education professionals that
the current eight month training is too crammed. Jane Gaskell, former dean at
the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto,
called teacher training “crammed” into the eight months in a university year,
and noted that hairdressers get more training — 10 months, The Toronto Star Article(full article attached).
Increase the length of training to decrease the number of students? How about qualifications and education? 8 month is a joke. Of course it should be increased. Isn’t it important that people who can influence a sensitive child’s psychology get a proper training? We are talking about children here. They believe everything we tell them and can be easily traumatised. So how is teacher different from the doctor or engineer, or software developer?
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about the move to a two-year program. While I absolutely believe that teachers need more training, two years doesn't mean that the extra year will be quality training. I learned a lot during my year of Teacher's College, but what you learn really depends on where you went. I had friends at other universities who graduated and were not prepared at all to teach, whereas I had friends from other schools who were far better prepared than I was...even though we were all at school for the same amount of time. Quantity does not mean quality.
ReplyDeleteI believe teachers need more training than 8 months, but will the 2 year program add substance to the program, or will it draw out what it currently crams in? I don't think increasing the length of the teaching program will decrease the growing number of teachers who cannot find work. If someone wants to be a teacher, the length of the program will not change that. Also, prospective teachers can take the 1 year teaching program in the USA (unless that is changing too).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Candice's comment about quantity does not mean quality. Maybe what is really needed is an overhaul of the entire teaching program. Testing to ensure that all graduating teachers meet minimum standards to teach core subjects.
The most valuable part of teacher training was the placements. That was where you really got to practice and see what worked and what didn't. I think the whole program, whether two years or one should be 90% placements. At least at the primary junior level the course work was not very helpful at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Candice. Quantity does mean quality. The quality of education should be the main focus, and much of what I learned in my teachers college courses was not beneficial to my future as a teacher, and much of what I needed to know going into the teaching profession I didn't learn. The universities need to come to a consensus as to which courses teachers college students need to take, and become standard across the board.
ReplyDeleteAndrena, you are correct. The program needs an overhaul of the one year program before they can say that it is not enough (or not good enough) training. I was going through to be a high school math and science teacher and was enrolled in a mandatory music course where I learned how to make guitars out of a Kleenex box, learned to play the bongos and recorder, and learned how to read music. One hundred percent not needed for my future as a math and science teacher. As well, I was enrolled in a physics teachable class which should have been beneficial to my future and rather than learning about teaching physics I learned about physics concepts that I already knew since I have an undergrad degree in it. Also quite pointless. I think the focus needs to be on teaching your subjects, not on the subjects themselves, and teaching us the ability to see the material from a teacher perspective - for example, what are common misconceptions and what are common mistakes.
There needs to be a revamp of the training rather than extending it. Once this is done, if it still doesn't seem to be training teachers properly then the extension should be considered. Eliminate the unnecessary training and input the necessary training such as classroom management, learning to teach specific subjects, curriculum studies, available resources for specific subjects, teaching proper procedure for labs for science teachers, etc, rather than training a science teacher to play a recorder and sing.
I think that the move to a two year program is definitely a move in the right direction, but as many have said there needs to be a complete overhaul of the system at the same time.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing I think a lot more of the program should focus on child psychology and helping students with special education. We are responsible for these students during their formative years and most teachers need more of a basis in how what we're doing affects student development, not just their learning. Teachers also need a better grounding in special education. Many teachers that I have interacted with struggle with accommodating students not through lack of desire to do so, but because of a lack in real knowledge in how to do so.
I also have to say that I both agree and disagree with you Jordynne on the need to eliminate unnecessary training. I agree that a streamlined program is going to help get teachers the information they need without wasting time. I completely disagree that the courses should focus on teaching your subjects not on the subjects themselves. Absolutely teaching the subjects needs to be a priority, it is after-all why we are taking the program at all, but I think ensuring that teachers have an understanding of important concepts in their chosen subjects is important as well. I have encountered too many teachers (both as a student and as a teacher) who do not understand something well enough to teach it. While it is great that you knew already about the physics concepts being covered others may not remember all of those concepts, or may understand the complexity of it extremely well, while struggling to explain it at a level high school students understand (both extremes I have encountered as a student, and both made for extremely frustrating lessons for all concerned). Perhaps the solution to this issue would be to allow teacher candidates to take a test that would allow them to forgo a particular course if they could prove they new all the material already.
One concern I do have about the two year program is the increased cost an additional year of school means, and for some people that additional cost means they cannot afford to take the program at all. Not only does it require two years tuition instead of one, but it requires an additional year of limited paying work, and likely additional housing or commuting costs for the second year as well. Sadly, I do not have the solution to this problem, aside from increasing the number and value of bursaries for prospective teachers.