I'm close to my degree to secondary school teachers and hear daily criticism against teacher education. However, it tends to be arguments opposite to those that Christopher Holmquist in its letters to the editor on the DN Review.
I agree that the training is low level, both the allmänpedagogiska courses ämneskurserna (in Swedish and English on my part). It, however, I usually hear in the debate is that student teachers lack the tools to deal with real teaching situations, it that Christopher Holmquist calls the ”Snapchat-bullying” and ”wrestle with the pupils”.
Think what you want, but it is included in the day of a teacher's professional role to support pupils socially. I and my fellow students, we feel that we lack the skills necessary to manage conflicts and violations in the classroom or over the internet.
for a professional teacher, and basic skills in active problem-solving and psychology is necessary. We would like to have seen more of the ”irrelevant” training Holmquist is so unhappy with.
However, I experience like the writer that the training has low requirements, and includes irrelevant courses. Most of the skills we learn, we will never teach, and many courses are comprehensive and superficial.
This means that the requirements for passing are low, which lowers the credibility of the training. I understand that for anyone who is looking for a strictly academic education on high level, where students ' ability to learn is in focus, is perceived lärarprogrammen "fuzzy".
is underperforming and lacks the gravity that should inform participation in a university education. However, the truth is that the lack of teachers, a failing school system and a nature-, technology - and yrkesorienterat focus for primary and secondary education is making to high-performing teachers is not necessary, either for all subjects or for all schools.
All the students do not seem to have the same right to a highly qualified teacher. For my part, I believe that both low and high performing individuals have the right to become a teacher, but, of course, would higher demands sift out less-motivated individuals and create a more serious impression of lärarprofessionen (or a closed, elitist communities).
If the Holmquist wish that authoritarian academics with knowledge of the ”cognitive memory” from the 1800's to teach a 15-year-olds, it is not teacher training is wrong, but his image of what a teacher in contemporary Sweden actually is and does.
I myself could write a long and angry op-ed about, keeps the american schooling of a certain type of level, directed against a certain type of goal, intended for a certain type of students – it is not the equivalent. It also does not require teachers to have advanced knowledge, at least not for all subjects.
My opinion is therefore that we stop blaming students, for teacher training and its hardworking staff, and instead, consistently blame the useless school system that is the basis for how all types of education in Sweden looks like.