econteacher

You had posted on the Education board about the Master of Arts in Teaching, and it seems from this thread that you decided to focus on the content master's in history. If you are planning to remain as a classroom teacher I would strongly urge you to find a history MA program that is affordable. Prestige may matter a bit more if you are planning on a career in academia, and will give you the valuable research skills to eventually get a PhD. But from this post and the ones on the Education board, it seems that you're more looking for intellectual growth and also the salary scale/lane changes that come in school districts as you accumulate more credits. For those purposes, your local state school is more than adequate. Very often, school districts partner with local universities for reduced cost cohort programs, so once you get a teaching job you may want to look into one of those. As someone who watched my colleagues pursue content degrees at prestigious and expensive schools (I taught in the Baltimore region, so Johns Hopkins was a popular option) those teachers accumulated a large amount of debt for a relatively minor salary lane change. While that could potentially be worth it (I am sure that their classes and instructors were top notch, and I am not trying to discount the importance of intellectual endeavors!), a place like NYU or Columbia certainly comes with some very real costs to incur in the form of loans, and for a school teacher I really wonder if the expense is worth it. Especially in a field like education where salaries at their best grow very slowly, and at worst are frozen.

Can you describe a little more what it is you want? Are you looking for a Ph.D? Ed.D? What sub-field in education (higher ed? Curriculum and instruction? School leadership? Assessment/educational measurement?). I think a lot of the advice will be dependent on the path you want to take, and what your dreams really are. If you can articulate those a little more, it may help clarify some of the advice you get.

Generally, an MAT is a degree designed for people making a transition into teaching from another discipline or major. For example, I was a political science and economics double major who in my junior year decided I wanted to be a teacher. An MAT made sense for me because, as you said, it is centered around basic pedagogy and (should) get you certified. Since you have your undergraduate degree in secondary ed, an MAT most likely does very little for you. You're correct that you would be much better off either getting a content Master's or some sort of education degree like in curriculum/instruction or even admin if that is a path you are interested in. When you get a job at your school, you may want to look and see if they offer cohort programs or tuition reimbursement. The district I taught in had an agreement with a local university for cheaper tuition for those interested in getting a Master's in School Leadership, for example. So it may behoove you to wait and see what offerings are available. And if you're just graduating (which your post suggests is the case), you may not 100% know what path you'll take in education.

Thank you for this! I honestly would have thought the process would be a little more perfunctory. Given that they (in theory) allow up to 40 credits, that seems like quite the audit task. But I suppose universities aren't in the business of giving away free classes, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Hi all. So I'm in the early (very early) stages of thinking about Ed.D/Ph.D programs, and am looking for an answer on transfer credits for doctoral programs. The impetus for this question came from browsing the Curriculum and Teaching Ed.D at Teachers College. It's a 90 point program, and a maximum of 40 can be transferred from graduate study at another institution (link to the details here). Other programs I've looked at are similar, and use similar verbiage. I have a Master of Arts in Teaching, so I have already earned close to the maximum number of credits to transfer. I am curious if anyone has experience, whether it is with TC in particular or doctoral programs in general, with transferring grad credit. Are institutions pretty relaxed about it, accepting most/all of the credit? Is it a pretty detailed audit that they act stingy with? Obviously, it's impossible to know for sure, but I just want to have some sense of whether I'd be looking at a manageable 50 or 60 credits of work if institutions are generous, or a more daunting course load of closer to 90 credits if they are stingy. Thank you all!

