Teacher Wannabes, Usetabes, and Ares: Questions, please.

Lash--

Good question--but a very large question. At one time or another I've been paid to teach at all levels between nursery school and college sophomores and juniors. I gather from your question about community college that you're interested in "mature" students.

A good teacher needs a lot of patience and a good bit of razzle-dazzle showmanship, especially with the older-teens/young adult group. This age level may or may not be fascinated with the subject matter. Odds are that they are not going to study simply to please you (or to please their tuition paying parents).

You should love your subject matter and be endlessly fascinated by all ramifications of your subject matter. My field is English. I'm a prig and a prude and and and old fashioned matron--but if I were teaching English Lit at the junior high, high school or college level I'd be damn sure I knew something about rap.

I wish I could remember the source of this quote. A faculty member in a very pleasant academic novel compares teaching some of her classes as "lifting an elephant".

Some classes through a fortunate series of chemical reactions between students and faculty and equally importantly among students are delights. You walk down the hall to your office (after having dealt with 25 minutes of post-class discussion) buoyed by the energy the kids have given you.

Other classes--sometimes the same class on another day--require lifting an elephant without a block and tackle.

You must be prepared for them both.

Repeat: You must know your subject matter.

New Thought: You must get as much experience as possible with the age group you plan to work with. These days I'd recommend to anyone who plans to work with the 17+ students that they do some volunteer work in the inner city. This may not be the group you plan to teach, but they are a group that is more honest about their needs and resentments than middle class suburban kids are.

Enough windy theory. Do you have specific questions?

That was fabulous, Noddy, thanks!

I've been poking around the web for resources, and looking for some instructive reading material for the holidays--teaching techniques. You know, method.

After poking around a bit, it seems colleges are increasingly interested in teacher applicants who can show an ability to implement technology in to their curriculum. (Put together a distance learning class in their subject.) I'm also finding they like a History teacher to cross-reference maybe psychology, or similar cross-discipline focus.

I'm starting a portfolio of strengths in these and other aspects of teaching my professors use. My Western Civ instructor was fabulous. He had a lot of energy--hopped on and off stage--flipped through 20 maps and rarely talked about the text we were responsible for from the book. He was adding layers to it with the lectures--and also had three small books that coincided with the text. On top of this, we were studying about 50 cities/ rivers/ land areas from different eras.

It seemed like quite a bit of information--but the result was so thorough, I thought. The down side is that he lost more than half of the class.

I guess it's hard to find a comfortable threshhold of tasking your class--and going too far for them.

Would you consider yourself a demanding teacher--or do you sometimes think you should be more demanding? Are you comfortable with what you ask of your students? Have you ever had a really high failure ratio? If so, how did you feel about it?

<blah blah blah...so many questions...>

<wink>

Every decent teacher would hope that every single student would be filled with an abiding love of the subject matter--and inspired to pursue that subject matter to the end of time.

Practically speaking, some will be inspired. The bulk of the group will have accumulated enough facts pass, even though their grip of the subject matter may be tenuous.

A bluebook gleaning I still remember--after more than 40 years:

"Hamlet and Laertes were both courtesans. Laertes was more of a courtesan than Hamlet."

Grade--based on the entire essay question--was "C". The kid had absorbed that Shakespeare had a social order--and that the hero was less adept in the politics of the Danish court than was his prospective brother-in-law.

Your hunch that colleges appreciate showmanship beefed up with the lastest bells and whistles is undoubtedly valid.



Unfortunately, one of the Facts of Life is that you will lose some of the class--and the rate of loss is related to the selectivity of the institution where you are teaching.

Some students feel that just paying tuition and showing up for class is enough--actually comprehending and digesting the material is an imposition.

You make do with what you get.

I was born the peak year of the post-war baby boom and have always been on the left. We were the people who set out to improve education from the top down by destroying the idea of the education major and replacing it with people who were versed in their subject -- history or English or math -- and not in methods classes on how to teach history, blah blah blah.

I strongly urge you to be as qualified as you can be.

We were also the folks who tried to fight the reality that from the time we earned our BAs in 1969 until the year 2000, that very few new college profs would be needed by earning two masters degrees in complementary fields.

What is a complement to history? English is one. Psychology, as you have suggested, is another but English is actually better. Why? Because psych is another social science. A foreign language is even better than English, because historians tend to specialize and actually need at least reading knowledge of a foreign language. Science is another good complement, not only because technology and invention make for societal changes and are the forge of history but because there is often a need for a science teacher. Science teachers are few and far between.

I know you might think it natural to concentrate on two social sciences -- and economics and political science and archaeology complement history very well -- but really should be considered only if you have your heart set on university level teaching.
--------------------

Is it hard to get a job teaching in a junior college? Is the Pope Polish?

Two years later:

I'm waging an internal war.

I WANT to teach at a Junior/community/vocational school--because I'm free to challenge students on their "givens" and introduce authors (and points of view) they may have avoided. Plus, the "college" environment absolutely feeds my soul.

I WANT to teach Middle school to catch them before someone wastes their magic. It's sort of Peace Corps work, but I think it's the most useful for inculcating a love for Literature and poetry. If they get a sense of empowerment at this age-- it can make all the difference. This is the prime age for teaching, to me.

