Alec's thoughts

Want to teach in California?

A few people have asked me about what exactly I've had to do to go into teaching. It is a very long, confusing process (and probably unnecessarily so) and having gone through it I thought other folks might be interested in my experience.

(updated on 8/29/2003!)

The short story is that its a lot of paperwork and tests to get in, but nothing all that complex. Once you start the process, it turns out that the actual steps are simpler than they sound, once you get down to it.

I started the process in the spring of 2002. I looked at all the other permutations on "SF" and "U" (USF, SFU, UCSF, CCSF, etc) SFSU seems to be the most straight forward teaching program in the city, has a good reputation, and is cheap to boot. (something on the order of $2000/year) The program lasts one year, of full-time schooling.

The state has requirements for teaching programs like SFSU and will grant you a Credential upon completion of one of these programs. The state (not SFSU) also gives emergency credentials through school districts if you convince them that you're getting your credential soon. Due to the budget crisis here in California, they've really been cracking down on uncredentialed teachers, by laying them off. (esp. those not currently enrolled in a program) The state does not require a masters, just an undergrad and the credential. A masters also does not substitute for a credential.

The only other detail you should think about this early is grade level. If you want to teach Middle School or High School, you get a "Single Subject" credential and have to demonstrate competency in the subject you want to teach.

If you're teaching elementary school, you get a "Multiple Subject"credential and have to take the MSAT.

Knowing those details, you can begin the process. Even if you're only remotely interested in teaching, you should do two things:

1. Sign up for the CBEST
2. Get a TB test
3. Get two letters of recommendation (for volunteering)
4. Start looking for a school to volunteer

All of these things need to be done well in advance, but don't commit you to anything. The CBEST is offered something like once a month, and it takes some time to get the results back to your school, so be sure to get that out of the way first. The CBEST is a really straight forward test - its pass/fail and the questions are easier than the SAT.

SFSU requires 45 hours of volunteer hours as a teachers aide in a classroom, (perhaps this is due to state requirements? I'm not sure) and you'll need a TB test in order to physically be in the school with students. This also means you can't just shelve books in the library or to be a chaperone on a field trip. You have to be in the classroom on a regular basis. This may seem like a pain but it was really one of my favorite experiences in recent memory.

If you're working a full time job, keep in mind that it could take 2-8 months to get in those 45 hours. In San Francisco, I went through San Francisco School Volunteers and they placed me 1-2 weeks from when I first applied to their program. They require two short letters of recommendation, which you can later use for your SFSU application. I then had to spend 3-4 weeks harassing the volunteer coordinator at the school I was at and talking to math teachers before I had a regular gig.

After this minor hassle eveything went very smoothly. I spent 4-5 hours a week working in 2 classes for about 7 months (I got my 45 hours out of the way in about 3) As I mentioned, this ended up being an incredibly rewarding experience, and I was very sad when the school year ended. I had grown very attached to the classroom and the kids, and this really confirmed for me that I wanted to be a teacher.

The next step is to finally apply. You'll need to gather up your transcripts from colleges you've attended, and possibly ask your old professors/advisors/friends/collegues for more elaborate letters of recommendation.

Once you have your credential, you can teach anywhere in CA. Whatever you do, if you're even thinking about going into teaching, start the process early! There is a lot of prep before you can even
complete the SFSU application, including tests, volunteer hours, and a whole host of random paperwork. Even if you're not 100% sure about going into teaching, start the process anyway.

The key is to start early. Even if you decide not to go into teaching, what's the worst that can come of it? You take a test that you don't need to study for, you know that you don't have TB, and you've got a transcript in case you go back to school for something else!

On a personal note, I have found much of this process very tedious, but the volunteering in particular has been very enjoyable. I was pretty sure that I wanted to be a teacher but the volunteering really clinched it for me - I learned about new, interesting challenges as well as unexpected rewards just from being in a classroom and helping kids learn. It only served to reinforce my interest in teaching. Honestly, at some level I was concerned that teaching wouldn't be challenging enough and that the kids would be more difficult to work with. The challenges turned out to be far less defined than my current job as a software developer, but extremely challenging none the less. It's also surprising the respect you can get from many kids just by treating them with respect and acting confidently.