The most important part is certification; you could, in theory, just take the minimum number of classes to be certified in PE, and try to get a job that way without a degree in the subject. However, anecdotally becoming a PE teacher is somewhat challenging, just because many schools only have anywhere from 1-3 people on staff doing it. It's not like the English department which at a big school like where I taught had 10 people. So to be a competitive candidate it would seem to me that you would want a degree in the field. I only suggested a Master's because you already have an undergrad degree, and going back to get another Bachelor's seems silly. I suppose you could find a master's program in physical education that includes no certification, but that would be an unusual route to take. But yes, in theory you could get a master's in PE, then come back to the states and try to find a program that just gives you the required courses for certification (which would include a student teaching component). As mentioned, however, that's really a state-by-state situation. And it would be more expensive that way. Most of the time certification programs are bundled with the Master's degree, so that the classes you take to get your master's also count toward certification. I'm not sure how that would apply to your situation, doubly so given that your credits for the master's would be coming from another country. My recommendation would be to pick a few states you may want to work in, and look at the requirements for PE certification. Perhaps you could contact those schools and ask about how it would work? They may be able to provide a little clarity. You can also try talking to state certification offices (i.e. contacting the Washington Department of Education or the Maryland State Department of Education) but in my experience those offices are generally swamped and may not get back to you. Again, this is a state-by-state issue. But in my experience there's really no such as a "regular" teaching certificate. You are generally given a certificate in a specific grade level and/or subject. For example, I was certified as 7-12 Social Studies. That meant I was allowed to teach social studies in any school from grades 7-12. In the state I used to work in, PE teachers receive a K-12 Physical Education certificate. This meant that you could teach PE and health in any school, from kindergarten all the way through high school. It is often (although not always) the case that PE teachers have certificates that span the entire grade span. So be prepared that you may be teaching 4th graders how to dribble a basketball.

Hi. Former teacher here. I was social studies, so while I can't give you specifics on phys ed programs, I can speak more broadly about certification and such. If you're looking to teach public school in the United States, you will need to get a physical education certification. Certificates are given on a state-by-state basis; there is no "national teaching certificate." Most states do accept other state's certificates (with a bit of paperwork), but the requirements vary according to the state. It may be worth checking out the websites of a couple states just to see what the requirements are in places you may want to teach. For example, here's the link to information for potential teachers in Washington state (which I chose since you did undergrad in that state): http://pathway.pesb.wa.gov/future-educators You are correct that in most places, teachers eventually have to go and get a Master's. However, your big challenge is that you will need to be certified; the Master's won't help. Basically, you could go and get an online Master's degree in physical education, but without certification you can't get a job in a public school. You will need to find a Master's program that has certification. And that leads us to what is going to be your major dilemma: in order to get certified, you have to have classroom time and do student teaching. You won't be able to do that strictly online, and at some point you're going to have to go into a classroom and do an internship as a teacher in order to get certified. Overall, if your goal is to teach physical education at a public school in the United States, it will be difficult if not impossible to do that entirely online. At some point, almost every certification program is going to require you to do a year as a student teacher.

Someone in the applications forum posted something similar (looking for MAT at Stanford). I have some similar advice here. As always, YMMV. As background: I worked as a high school teacher (social studies) for six years, and was a department chair (so I'm the one who would be making the decision to hire you.) I also worked in a state office of curriculum and assessment for 2 years. I graduated with a content degree undergrad and then went and got an accelerated Master's (MAT) in one year to get certified. I looked into more "prestigious" schools in my area (Johns Hopkins, Loyola) but ultimately went to the more affordable state school. Best decision of my life, and here's why. Now, it is most likely the case that if you go to a place like Harvard or Penn that you will have some top notch instructors. But, never forget that for a degree like an MAT the most important thing is not the classes you take but your field placement and student teaching experience. Indeed, in the interview with the department chair (and I was one) they are likely not going to give one thought to your resume and the "name." The only thing that is going to matter are these three things: The recommendation from your mentor teacher during student teaching (this is probably most important). Basically, can you control a classroom and teach kids? Your certification credentials (will you have also have a special ed endorsement? ELL? Reading specialist?). If you can tack on some other credential, particularly in a fairly crowded field like English Secondary Ed, you will make yourself much more competitive. Your flexibility and willingness to teach whatever is offered. You may (read: will) be stuck teaching Hamlet to kids who are high school juniors but read at the 4th grade level. The MAT is not a "sit in the classroom and soak up knowledge degree," so you're not going to be spending much time sitting amongst the hallowed oaks of the Vanderbilt campus, pondering great pedagogical truths. The MAT is a "go out there and get dirty" degree. You'll be in a 7th grade classroom until 7pm finishing up tomorrow's lesson plan on trying to teach Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry to kids who don't know what the Great Depression is. Further, because you'll (likely) be working in a public school upon graduation, you will be in a union where the salary is the same whether you graduated top of your class at Harvard or are coming out with a bachelor's in education from the local party school; unlike the private sector or industry, there's no wage premium for the name on the diploma. Just anecdotally, I had several friends start working at my school who all got MATs from Johns Hopkins for a zillion dollars. My loans were paid off fairly quickly, so I could spend my summers traveling on teacher grants and scholarships; they spent their summer teaching summer school to pay their loans. I am not in any way downplaying the importance of a challenging program, but I think the MAT is somewhat different than an M.Ed or something in that the MAT is designed to get you ready for the classroom, not research. And in my experience, an expensive tuition bill is not worth it given the ultimate outcome. I stress again that YMMV, and if you get full funding to Stanford than why not. But if a (for lack of a better word) "fancy" school is going to cost a great deal of money, I would seriously think about what the value added is for those extra years of student loans.

