Wow -- I never expected such a thorough, thought-filled, and apparently experienced-based response. Like I said earlier, I was planning on just moving on. Yes, you are right that I have other motivations -- relationships -- for getting a position in Germany.

I'm going to copy your (and the other's) posts, just in case I need to refer back to them. As you say, some "raked me over the stones" here -- but I understand their feelings -- and honestly still appreciate their perspective. But the effort you went through -- again, all I can say is, "wow"

If someone does happen to give me a chance, the insights I gained here will stay with me.

Thanks for the book reference, and other advice. I did my best to stay open regarding my views on the value of pedagogy, and maybe the book will help. This whole discussion has caused me to reflect upon it, and I think the strongest influence on me has been the relative incompetence of the secondary school teachers that I’ve met in (1) content, and an arrogance that I sensed in them when they suggested that pedagogy expertise made up for that.

So, in conclusion I will admit that nothing has persuaded me to change my view, but I still value the discussion.

Thanks

chilliverde's post was made while I was still writing mine, so I'd like to say that I appreciate the substantive response to my points that were made there.

First, I did not say that I think classroom management should have nothing to do with teaching. That is not my position. Rather, what I am doing is distinguishing between what is, strictly speaking, "teaching" activity from other activity. It is quite true that if the atmosphere is not at a certain level, teaching becomes nearly impossible. With that I completely agree. Furthermore, I also agree that there is valuable skill and wisdom in arranging things so that an atmosphere for teaching will be possible. But that doesn't mean those "atmosphere activities" (for lack of a better term) are "teaching"

That is what I meant when I made the distinction "between being a 'good teacher' and being an effective employee in what is supposed to be teaching institution".

Perhaps we are having a difference regarding the definition of "pedagogy". I believe that my position adheres to the definition of that term, while what I'm calling "atmosphere activities", as valuable as they are, are not part of pedagogy.

I can see I've touched some raw nerves, and honestly, I am sorry if I've hurt feelings. That was not at all my intention. I also had no intention of discussing the relative merit of pedagogy -- I only did so in response to other posts.

I fully accepted the facts of my situation once the member of this group kindly helped make me clear, and I also got confirmation from the DoDEA. I said I was ready to move on in another direction, and I was. And I still am.

But since it was germane to the discussion, I did think it was appropriate to respond honestly to those who obviously hold the complete opposite view that I do. I did this with the intention of engaging in a discussion that might change my mind. I value listening to others opinions who disagree with me so that I can change if needed. I distinguish quite clearly between "the system" and "persons within the system", in the same way, for example, that I dislike organized systems of the Christian religion, but love Christians.

But for some reason, the points I've raised have not been responded to. Rather, negative things have been assumed about me, and there's even been some attack.

I'm still ready to change my view, however, and hold those who give themselves to teaching in the highest regard.

I think this discussion has gotten off track. All the things you mentioned about managing a class I have no issue with. I just don’t think they have anything to do with “teaching”. There’s a difference between being a “good teacher” and being an effective employee in what is supposed to be teaching institution. Not long from now to be the latter might require marksmanship skills, but that won’t make you a good teacher.

If we stick strictly to the subject of quality teaching, then what I’ve said makes sense, at least to me. And as to the point about student quality: of course it will always be the case that a good student is the easiest one to teach. All these are beside the point that I was making, which was that quality teaching does not depend very much pedagogical training.

Once again, I appreciate all the thoughtfulness in this forum. Teachers can be great people, and I've always had the heart to assume the best in people's motivations. However, sad reality has often entered into that view.

My experience is that all that is said above about the importance of what has been termed pedagogy here, is properly subsumed within the 3 categories I mentioned above; i.e., (1) content mastery, (2) clear communication, and (3) a teacher's heart. While I realize that entire careers are built upon the idea that (2) and (3) can be taught, I am persuaded that 90% of those qualities cannot be improved through training. Rather, I would call (2) and (3) gifts: you either have them, or you don't. By contrast, (1) is not a gift, and nearly 100% can be improved through training.

I used to be so enamored with theories, but eventually I realized that they tend to mislead, and instead I needed to tie my opinions to clear observations and reproducible facts. So here is one fact that has persuaded me to hold the view above: Throughout all the world the US education system is highly desired at the university level and people flock to US universities and graduate schools because of their reputation, at least in the hard sciences and technology areas I'm familiar with.

And yet, as this forum discussion has demonstrated, those teaching at that level have, for the most part, very little training in pedagogical principles and furthermore, the value of "teaching" is diminished, and even ridiculed as something "anybody can do" (lip service to the contrary notwithstanding).

By contrast, K12 education has a strong emphasis on pedagogy, as seen in this thread; even erecting barriers to keep those out who lack that training. Why then does K12 education not have, shall we say, such a stellar worldwide reputation that you would think it should? I mean, if pedagogy were so important, it should, right? Again, at least in the hard sciences and technology areas I'm familiar with.

Don't get me wrong: I abhor the lack of emphasis on quality teaching that is pervasive at the post secondary levels, and would love to see it changed. But my point is that an emphasis on pedagogy training is not the solution. All the great teachers out there, in my view, have been diligent regarding (1) and have gifts in (2) and (3) -- which have perhaps marginally been enhanced through training.

