In Louisiana, as I wrote in a recent blog, the Jindal legislation does not require that teachers in charter schools have certification. Certification is not a high bar in Louisiana, but it does represent a standard: a minimum grade point average in college, a college degree, a passing score on a state or national examination. At a recent meeting, a Harvard-educated member of the state board of education suggested that teachers don’t even need to have a college degree. In some other states like Indiana and Texas, standards to teach are also dropping or have already fallen. Some “reformers” think that any requirement is a hoop or hurdle or obstacle created to keep people out of teaching. Some economists dismiss the value of any credentials or education or experience for teachers.
This reader disagrees with the politicians and economists who think that anyone can teach:
I am getting more than a little tired of the “little return” attitude that puts the problems that students have learning on the teachers. The fact is that teachers have very little if any control over the schools, including curriculum, pace of lessons, materials, and how and when they teach. Then, in order to satisfy testing requirements, they are forced to waste more time teaching test taking skills in isolation from subject matter. Today they even have this crap called “scripted lessons” which the teacher is supposed to read and follow instead of make professional judgments about how to teach the students. One scripted reading program called “Direct Instruction” was used in New Orleans. When I saw it I was shocked. It was an almost identical repackaged version of “Distar” a program that failed in the early 1970s.There are many factors in students’ lives that cause them to do poorly and disadvantaged students are the most likely ones not to do well, not because they are not as smart as advantaged students, but because they do not start at the same place. There are also factors that conservatives do not want to address that cause students to lag behind, such as malnutrition, parent absence because they work two minimum wage jobs, hygiene issues, inability to pay the utility bills because the rent is too high, needing glasses or hearing aids, forcing students to wear uniforms, sibling care starting as early as 3rd grade, abuse and neglect, foster care, homelessness, moving frequently, poor access to medical care, and lack of experiences outside their immediate community. We had kids in Atlanta who had never been to a grocery store and many when I taught in rural Alabama who started school never having seen a flush toilet. (Only one child in that last group had running water.) Teachers have no control over these although in special ed we always kept towels, washcloths, deodorant, sanitary pads, and soap available, made sure kids got their free lunches and kept extra food from home for them in our desks. We do the best we can to provide the best environment for learning as we can for our students. But it takes a teacher to know what the children need and to have A VISION OF WHERE SHE WANTS THEM TO GO. A real teacher is not discouraged by the problems her kids have. She knows they can get up those steps eventually even if she has to get behind and push them.
Yes, some people are successful without a college education. Most of them are either extremely brilliant, savants or very hard workers. Some, like Bill Gates is rumored to, have Aspergers, or act like they do and do a better job working with things and ideas than they do with people. But these are not the norm. Most uneducated people get stuck doing physical labor, food service, or maid work. Education enhances natural gifts and helps those who don’t have them learn the skills and perhaps acquire the professionalism and even the gift that teachers need to stay in the field more than 5 years, or even the 3 it takes to become a teacher following the education. One last thought, teaching is a calling. It is not easy. It is very difficult. Why would someone want to become a teacher after they retire from another profession,especially if they were never trained to teach unless someone pushed them away from the field because it was not prestigious and they would never make gobs of money,but that was what they always wanted to do and selling computers and making good money at it was never anything but a job? Teaching is not an afterthought or a hobby. And would a 65 year old who had never taught really want to spend 180 days per year with 35 nine-year olds? They are not strong enough to pick up the severe special ed kids so they would have to go to regular education with its huge classes and no paraprofessional or else do mild disabilities, which, in my opinion, is the hardest type of special education. And then there is learning all the technology, which is different in each system, and the paperwork. I can just see a retired person who is not the parent of a special needs child writing an IEP, running the meeting and making sure that everything is covered so the school can’t ban the child from assemblies or suspend him. I can’t see a not-teacher explain to the principal that this schizophrenic kid who is always in the office complaining that people are talking about him is highly intelligent and that is why he scored ADVANCED on the LEAP, not because the teacher cheated. (This happened to our intermediate EBD teacher in New Orleans.) Then we have to get the parents’ cooperation and also tell the principal that one thing he does not want to hear, “It’s in his IEP” That takes a real professional Certified! A teacher! |
The scripted curriculum portion of this letter really stuck out at me. I believe one big reason student performance is lagging is because the teachers do not have control over the curriculum, textbook selection, pacing, order of instruction, etc. We are required to teach things in ways that may be counterproductive for our students. Then we get blamed if they don’t perform well. The teacher has to have buy-in with whatever system they use in order to teach it well. (If you love Fords but can only manage to get a sales job at Chevy…) When the teacher shows that she has buy-in, then that will bounce right onto the students. As long as teachers continue to be treated like robots, we will not see much improvement.