So I worked as a high school teacher (social studies) for six years, and worked in a state office of curriculum and assessment for 2 years. Like you, I graduated with a content degree and then went and got an accelerated Master's (MAT) in one year to get certified. My advice? You really really do not need to go to a (for lack of a better word) "fancy" school like Stanford for a teaching credential. Stanford is awesome and may be your dream school, but unless you're going to get close to a full ride, in my opinion it is not worth it to pay that much for certification. The stone cold reality is that a high school principal may be abstractly drawn to the word "Stanford" on your resume, but in my experience as a former department chair (who you'll ultimately be interviewing with and have the final say in many schools) I only cared about these things: Recommendation from your mentor teacher during student teaching Your certification credentials (will you have also have a special ed endorsement? ELL? Reading specialist?) Your flexibility and willingness to teach whatever is offered. You might be stuck in a below grade level Algebra 1 class where kids can't draw an "x". Possibly at a private school they may be concerned with "names" because parents are paying big bucks and want their kids taught by Stanford grads, but I really don't think the cost is worth it. I considered Johns Hopkins for an MAT, but instead went to the more affordable mid-tier state school down the road and saved thousands and thousands of dollars, and was not at a disadvantage at all in the hiring process. I think the odds are even more in your favor because there is a tremendous shortage of math teachers nationwide. With your math endorsement, you will almost be able to pick your district. And if you look at this website (http://nasdtec.site-ym.com/?InterstateAgreements) it shows you reciprocity agreements with other states. I can tell you from experience that if you were in Maryland, where I used to teach, you could have applied in January to almost any district in the state and with a math certification probably have a contingent contract before you graduate. The demand is that high. Your credentials make you very qualified, and I'd be very surprised if any teacher master's program didn't accept you. But I would seriously do some cost/benefit analysis on going to an expensive school for teacher certification, because based on my 8 years of experience in the field, I'm not sure it's worth the money. Obviously there are lots of factors to consider, and there's certainly something to be said for dream schools, but I did want to throw this information out there. I hope this helps!

Right now, I'm looking at CUNY Grad, Teacher's College, and NYU.

This is incredibly helpful. Thank you so much! My gut was telling me that given my interests lie more in the classroom, it appears that C&I might be more flexible. That's what I was thinking, but your answer really confirms it for me. I will definitely continue looking into both, and ultimately it is going to come down to finding professors who share these interests. My early scans of literature for the schools that are immediately feasible (remember, I'm going to be part time and keep my job, so geography is limited) suggests that, as you might expect, most of the assessment programs lack a lot of classroom analysis, while the curriculum/teaching programs have very little assessment study in them. So I think your advice about finding the program that provides flexibility and free time to dabble in other fields will be the key.

