Bank St or Columbia for a master's degree for a teacher?

May 7, 2007 6:11 PM

A teacher friend of mine is trying to choose between Columbia Teachers' College and Bank Street for a master's degree. Any advice?

She wants to be a teacher for several years at least, but perhaps eventually wants to branch out into being a principal or even going into school reform projects.

Columbia has the big advantage of reputation in the eyes of laymen, but Bank St. seems to be warmer and much more focused on giving their students accessible professors and a high-quality learning experience.

Does anyone have any advice or experiences? What is Bank St's reputation in the education industry? What steps should my friend take to find out more (she's already visited both places)?

Is this a case where one can't go wrong?

posted by shivohum to education (7 comments total)

I remembered seeing a question about Bank Street before and searched, turns out it was yours!

Looks like you got some good advice in that thread!
posted by necessitas at 7:02 PM on May 7, 2007

They are both great.

The biggest thing would be personal preference. If she feels like the Bank St. program is something she wants to be a part of, then go there. I personally feel its am amazing program, but its certainly non-traditional so if shes into it, shes into it, and if not shes not.
posted by teishu at 8:35 PM on May 7, 2007

I am a high school teacher who was trained in New York, so I was making a decision between Columbia and NYU (Bank Street is only for teachers who work with the younger set).

I'm very glad I went to NYU. Friends of mine who were in programs at TC seemed frustrated at the rigidity of it. Many of the NCLB-inspired "save our reading program" programs in NYC schools come straight out of TC -- programmatic, teacher-proof curricula. NYU's program, while totally on the far side of liberal, progressive, and goofy, gave me a flexible "worldview" of teaching that has been adaptable to the several different places where I've taught.

That is to say, my impression was that TC gave its teaching students a way to teach English, whereas NYU gave its students a way of thinking about how to teach English.

It's a school night, and it's late, and I'm embarassed (as an English teacher) that my prose could be this abstract and circuitous. I hope something in there helped!
posted by HeroZero at 9:25 PM on May 7, 2007

As a currently enrolled M.A. student in the Teaching of English program at TC (in fact, I'm up all night finishing my last assignment of the semester!) I have to disagree with HeroZero.

Disclaimer: TC varies from program to program. I understand that the mathematics department is somewhat rigid, and the music department is pretty experimental. From first hand experience, the English department is quite progressive.

Students and teachers often discuss the difference between theory and practice in education. TC supposedly is all about theory and not at all about practice. This is only partially true.

On the whole, TC has the reputation of being a intensely idealistic school, obsessively promoting student-centered curriculum, the philosophy of John Dewey, and educational equity. In fact, "TC" has taken on usage as an adjective to describe an almost New Age sense of progressive education to the point of naivite.

This sounds terrible, but all you need to be able to do is separate the helpful from the bullshit. Its clear which writers are completely detached from the reality of teaching and which have tried their own methods in the classroom. Luckily, TC classes provide a ridiculous amount of time for self-reflection (I've never done so much journaling in my life) that allows you to figure out your own philosophy of education.

While students say that TC classes do not prepare them for their student teaching placements, I would counter that their TC classes prepare them for a lifetime of teaching.

I began student teaching after taking a full semester of classes (unlike most of my program) and found that while I may not have been the best teacher, I had the understanding, terminology, and experience to see every aspect of the lesson that went well or went poorly. I was able to clearly judge my performance and the performance of my co-op. My teaching improved drastically in no time at all.

The more courses I take, the more I wonder how true the theory-practice rift is at TC-- two of my classes this semester have given me perfectly applicable unit/lesson planning assignments that I can easily transfer to my student teaching.

It is almost impossible to receive a grade lower than a B+ (see: progressive philosophies above), so you are on your own to make the most out of a TC education. I see a fair number of people lament their time at TC who I know barely read any of their course materials.

TC's strongest asset is its faculty. Sure there are some awful ones that slip through the cracks, but these are mostly brilliant people with lots of classroom experience who will spend a lot of time talking shop with you if you need it.

To finally address HeroZero's last point, TC houses a number of affiliated professional development programs that promote "teacher-proof" strategies (they also some good P.D. programs too!), but "scripted curriculum" is practically a dirty word elsewhere in the college.

It's a school night, and it's late, and I'm embarassed (as an English teacher) that my prose could be this abstract and circuitous. I hope something in there helped!

Damn, I feel exactly the same way about this sprawling expose!
posted by themadjuggler at 9:53 PM on May 7, 2007

My mother is an elementary school teacher/administrator in NYC. Bank Street has a very strong reputation among those who matter. Your friend should try not to let the "namebrand" of Columbia sway her decision and should go where she feels most comfortable.

(That is not to say Columbia doesn't have a great program--it does--but your friend can't go wrong either way.)
posted by cosmic osmo at 10:07 PM on May 7, 2007

I work(ed) in educational publishing and I've had consultants from both programs. In my experience, the TC teachers were smarter and quicker on the uptake, especially about the overall pedagogical style and methods we were going for, and the Bank St teachers were more "touchy-feely" and wanted to make programs almost entirely experiential. The Bank St people I've worked with were not the easiest bunch to sit next to in a meeting. Of course, this is a small subset of each group and YMMV.

I currently have a few friends in the TC program, and they are very happy with the workload and the accessibility and quality of their professors. I don't know anyone currently studying at Bank st.

Both have great reputations, the question is would you like to go to a more academic or a more hands-on place?
posted by rmless at 10:00 AM on May 8, 2007

Thanks for the tips, all!
posted by shivohum at 7:16 AM on May 9, 2007