Rabbi Wallace Greene writes: "sadly the Jewish community still does not value trained limudei kodesh teachers. They would not hire an unlicensed general studies teacher, but it's OK to hire a seminary graduate a year out of high school or a kollel student whose only credential is that he needs a job."
What does "trained" mean in this context? I certainly agree that teachers should be quite knowledgeable regarding their subject matter. In addition, some teaching experience, perhaps in a youth group or camp setting, is quite helpful. Furthermore, mentoring at the hands of a senior teacher can be invaluable. However, use of the term "unlicensed" implies that the key is having a teacher's degree. If so, Rabbi Greene's complaint assumes a strong correlation between getting a teacher's degree and effective teaching. I question the accuracy of that assumption. Let us begin with anecdotal evidence and sevarot before moving on to scientific studies. In my twenty four years as a full time educator, I have not noticed that those with a teacher's degree come significantly more prepared to teach successfully. Those peers of mine who did get such a degree (I did not) have not affirmed that it was important for them to so with the exception of the resultant salary increase. It is much easier to give a good shiur on Humash than to give a good shiur about how to give a good shiur on Humash. Experience in the classroom matters much more than training. Would you rather hire a teacher with two successful years under his or her belt but no teaching degree or someone straight out of a MA program in education? Most limudei kodesh teachers in the Dati Leuumi schools in Israel do have a teacher's degree. Is there any sense that, as a result, education in Israel is much more professional and effective than in American yeshiva high schools? I would be curious to hear the impressions of others in the field regarding these questions.
For those who prefer statistical studies, see the chapter entitled "Most Likely to Succeed" in Malcolm Gladwell's What the Dog Saw. Among other things, he cites the research of Thomas J. Kane (see [
educationnext.org]).
Here is one of Kane's important paragraphs.
<<
The results of our study of New York City public school teachers confirm a simple truth: some teachers are considerably better than others at helping students learn. For example, elementary-school students who have a teacher who performs in the top quartile of all elementary-school teachers learn 33 percent of a standard deviation more (substantially more) in math in a year than students who have a teacher who performs in the bottom quartile. Yet as we embrace this piece of conventional wisdom, we must discard another: the widespread sentiment that there are large differences in effectiveness between traditionally certified teachers and uncertified or alternatively certified teachers. The greatest potential for school districts to improve student achievement seems to rest not in regulating minimum qualifications for new teachers but in selectively retaining those teachers who are most effective during their first years of teaching.
>>
Yitzchak Blau
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2017 08:57AM by mlb.