Agreed 100%! When I was in state office, we did a number of studies trying to analyze how social studies teachers were taught/trained in their certification programs. Not a single school in the state required teachers to take any sort of statistics/measurement/assessment class. Given the proliferation of PARCC scores and everything else, this seems borderline negligent. And if you look at my other thread seeking guidance about which fork to take, assessment or curriculum, I think you'll see that I'm hoping to plug that gap of adequate faculty to teach the topic

Thank you! I'm very very fortunate. I'm trying to keep my organization and such fairly anonymous, but I'll just say that we are a nonprofit institution that values research. Indeed, many employees come here explicitly to publish and do research prior to pursuing PhD level work at R1 universities. My division is in the education office, and while that's not necessarily how things normally work in my division, the option is available to me. In fact, my boss is actually a professor at an institution, and would actually be a potential professor of interest for me if I chose his school, or at least could give me a real good letter of rec if I go elsewhere (that decision sort of depends which "fork in the road" I take, curriculum or assessment). One of the reasons I chose to move and take this new position is because of this intellectual environment.

I agree that policy makers don't necessarily need K12 experience, as long as they are not making classroom level decisions. Analyses of school funding and such can be done by wonks; I'm talking more about curricular decisions (should we have integrated standards?) or assessment decisions (should high stakes assessments be done exclusively on computers?). You bring up a great point with education inequality. That's clearly a macro question, and I completely agree that policy makers and economists can develop macro solutions to solve or mitigate the effects of those problems. And I would encourage any and all study into those issues. However, often times those macro prescriptions are slow to come by. In the interim, there are micro, classroom level policies which can be implemented to help students of color on a daily basis, and those policies/studies (I would argue) really need to be crafted by people who know what life is like in the trenches. (I really hope I don't come across as anti-policymaker. Far from it. I'm an economist by training and believe that policy models are vital to understanding education. Analysis of huge statistical data sets by wonks is vital, important work that does not require one to have taught 8th grade to understand what's happening.) As for assessments not being understood by parents and such...I agree. And I don't expect parents to know point biserial values or to compute the theta or anything like that. But if classroom level decisions are being made by members of the state board or principals, then they had better know some of the basics of test construction, item development, etc, so that they can use the tool effectively.

So I guess since we're all academics (or aspiring academics) I need to practice being more precise with my words :-) Thank you for posting this, so that it allows me to clarify a little. When I talk about needing teaching experience and policy decisions, I was referring more to curriculum/assessment/classroom policy, and not necessarily the topics you were talking about. I should have been more clear. To give an example, there was a great article in the most recent American Economic Review by some economists looking at charter school takeovers in New Orleans and Boston, and comparing outcomes to the public school system. It's a really interesting article, in part because it's a natural experiment in a complete charter school takeover rather than a lottery situation. That's always been one of the trickiest things in the charter school research, is that having a lottery system means that schools are "skimming" the students with motivated parents (you have to show initiative to enter the lottery, so the kids who are eligible have built in academic advantages right from the start), so you can't make an apples-apples comparison with public schools. But this article found a neat way around that problem. (Basically, the entire New Orleans school system was taken over after Katrina, so kids were simply grandfathered into new charter schools that took over their old public school.) It was eye opening because I'm a charter school skeptic, having seen them at both a teacher level and at a state level in central office. In my fairly extensive dealings with them I think they're deeply, deeply flawed.This study fairly conclusively showed that the charter school takeover had a profound positive effect on student performance. It was very impressive, especially to a skeptic like me. Now, this study was purely econometric in nature; lots of regression, complex models, etc. And I think it showed fairly convincingly that the charter takeover improved student learning. That's a big deal. And that's an example of where number crunching/statistics is very useful. However (and the authors, to their credit, acknowledge this) nothing in that paper explains why the charter is successful. This is where someone with classroom, K12 experience would be useful in researching what exactly made the charter effective. Was it curricular decisions? Was it a discipline approach? More homework? Less? Younger teachers? The study doesn't say. And this is where a K12 researcher, with K12 experience, would be useful and vital. tl;dr: Statisticians/ed policy wonks do the macro studies and tell us where to focus the lens, K12/teaching experienced researchers zoom in with the lens. Did I explain that okay?