Perhaps this is a good discussion point at which to ask a couple of nagging questions. I have been perplexed and even bewildered for quite some time. It may even tip the balance for me to enter into the teaching profession, at least in the public school system.
My question stems from my own experience. I have been a substitute teacher, an education technician for Special Ed., and an all round “gopher” for our local public school district for the past 7 years. I have my BA degree in education and human behavior, and am currently grinding through the teacher certification process (yes, those blasted Praxis series teacher qualifying tests). A year ago I completed my teacher internship, and now look forward to a final career as a teacher. See my bio in the course Roster for my brief story.
It seems that while looking through my own chartreuse-colored lens I have come to an unwritten understanding that Special Ed has become the “sacred cow” or “darling” of most public school systems. I’m not in criticism of the necessity of it, since it is a federal mandate of all public schools. And, I’ve understood the need for it with students who have physical and mental disabilities. What I have observed is that it has become a “dumping ground” for many “at risk” students. Students that I would say were lazy, smart-mouthed and a general nuisance in the class. I could give a dissertation of why, in my opinion, this is done, but it would take up too much space on the discussion board, and many of my classmates would rather not read the ramblings of a novice teacher.
As I have related, I’ve been a substitute teacher for quite some time. It seemed as though 90% of the teachers, I was called in for, were SpEd techs (teacher’s aids). I had a few bad experiences, and was getting burned-out from the SpEd routine. Plus, I yearned to sub for regular teachers (no offence to SpEd teachers). I made this known to the assistant principal who normally calls me in. It has been 4 months since I’ve received a call. I’ll leave the reasons why up to the rest of the class. Feel free to comment.
My question(s) stem from observations made within 2 high schools, where I have observed SpEd technicians hired as full-time teachers. My question(s): Why does it seem that a SpEd position almost guarantees a future full-time teaching position? Why does it seem to be that a SpEd position is an unwritten requirement for a full-time teaching position? A more exact question may be: Why does it seem that teaching as an education technician in SpEd has become the litmus test for candidate teachers? Is this a proving ground like, “If you can teach here, you can teach anywhere,” as Frank McCourt (Teacher Man) related to when he started teaching in a vocational school?I’d like some feed-back on this. Help me see the light, here. Please be honest with me. I will respond.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
This is definitely not my experience. SPED might be seen as a dumping ground, but students go through a rigid battery of tests, etc to be identified. They oftentimes desperately need the support. Being an substitute in a SPED classroom is no more of a litmus test than being a substitute in a regular classroom. Either is a way to be observed in action and administration is able to determine if he/she would be a good fit for such school in any position. Surely one doesn't need to have substituted in SPED, or in any content/grade level, to get a teaching job. I totally disagree that a SPED position 'almost guarantees a future full-time position.' It is great to have some training in special education to teach, but to have experience is not a prerequisite. Now, if a SPED tech demonstrates that he/she is dynamite, then surely the chances are good for getting a job. But the same goes for the substitute in the regular classroom. In our district, a substitute for a regular classroom gets paid more than an aide for a SPED tech. So, it stands to reason that one of the 'regulars' would have priority over the higher paid jobs. My guess is that the asst. principal was taken aback by your comment, believing that it's about working with kids, not working with kids with special needs vs. 'regular' kids. This all said, we do have great subs who choose not to substitute in SPED (they feel unqualified), but I'm fairly confident those folks would not get a teaching job in our district.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cotterhall as to why subbing in Special Ed. looks to guarantee a job. It's not easy to deal with students who have disabilities that are either apparent or not so apparent. It does take special skill, understanding, and patience. I work with many ed. techs. who do not have these attributes necessarily, but are willing to learn or continue to be teachable. There are plenty of folks though who are not cut out for the job. I'm glad you stepped up to say that you weren't. I think that took guts. Why they haven't called you is a mystery that I would want to clarify and cleanup.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it seem to be that a SpEd position is an unwritten requirement for a full-time teaching position? A more exact question may be: Why does it seem that teaching as an education technician in SpEd has become the litmus test for candidate teachers? As a future administrator and one who has served on countless interview committees and hired many teachers, I can tell you that to know that a teacher or candidate has served successfully in the special education classroom tells me a lot. Obviously, I would still ask questions to verify what they've learned, but special education does take staff with certain skills and personality characteristics (as well as educational philosophy and attitude) to make it work well.
Some teachers (not as novice, many with decades behind them in the field) view special ed. with some ignorance. Special Ed. is a set of laws created to protect those with disabilities in order to ensure that Johnny in a wheelchair has the right to get a fair education. People understand Johnny's plight. Then there is Susy who is mentally retarted. People get special education for Susy. Paul has a learning disability and has a hard time with reading. For the most part, people understand Paul. Then there is Shane. He appears to be as normal as the next kid, in other words, no disability. He actually has a chaotic homelife, but that's not a reason to claim a disability. We have the chicken and egg syndrome. Did the chaotic life cause the learning difficulties or the learning difficulties cause the behavior? Either way Shane has obvious behavior difficulties. Testing shows his learning deficits and others have diagnosed him with ODD (oppositional defiance disorder). He looks on the surface to be a kid who is just mouthy, lazy, and likes being difficult. This is my job. I then go to teachers who are struggling to deal with him and try to help. I work with the kid and parents too. So many kids are misunderstood. Shane needs help. He does have ODD, whether his teachers accept that diagnosis or not. There are specific ways to handle him or not handle him. Some of my teachers who don't buy the diagnosis or the disability have the most difficulty with him for this reason. They ignore advice and barey adhere to modifications. The kid is convinced he is a bad apple and hates the teacher that targets him. I am not asked to consult on Johnny, Susy, or Paul. People get those kids mostly. I am asked to help everyone understand how to help Shane. Shane is a terrific kid, if only I can get others to see his invisible wheelchair.
Sorry, Carl...this is a hot topic for me. :-)
Love,
Tammy Fisher, M.Ed.
Thank you, both.
ReplyDeleteIt was a frustration break-down, I'm afraid.