Levellers

So tonight I went to the Levellers show at the Great American Music Hall. It turned out to be a fantastic concert! It was perhaps one of the most fun concerts I've been to in a while. They played about 40% music off the new albums (new since and including Mouth to Mouth) which wasn't so good. But they did such a great job with the older songs, that it was hard not to love the whole show. I often spend concerts in contemplation as I listen to the music, but at this show I just jumped and danced around almost the whole time.

One interesting thing was not so much that the opening band was of course mediocre, but that they must have wondered what the deal was with this band they're opening for - when the opening band played, there were probably less than 60 people in the hall. The good news was that when the Levellers finally showed up, there were maybe 150 people there. While I think they're past their prime, it was good to see some die hard fans still really enjoying it.

I think that was the other thing that contributed to my enjoyment of the show: the folks seemed to just be having fun with it all. Everyone, even those not dancing, seemed to be just enjoying the music. So often at shows there are all these other things going on - various dramas as friends or signifigant others dislike the band, or a lot of socializing and reunions as people keep running into friends they haven't seen in a while.. not to mention the various people hitting on other people and the other people trying to whisper things to their friends about how this creepy guy is hitting on them.

But none of that went on here. It was just people there to have a good time, people just relaxed and enjoying themselves... there were no furrowed brows as people tried to decide if the band was trying to hard, nobody trying to be that funny guy who yells dumb stuff from halfway back or that other guy who knows the obscure b-side and proves his extensive fanhood by yelling its alternate title out when the band doesn't even ask for requests.

And so we just hung out and enjoyed ourselves - Caleb, Marc, Jeff. It was a good ol' time. Its just a shame the GAMH doesn't have real ticket stubs! :)

Why to shop organic

In a recent discussion with my friend Ross, we discussed the idea of paying more for organic food. The discussion involved why one should pay more than you do for normal food. As we do sometimes, Ross was the sceptic and I played the part of the organic crunchy guy.

The problem breaks down into two problems really: Why should you buy organic, and then, seperately, why should you be willing to spend more money, sometimes signifigantly more.

First, I discuss my personal reasons why one should buy organic, and focus on health.

One argument for buying organic is for your health. In reading Fast Food Nation, I have become increasingly aware of where honest natural flavors are entering my body and where I'm simply being fooled by chemical flavoring. In addition, excess chemicals used for preservatives, texture, and appearance further complicate the chemical balance of your food. For the purposes of discussion, I'll focus on the chemicals used in flavoring, but the argument applies to any of these other "enhancements."

Fast Food Nation explains that by the FDA's own definition, artificial and natural flavoring are both created by artificial means. Having chemicals in your food is not in itself inherently evil - many of these chemicals do in fact exist in all natural food. What is discomforting is that you are introducing additional chemicals that would not have otherwise entered your body with that particular food. These "chemicals" in themselves may or may not be harmful, but the issue is that your body evolved to process specific proportions of protiens, carbs, and fats, along with specific proportions of vitamins and minerals. Your body has will absorb the proper nutritional content based on these proportions. When you muck with them, you muck with your own system for absorbing nutrition.

Organic food consists of either raw food such as vegetables and grains, or combinations of these raw foods, without excess processing. What this means is that when you eat organic granola, you are ingesting the specific balance of nutrients that naturally occurs in each ingredient of the granola.

For example, according to Dan Benaroot in Nutrition for Serious Atheletes, iron is more easily absorbed when eaten in meat. Vegetables have oxalic acid, which "reduces iron availability." I don't know much about the specific chemicals involved in flavoring, but just suppose oxalic acid was something that made hamburgers taste better - perhaps enhancing the "grilled" flavor, or making the burger taste less oily. If this chemical were added to your meat, the meat would become less nutritious! This is of course entirely based on supposition, but I think it illustrates the concept well. As the human race has evolved to survive at least into the last century, our bodies are naturally geared towards the existing chemical balance that exists in unenhanced food. Flavor companies are not trying to enhance the nutritional value of the food they are flavoring. They are often working independent of nutritional value.