CURRENT ISSUES

IN TEACHER
EDUCATION
Jaime M. Gellor

-Great Debate in
education of the late
50s between the
classicists and the
progressivists.

Classicists
- yield on the science of pure
reason (metaphysics)
- refers to the traditional
content courses offered in
school like; language,
mathematics, science,
philosophy, history, sociology,
psychology and art.

Progressivists
- pragmatism (education is
life)
- life- centered curriculum
- practical
- reality-based

-Accordingly,

we are a country
that yielded quickly to the
arguments of Dewey. As a
consequence, we overhauled
the school curriculum by deemphasizing the traditional
content courses by cutting
time down time allotment to
give way to practical
approaches.

With this, undoubtedly, the

teachers were thrown into the
ferment of change since it
should start with the teachers
and teaching institutions were
infused with new programs.

Meanwhile, the opposition in this

continuing debate has remained firm
against the de-emphasis of the
traditional disciplines such as:
language, mathematics, science,
philosophy, history, sociology,
psychology, and art. To them, too
much concern for the practical has
reduced the study of this fields into
mere accidents of the curriculum. It
lost the depth and breadth that is
vital for the development of
intellectual power resulting in

SOME ISSUES IN
TEACHER
EDUCATION

1.

If teacher education is to
achieve a better academic
quality, should general
foundation courses be given
greater emphasis in the
curriculum?

FOUNDATION AND PROFESSIONAL

COURSES
-The issue is not the absence of any
of these types of courses, rather it
refers to the question of depth and
breadth of instruction in the basic
liberal arts discipline in relation to
professional courses.

The implication of the desired

emphasis on foundation
courses is to have a general
education that is academic
and broad enough to include
the essential elements of
liberal arts without prejudiced
to specialized courses vital to
the practice of teaching.

2.

Is there a need for the

development of scholarship
above professional
competence for teachers in
the elementary and
secondary schools?

There are two kinds of educators:

the scholar and the educationist.
The scholar is known for his indepth mastery, competence in
the discovery and delivery of new
ideas within his academic field.
The educationist is a practitioner
having mastery of his field but is
more concerned of its application
for the sake of practical utility.

This means that a scholarly

teacher must have a real and
enduring love for his chosen
academic field for that is the
basic element of
effectiveness.

3.

Should teacher- training

programs provide for the
preparation of school
administrators, supervisors,
guidance counselors, and
related personnel other than
the preparation of classroom
teachers?

Preparation of Classroom Teachers and

Educational Personnel
-Should teacher education be limited
to the preparation of classroom
teachers, not including the
preparation of educational
personnel?

4.

If teachers training are to

benefit from a more fruitful
pre-service experience in
teaching, should the period
for practice teaching be
prolonged?

Should the period for practice teaching

be prolonged?
-Thus, it seems that in the present
highly demanding world, the student
teacher can hardly gain a reasonable
amount of experience in one
semester. The alternative should be a
prolongation of the period of practice
teaching for at least one year.

CONCLUSION:
Teacher education may yet become effective if:
1. A liberal-education based teacher training program
is instituted.
2. Teachers are trained in scholarship to strengthen
their professional competence.
3. The program is designed not only to prepare
classroom teachers but also school administrators
and other specialist-personnel.
4. The period for practice teaching is long enough to
allow a more extensive pre-service experience for
the teacher-in training .
5. Innovations are properly implemented to meet the
needs of the time.