I find this topic amusing. If the teacher isn’t educated, what will she teach? I can just picture myself standing before my gifted 10th grade world history class with my mouth hanging open, with nothing to say. In September when I return to school, the first topic on the syllabus will be “The Enlightenment.” How would I pull that off without having has an education? How will I choose primary sources, come up with appropriate teaching strategies, if I’ve never been educated in child development and best practice, not to mention my apprenticeship called student teaching.
Why in the world would a parent want an uneducated person to teach their children? What sort of nonsense is this?
Anyone can read a script in front of a class, but that isn’t teaching. Teaching is taking the information and adapting it to every level in the classroom. Understanding that everyone is not on the same pace. The teacher knows who is having a bad day and good day and changes accordingly. Who is hungry and not paying attention and adapting when something has happened in the news. Teaching is being able to evaluate each student based on their learning strength and then reteaching when needed. Teaching is listening. Teaching is motivating. Teaching is changing lesson mid- stride and still covering lesson. Teaching is caring.
As a parent I would want a call from a live person who knows my children, not a computer e-mail.
As a teacher I would like to call a parent about a problem or success of any student.
Read Prof. Lois Weiner to understand the mentality behind the notion “anybody” can teach. It has to do with neoliberals believing that because the job market worldwide requires few skills from the vast majority of workers apart from basic read and math skills, education is a waste of money. Since few jobs require any education beyond middle school, it is a waste of money to pay teachers professional salaries. They can have as little an education as the students they “teach.” This is done in many third world countries.
Teaching really isn’t a “calling,” which tends to denigrate what teachers do and tends to justify the outrageously low pay they make. It is the typical nonsense leveled at female-dominated work. It IS a profession, or it should be.
One of the education battles is the battle between those who see teaching as a profession and those who do not.
I made a typo: I mean “reading” instead of “read.”
A profession defines, regulates, and disciplines itself as it goes about its duties of service to the greater community. Teachers can govern their profession, and it’s high time they began the journey to professional autonomy.
One of the reasons they are knocking out certification requirements in LA is because the old law stated a school needed 75% certified teachers in a school. They have been struggling to provide this quota in the inner city schools here for years. Our strongest districts have the highest proportions of certified, master degree, and national board teachers. Those districts have cherry picked many of the best teachers out of the poor performing districts. They [the state] have given up trying to attract career teachers to the poorest districts in hopes they can attract college graduate content teachers (i.e. math, history, science majors) to replace the ineffective “certified” teachers.
Also, desegregation orders have required public schools here to employ the same proportion of teacher ethnicity compared to student ethnicity. This has seen an influx of students that graduate from a couple of poor academic universities here. Employers all over the state have lamented that these colleges turn out under-qualified graduates for years. In recent years one of these colleges was sued by 6 students for giving them A’s all the way through college, but not giving them the education capital needed to pass the national teacher exams. I never heard how that suit ended.
Anyways, it is the ineffective certified teachers and 75% quota in the poor performing districts that has fueled general population perception that it would not hurt to remove certification requirements for teachers. The problem with this is, the attrition rates of these poor performing districts will now sky rocket as people willing to invest their life to education will be pushed out by people using it as a stepping stone in route to a “real career”. Every teacher knows that great teachers are cultivated. The ones that struggled in math as a child become the best math teachers in a career because they understand why students aren’t “getting it” and have developed methods to help students get it. Instead of pouring resources into identifying why many certified teachers are ineffective and fixing this problem, the general consensus right now is to fill the classrooms with whomever is available and give them a year or two to see if they have a talent for teaching.
Not to mention, it is cheaper to pay salaries of new teachers versus experienced teachers, new teachers are willing to put up with stupid reform…while experienced teachers will resist, and teachers that put in 5 years and run away will lower retirement and healthcare expenses in the long haul.
Also, I have a strong feeling the districts that have passing marks will continue to value the certified, teacher education graduates, national board certified, “experienced” personnel that have given them the strong accountability status they presently enjoy. I do worry that the gap between the haves and have nots will grow in exponential rates though.
The scripted curricula are some of the most counterproductive and alarming things I’ve seen. What if a student asks a question?
I think we may have found a use for those Galvanic Skin Response Bracelets. The proponents and authors of scripted lessons ought to be required to present the scripts to impoverished junior schools students who are all wearing Galvanic Skin Response Bracelets.
When the Bracelets show the students’ attention wandering, big buckets of ice cold water could drop on the presenter’s head.
I retired from public school teaching a couple of years ago after 37 years in the classroom. The more I talk with friends concerned about making education more professional, and the more I read about how teachers are trained, I am wondering if the US should move toward a teacher training regime like Finland’s. Not only would teachers entering the classroom be better trained in their subject matter, but there might also be some other beneficial results. The first might be cutting the attrition rate of US teachers from 40 – 50% during the first five years to Finland’s rate where only 10 – 15% of teachers ever leave. Second, new teachers might feel more confident about their skills and in their understanding of pedagogy making them less susceptible to the top down management style that seems increasingly to dominate American public schools. The longer term benefits are too numerous to mention in a blog comment, but they all come down to the true professionalism most teachers want.
