Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion "Teachers Cannot Teach What They Do Not Know"

Teachers Cannot Teach What They Do Not Know
Mary Grabar
April 23, 2015
City Journal

This article summarizes a book by Sandra Stotsky which discusses education reform through improving teacher education.


A rigorous teacher-education curriculum in which prospective future educators become subject matter experts may benefit elementary students, as "teachers cannot teach what they do not know."

Hardcover, paperback, and ebook available through Amazon.

Gifted and high achieving students might especially benefit from teachers who are subject matter experts and therefore able to teach above-grade-level curriculum.

I thought that the problem with American teacher training was that it was all subject matter and not enough pedagogy or classroom management?

I think that just as in other education the ability to think the right way is more important than subject matter. For example, my kids school has a flexible curriculum - they teach based on what the kids show an interest in. It showcases how teaching actually works. For example, one afternoon my child's teacher approached me to ask about something I have some expertise in because the class was heading in that direction and she knew less than nothing about it. I mean, she had not even the vaguest idea. I gave her a quick lesson, suggested some google terms and three days later my kid told me about an absolutely genius adaptation of the concept that young children could understand. THAT is what they need to teach them at college (or maybe they're just born that way?). Any adult can learn more about a topic than an eight year old could ever want to know in a weekend, but taking that and making it fun, interesting and accessible is the definition of teaching (and managing the class, of course).

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint and experience. Just curious about the context...
Are you outside of the United States?
Is the described experience within the common core?

The problem is that the subject matter is pedagogical theory rather than the actual subjects to be taught, such as English, math, history, and science. I don't think a major in "education" makes sense. The major should be in a real discipline, such as math or English, supplemented by some courses on pedagogy that would amount to a minor in education.

If you take a brief survey of what high school content teachers are required to have studied in their content area, it is fairly sketchy. For example, the majority of programs require math teachers to have up through linear algebra, and some geometry--maybe a semester of differential equations, at best. Almost anyone with a bachelor's degree in a hard science will have had more than that.

Yes, we're in the US, but at a private school. They hire amazing teachers.

Thanks for sharing, it seems that attending a private school may increase the likelihood of encountering teachers learning from parents and also working on their own time over the weekend to study up on a topic... this scenario sounded a bit unlike the practice of union teachers in American public schools.

I don't know which one, but I read about a school that did that for music education programs so that students took a minor in education and it seemed like a great idea - I mean, it seems to me like you might need more education/child development for preschool and K-2 teachers, but for upper elementary and secondary it seems very efficient.
Around here there are at least some good teachers, but only half of them seem to really get excited about their subject and it really rubs off on the kids. Least year I was shocked to discover the science teacher was actually a scientist and not a castoff math teacher and then reflected that....shouldn't ALL science teachers be scientists?
In our schools the only teachers consistently knowledgeable and skilled in their subjects are the music teachers and the language teachers. For some reason there's a group of teachers, and administrators particularly, earning doctorates - and this is, like, the gym teacher and the apathetic principle I'm talking about - but apparently it's...not a scam or degree mill exactly, but definitely not a rigorous degree program. The teachers with Master's degree actually tend to represent at least a somewhat thorough knowledge.

Ah, FD, I believe you are referring to the ever-popular doctorate in EDLPS (educational leadership). It's a comparatively soft doctorate designed mainly for administrators and those with administrative ambitions. Because everyone knows that the principal and superintendent need to be Dr. So-and-so, right, especially if you work in an affluent suburb?

Music teachers tend to know their actual content area because most music ed programs consist of additional coursework on top of the music BA or BM degree (not unusual to come out with a dual bachelor's). And music majors undergo at-least-annual performance assessments of their musical skills in front of a faculty jury, often even if they're not performance majors, so you can't just pass your courses and forget about them. Probably the biggest difference for music ed is that the coursework is controlled primarily by the music department, not the ed department. E.g., pedagogy classes are taught by music faculty. Oh, yeah, and you have to audition to get in, thus demonstrating that you have some better-than-rudimentary skill in the area before being accepted for training.

But of course they do! How can you take them seriously otherwise? (To date, I have not found any new respect for the administration yet - or the gym teacher, I must regret.) I mean, they probably had to take a whole course on educational buzzwords.
The worst part is it's NOT an affluent suburb, although pretty solidly middle-class, so they're getting paid so much more because of it and the district really could spend the money for things they really need (like repairing the old school buildings and taking care of the mold and asbestos problems).
Yes. It's so nice to see teachers who actually know their content AND how to teach it. Not that there's no questionable ones, of course, but they're mostly elementary and "general music" teachers. In our area most of the teachers are in an orchestra or a quartet or at least do make an effort to actually be professionals in their field - come to think of it, it would probably be called continuing education if they taught something else. It's kind of easy take it for granted because it's just how they all are - until you realize most teachers aren't that competent in their subject even if their teaching skills are good. Unfortunately a lot of students and parents treat their classes like an easy A and don't take them seriously, and I always have to bite my tongue because they really put so much effort into doing things for the kids and keeping up their own skills as musicians, too.
*steps off soapbox*