Once again, I want to thank all for their responses to my detailed questions. I finally heard back from someone at DoDEA and they confirmed much of what has been written here. For the sake of helping anyone else in a position similar to mine, here is the response I got:

"Without a valid state teaching license, you would need to meet DoDEA's Praxis testing requirements. In addition, we would screen your transcripts for 18 semester hours in professional teacher education course work and a formal student teaching/internship experience as part of an approved teacher education program in an accredited U.S. educational institution."

Now that I'm clear about the situation, I will be mostly looking in other directions. Obviously those in my position don't fit into the system, and from the responses above, I'm starting to piece together why. As chiliverde put it, "I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of content knowledge in the PreK-12 field", and others have expressed well the other things which are felt to be important.

I've considered related matters very much. Personally, I did my best to excel in (1) True mastery of content, (2) Clear communication in multiple ways, and (3) Having a heart to truly serve my students as people. These items should be enough, but I'm well aware that they are not because of many negative things. In brief, education, like all human institutions, has become a system and a very sad reflection on how our society has "evolved".

Thanks again all who helped me become clear. I'll be mostly looking elsewhere.

Wow, thank you so much for such a thorough reply! I really appreciate it, but I admit, some of it was hard to understand because I'm not used to the acronyms (eg, what's PD?). But I think one of your main points is that it's possible that I could work for an international school, but only in the unlikely event they were super excited by my resume for some reason -- because they'd have to overlook the deficiencies you mentioned.

I'm starting to realize the numbers of semester hours per subject area is quite important to K-12 educators. I'd never thought about these at all. But since you made me realize this, I remember the secondary teachers I knew did mention it a lot, so I went ahead and tabulated mine. Here's what I found (all converted to semester hours):

.................undergrad.........grad...........total
Hum..............58...................................58
Math..............31...................................31
CSci...............13...................................13
Phys...............35.....................6............41
Chm................7....................19............26
Biol........................................12............12
Educ........................................4..............4

In the process of making this table, I realized that I had 4 education credits from something called Ed 590 "Techniques of Teaching Physics". So, if I understand you correctly, the shortest route for me to become hirable by secondary schools in Germany, and/or the DoDEA, would be to:

1) Take 5 more semester hours of education courses,
2) Pass the Missouri 063 Professional Knowledge: Secondary exam, and then
3) Take the PLT for 7-12 Praxis test, plus the specialized Praxis test in chemistry (my PhD), and
4) Somehow get 1 year of teaching experience at the secondary level

Furthermore, you are saying that I'd need to keep taking the Missouri test each year to renew my certification status.

A problem with the above is that it limits me to Chemistry, but I've noticed that most of the jobs seem to be in Math. It seems I'm not far from being able to get certified in Math, Physics, Biology, and Computer Science, right? Except that I don't have PhD in those. Or would my Bachelor's be enough (its in physics and math, but there are all those computer science courses mixed in -- and also, grad school included a lot of biology since I was in an interdisciplinary program). Of course, I want to be as marketable as possible, and I do feel I could teach those.

Finally, I'd like to hear more regarding your comment that "some elite tier IS" would not be super excited over my resume. Can you tell me what they would be excited over? For example, publications in top journals?, patents? having done science with world authorities in nanotechnology? I really don't have a good sense of what is important to secondary educators because I've been in other spheres, so I appreciate the help. Also, I don't want to come across as arrogant -- I hate that I have to sell myself when looking for a job -- and I'm passed the desire to prove I'm something. So, please be honest.

Thanks again

I would appreciate any help. Unlike many university professors, I'm much more passionate about teaching than research. I've always taught at small universities where teaching was emphasized. But now I want to transition to Germany, and I'm having trouble figuring out how.

Here is my situation:
• I have over 12 years teaching experience at the university level in math and science
• PhD in biological chemistry, BS in physics and mathematics/computer science (double major)
• But, I have NOT taught below the university level
• I want to teach in Germany, at the secondary school level, (but I'd consider university level)

The problem:
I'm running into problems regarding whether I'm qualified to teach at the secondary level. Some private schools there seem to have accepted my application, but others have rejected since I don't have "certification". One place I'm trying is DoDEA (dept of defense educational activities). I've emailed the contact people, and I've called the DoDEA recruitment unit, and sent more emails. No response. See below "Problem Example" for the note I got when trying to finish my DoDEA application.

My Questions:
1) If I take the Praxis tests I will be qualified to teach secondary school? at least for DoDEA?
2) What are the correct Praxis tests for me to take? I think its (A) and (B) below. Is that right?
3) Are there any other tests I should take? I would like to qualify for as many positions as possible (biology, chemistry, math, computer science, physics).

Test Name:
A) Core Academic Skills for Educators: Combined 5751, 300 minutes
B) PLT: Grades 7-12 5624, 150 minutes

Problem Example:
After I went through the long process of applying to the DoDEA, I found the following note at the right in the Qualification section of my application for DoDEA positions:

092/23/18 DP - A professional state teaching certificate is required. Or, the DoDEA Praxis testing requirements must be met. Evidence of student teaching of 1 year of teaching in a PreK-12 classroom setting is required. Professional teacher education course work is required. (e.g., Classroom Management, Educational Psychology, Methods of Teaching, Classroom Practices, Models of Teaching, etc.). Without a teaching certificate; 18 semester hours is required; with a teaching certificate, 9 semester hours is required,