There are people who would love to teach and who would be great at it yet they lack the education and certification that most states/districts require. That these potentially great teachers exist outside of the profession is undeniable.
There are also people who would love to teach, lack the education and certification, and would be terrible teachers.
But the idea that ALL of these people could be unleashed into America’s classrooms is horrifying.
Requiring teachers to have a college degree and relevant certification in all of our public schools is a bar that should not be lowered or compromised.
This also goes for charter schools and any school system that accepts publically-funded vouchers.
I do feel differently about private schools. By “private” I mean schools that are not funded by public money. These schools should be free to set their own criteria for hiring teachers. However, because children are involved, these schools should be required to disclose this criteria and parents should have to sign a separate document detailing this before enrolling their children in such schools.
Buyer beware.
Many very good private schools do not require that teachers go through the certification that public schools require. No question, they have other requirements – often master’s degrees – and sometimes teachers have advanced degrees in education. But certification per se is connected to the bureaucracy. (I don’t mean that in a negative sense. I’m referring only to the requirement being based within a particular system.)
I have a teaching certificate and taught for over 30 years. Even with that teaching certificate, there are curriculum areas that I would not feel comfortable teaching. I would feel quite lost in a science lab or in phys. ed at the middle school level, for example. Oh, I could read a script lesson, but to be able to get the kids engaged, no way. There are special teaching techniques that one learns, not just content. Without a combination of skills, techniques, subject matter knowledge, an understanding of child development, and proper certification, the student is going to lose.
The politicians and the reformers do not have the guts to get in front of a classroom.
A good education should be a prerequisite to being a teacher. But there are many ways to get there, and taking education courses isn’t necessarily one of them. I think teacher training should require a bachelor’s degree in SOMEthing, presuming that means a graduate would have some basics in history, philosophy, sciences, math, literature, arts, and perhaps a LOT in the area of concentration. And education schools should be graduate programs that entail lots and lots of observations, participation, apprenticing, feedback, seminars, and clinical work. At that point, if a person appears to have the disposition to become a teacher, s/he should be let loose on the system. If not, they should be counselled out.
And then, the induction period of three or four years should be carefully monitored and mentored, and prior to being given full due process rights, that person should have begun to actually learn how to teach – which can only be done while teaching. If there’s not enough evidence of that after three or four years, again – counsel them out.
Beyond that then, of course, systems have to give teachers the latitude to use their talents, creativity, and whatever, to motivate and engage their kiddos.
I’m somewhat amazed that none appears to know the orgin of the scripted teaching. Both are directly out of Pavlov and later B. F. Skinner’s theories. I was first subjected, and subjected is the only word that comes to my mind in 1978 while I was a Title I Reading Teacher. I was subjected to a week-long workshop in a program titled The Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction out of Salt Lake City, Utah. It was government funded in the 60’s with over 600 thousand dollars in grants.
These programs are promoted through the regional federal laboratories and through the “Joint Dissemination Network” a federal agency. They are/were published in a book titled “Educational Programs that Work”. Needless to say, some don’t.
These programs like Direct Instruction, ECRI and various others, to my knowledge, never state the method; and I asked over and over during the workshop. The parents are never advised that these programs are experimental and based on animal research, nor are the children. The way I see education going today is S-R-S; S-R i. e. Pavlov/Skinner scripted test that align the curricula to the test. This is training, not education. Humans are not animals, at least most that I know, but I sometimes questions those supporting such methods. They appear to have a lower level cognitive thought process. I’s put my German Shepard up against them any time on an even bet!
Pardon typo errors. I’ll try to slow down!
This brings to mind two questions I have wondered about.
First, why is it that we have two “reforms” for teacher quality going on at the same time? One is the move to reduce or, now, even remove teacher certification requirements, shortening the time it takes to be allowed to teach. The other is the move to reform teacher education programs to increase requirements for more content focus and more classroom experience, extending the time it takes to be allowed to teach. I haven’t looked to see who supports these opposing views. Are they some of the same people? If not, what are their differences? Are these reforms just two sides of the coin of hostility toward anything deemed the status quo?
Second, are there enough people with the capacity, never mind interest, to become truly excellent teachers to fill all of the classrooms across the country? I wonder this because I have a good idea of what it takes to be a truly excellent teacher and it seems to me that training can only go so far. If there are not enough of these people, how do we find them, train them, allocate them to schools, and support them? And who do we get to fill the rest of the spots and how do we find them, train them, allocate them to schools, and support them?
Mary, you just touched on an important issue. All the claims from people like Melinda Gates and Michelle Rhee about having a great teacher in every classroom is stuff and nonsense. The methods they propose will not identify such people, the strategies they rely on are driving good teachers away, and their rhetoric is actually destructive. No, what they are doing to the teaching profession will make their goal recede very far away.