It is logical that better education leads to a better economy and, subsequently, a better society. Thus, the preparation of efficient teachers to provide a higher quality of education should be the goal of every nation. In 2012, 34 countries that were part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) sent their high school kids to sit down one morning to take a test. This test, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), is an international test that serves its purpose in comparing the nations’ education every three years. The punctilious results from the 2012 PISA echoed the same sentiment that the NCTQ report did. Among the 34 OECD countries, the United States performed below the PISA average in 2012 in
…show more content…
One of the ways they did that was by having more serious teachers that were “highly educated, well-trained, and carefully chosen. They had enough autonomy to do serious work; that meant they had a better chance of adapting and changing along with their students and the economy” (Ripley 191). Some countries, such as Finland, have such rigorous teacher preparation programs that teachers are usually given complete independence in their classrooms, a feat that is uncommon in America. Of course, that is just a benefit from having high quality teacher education, a reward for the amount of effort put into studying the field. Ripley notes that “getting into a teacher-training program [in Finland] was as prestigious as getting into medical school in the United States. The rigor started in the beginning, where it belonged, not years into a teacher’s career with complex evaluation schemes designed to weed out the worst performers, and destined to demoralize everyone else” (85). This idea of giving teachers one chance to do well, so that they don’t fail later in life is echoed near the end of her book as well. She stresses that one of the flaws of American high schools is that they let kids off easy, when “the real world did not always give second or third chances” and “when things were hard, your math teacher didn’t materialize to give you the answer” (193) Several factors are slowing down American education, and the international perspective on teacher education mirrors the national one. Something needs to be done to improve the rigor of teacher preparation programs in higher education and the best place to start is at its
One of the ways they did that was by having more serious teachers that were “highly educated, well-trained, and carefully chosen. They had enough autonomy to do serious work; that meant they had a better chance of adapting and changing along with their students and the economy” (Ripley 191). Some countries, such as Finland, have such rigorous teacher preparation programs that teachers are usually given complete independence in their classrooms, a feat that is uncommon in America. Of course, that is just a benefit from having high quality teacher education, a reward for the amount of effort put into studying the field. Ripley notes that “getting into a teacher-training program [in Finland] was as prestigious as getting into medical school in the United States. The rigor started in the beginning, where it belonged, not years into a teacher’s career with complex evaluation schemes designed to weed out the worst performers, and destined to demoralize everyone else” (85). This idea of giving teachers one chance to do well, so that they don’t fail later in life is echoed near the end of her book as well. She stresses that one of the flaws of American high schools is that they let kids off easy, when “the real world did not always give second or third chances” and “when things were hard, your math teacher didn’t materialize to give you the answer” (193) Several factors are slowing down American education, and the international perspective on teacher education mirrors the national one. Something needs to be done to improve the rigor of teacher preparation programs in higher education and the best place to start is at its