I WANT to teach the so-called LD/, E/BD kids, because their lives (generally, from my vantage point) are ****, and I want them to have an advocate. I just know this will burn me out emotionally, and I don't really have any emotional strength to burn off right now.

I almost feel obligated to do the last two.

How do people (former and current teachers) make these decisions with resolve and confidence?

I think you should find a good alternative middle school and teach there.

The elements you speak of as being positive for college-level can be very true at the middle school level, depending on the school. My 4th-6th grade teacher (same teacher for three grades) wore his "Question Authority" shirt fairly often. I was challenged on my givens starting in first grade or so, and introduced to a wide variety of points of view.

I completely understand what you mean about LD and E/BD kids, as there is a great deal of overlap between deafness and these other disabilities. It was one of the hardest things for me in deciding whether to become a teacher. It was just so incredibly draining to deal with a classroom of 10 kids, of which 2 were "normal deaf" (just deaf, no other disabilities), and all the others were some sort of alphabet stew. I knew it was good work, but it was crazy-making work.

I'm focusing now on early intervention -- the birth to 5 range -- which is much more satisfying in terms of prevention rather than dealing with unfortunate outcomes. (For example, many learning disabilities are directly attributable to inadequate language exposure in that age range.)

My "Question Authority" teacher is now teaching 8th graders, and he absolutely loves it. I see certain similarities between the two of you.

What subject would you want to teach? English?

Lit, comp, light grammar,... I'd like to be able to squeeze poetry and exposition in there somewhere. I'm minoring in History--LOVE to be able to teach a Western Civ or just off the beaten path US/Georgia history.

I'm just afraid teaching in younger grades will have me hoisted by the PTA on a regular basis.

The first time a child tells me the answer to a question is because God said... I can see it now. No matter how tactfully the response is worded, ... I would be hamstrung.

Still. I know I'll look into what you've said.

...sort of edit to my previous post.

I have really been amazed at how often religion comes up in the classroom. I don't want to seem against it by any means, but it has been crammed up the ass of every classroom I've been in, except math, as evidence of a faulty opinion. Simply pointing to opposing facts is akin to defaming God to more people than you could imagine. History, English comp, Lit, science, psychology, sociology.... In this area of the country, you can really get into serious trouble questioning the "absolutes".

I've never shied away from saying what I feel should be said. Just at least offering the alternative view. And, I've caught hell for it. Never minded catching hell, but at this point in my life, I need stability and less aggro. I'd have to choose between keeping my mouth shut or being in a constant state of concern for my job. I don't know which would be worse.

Excuse that. Mini rant--over. Not anti-religion. Sometimes I reread my own stuff, and it seems I am. It has just permeated my college career so far.

Move to Minneapolis!

Of course I'm not sure what things are like now, but I just can't imagine any of that being true at the alternative schools I went to there. That is definitely why I emphasized "good alternative school" though, they must exist everywhere, and they get a different breed of principals, teachers, parents, and of course kids.

I can see how that (the experiences you just related) would be way tough, though.

It did seem to work for Mary Tyler Moore...



CUE SOUNDTRACK!!!

Hmmm. All I can offer is something a young teacher who has lower level kids at a senior high school said: that the crazy kids interfere with the kids who have disabilities but who want to learn.

It makes me sad that the teacher you cite refers to kids as crazy.

I tutored a kid Friday--but before I worked with him, I observed him in class. He was always being called down, twisting, fidgeting, not paying attention... When I worked with him, I could tell he knew the material well. And, he stayed focused for the entire two hours. His mind raced so quickly that he misread the problems. He was so impulsive and "mind-racy" that he got wrong what he knew.

He is considered one of the "crazy" ones. He just needs someone to care enough about him to deal with his barrier. Like the rest of the kids with similar problems.

But, yes. He did distract other children. He just wishes he didn't have his barrier. He wants to learn, too.

Well, it doesn't make me sad. Those particular kids are the ones who come up with, "you're only a teacher. If you were smart, you would be doing a real job. So, I don't have to listen to you."

They may qualify as "smart asses," but that isn't a crazy statement. Unfortunately.

When their behavior becomes abusive toward their fellow classmates, they're crazy. Perhaps, the proper word is insane -- a legal, not a medical, condition in which the sufferer is unable to distinguish right from wrong.

We're talking about kids, right?

There is a reason that the courts treat juveniles differently from adults.

I'm not smart because if I was I would be doing something else???????
Um, ok lets let all the stupid people teach.
I teach because I want to, not because I have no other options. I guess if people who make these comments had real intelligence, they would see how stupid they realy are.
As for teaching in a community college, you better have 30+ over your masters and be very politically connected.

I find it useful to spend some portion of the very first class explaining why I think the subject is worth learning... not in a "defensive" way, but more in a tone of general interest. I try to give reasons beyond simply "learning _____ for it's own sake," although that can certainly be the case as well. I try to introduce different reasons why I think the subject is important, in the hope that students will either agree with me and warm to the class early on, or disagree with me and be inspired to discuss their point of view--anything to get the students engaged with the subject itself.

<me>