Randi Weingarten proposed a national bar exam for future teachers, and it stirred quite a reaction. Most worrisome is that the idea appeals to certain figures in the public eye who are known for making negative comments about teachers.
Some on this blog complained that Randi was echoing the corporate reformers’ complaint that teachers are the problem and must be blamed for the achievement gap, low scores, and every other issue.
But I’m inclined to agree with Randi that the profession needs higher entry standards or it will never get the respect it deserves.
One of the admirable aspects of Finnish education is that there are high standards for entry into teaching. Only 1 in 10 applicants is accepted into teacher education programs. Teachers have high prestige, as high as other professions. There is no Teach for Finland.
By contrast, many US states have low standards for entry into teaching and welcome teschers with little or no professional preparation. Growing numbers of teachers acquire their masters degree through dubious online “universities.”
I don’t think that a bar exam, by itself, will make much difference, although in the long run it may raise the prestige of the profession.
The question that must be faced is that any such exam is likely to have a disparate impact on minorities. The courts might even strike down an exam that excluded disproportionate numbers of black, Hispanic and Asian applicants. And there are unintended consequences; I am thinking of a story I read a year or two ago about a great music teacher, beloved by his students, who had to leave teaching because he could not pass the math section of the state test.
It’s always wise to look before you leap.
“But I’m inclined to agree with Randi that the profession needs higher entry standards or it will never get the respect it deserves.”
As you hint at, it ‘never gets the respect it deserves’ because ederformers continue to peddle the idea that teaching is lacking in respect. It doesn’t actually mean that it’s lacking in any respect.
Isn’t it then better to challenge the teachers-lack-respect myth? Calling for a new teaching exam feels like pandering to the myth and will only work to reinforce it.
That’s a fair point. I think teaching continues to poll near the top of the most respected professions.
I’d like to add to the concern about doing a bar exam: first it’s another test, and second when we raise the standards and respect of the profession then we’ll need the funds to pay them accordingly. And we know how that conversation goes…
Good point. Where are the funds to pay teachers? Respect in this country follows the reported salaries of professionals. There is more respect for professional athletes than for professional teachers. This is because students look at the teacher’s salaries and say who would work for that little compensation? How can they live in the current economy? Its good to know that they are thinking about something but really…salary should follow the demand for higher credentials.
Just a note that the NEA Comission on Effective Teachers and Teaching released a report over a year ago that called for increased entry standards. However, a national bar is not the appropriate path. As has already been demonstrated is that the current teaching tests (Praxis) eliminate certain populations from the teaching profession. Further, if you want excellent teachers, then you need to find a way to test empathy, creativity, patience, and flexibility.
Excellent food-for-thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/education/06oneducation.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323232652-ThKcupl/zsGCYUTfcsiamA
It’s also worth noting, in case readers here aren’t aware, that there is no national bar exam for attorneys. So what Weingarten, Ravitch and others are proposing would go beyond what exists in the field of law.
The Bar Exam is a two day exam. One day is known as “the multi-state.” This portion is in fact what you call “national.” The second day is devoted to state law for the state in which the attorney plans to practice. Each state controls this second half of the exam.
To LG:
There seems to be a point of contention about using peer review. Yet it is working in places like Montgomery County. As for how teachers are selected, I would hope that would be through an election process and teachers will select those they feel are fair. Without PAR the only alternative is having the principal and VAM be the only deciding factors–neither who I trust. Teachers on the PAR committee want to see teachers succeed and therefore usually recommend mentoring instead of firing. However, teachers know who the bad apples are. The ones that don’t care. The ones that don’t prepare and are there to collect a pay check. Under PAR I bet those teachers will soon change their tune. Keep in mind that PAR still gives teachers all their due process rights. Teachers can fight if they believe the eval was unfair–and that’s something that is not in the NYS eval system (unless you believe allowing only 13% of those fired having that right–and who decides which 13%)???
Here is how I first learned about PAR and have been following other article on this. I have also read feedback from teachers who like it. Like anything else, it took a few years to develop, but at least once you get the kinks out, it works. And having a model already in place helps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/education/06oneducation.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323232652-ThKcupl/zsGCYUTfcsiamA
This is very interesting.
I have a different experience in that my principal and assistant superintendent are very supportive of the staff. They are both highly trained and experienced educators who create an environment of respect and empowerment. They strive to give staff members the space they need to be creative and the help they need to navigate through the changes in curriculum and building initiatives. I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as my colleagues and I, but it gives me pause to think that administrators are all completely untrustworthy everywhere.
As a society of educators, we should be pushing for the training and retention of quality administrators who are experts in teaching within our systems.
Granted, Montgomery County had to work out kinks, but I am suspect of the sustaining of a system that expects people to evaluate peers no matter how much “trust” is in place at present.
Administrators are paid for their training. Are the teacher-evaluators trained evaluators? If not, they should be. If they are trained, are they compensated commensurate with their training, expertise and responsibilities as evaluators? If not, they should be. If they are, they should be making a lot more than peers of their experience and credential level. Now if they are making more than teacher peers, how does one get such a great-paying job? If they are elected, how do those who elect them learn of their credentials as teacher-evaluators? Do they campaign? Do they win these positions by majority vote? Are they elected by administrators? Are they elected by the same people who will be evaluated by them? Is there any danger of a campaign becoming a popularity contest? Or is there danger of teacher-evaluators being elected by the majority of teachers who share their philosophies, teaching styles, subject area knowledge, penchants for certain methods, etc. at the exclusion of all others? Do they share students? Do they share expertise in subject area? In special areas where there is limited staff, such as with the arts, are their enough expert teachers on the evaluating committee to represent these areas?
Advocating for people to evaluate peers and therefore having a say in the firing of them is a sticky wicket. Better use of experienced staff opinion is for support, advice, and collaborative counsel. When one puts a person in charge of his or her peer’s livelihood, there are many legal grey areas that need to be accounted for, such as who decides who gets what power and why.
In regard to trust, I find it difficult to trust a superintendent who calls Arne Duncan a friend:
“Dr. Weast, who calls the United States secretary of education, Arne Duncan, ‘a good friend,’ said, ‘He’s told me, ‘Jerry, you’re going where the country needs to go.’ ‘ “
[Ugh, sorry for the typo..it should read "are THERE enough expert" not "are their enough expert." I hate auto-correct.]
Many of the posters have expressed disdain for administrators, pointing out the minimal amount of training required among other problems. Perhaps one of them could speak about their experiences.
Yes, I was one of them. I’ve had my share of questionable ones an my share of great ones. However, not all admins are terrible or untrustworthy. I have been very critical of the limited teaching experience requirements of some admin certification programs which is why I suggested that we as a community of educators should advocate for the recruitment and retention of highly trained experienced educators as school administrators.
First I do not think who the superintendent is friendly with should count against his brave decision to not accept RTTT funding. btw, if you did further research you will find the new superintendent also decided to stay with PAR. Joshua Starr is also not a believer in using VAM to judge teachers. And if not PAR, that will be the only alternative under the present system.
As for principals. Many of them are coming out of the Broad Academy–nuff said!!
It seems your mind is made up on this issue which is sad. Winerip was one of the only education reporters to actually be on the side of teachers. I trust his articles, but I also trust comments I get on my FB page from teachers who work under this system and like it. If I recall, you said you were music teacher. I do not know of any high-stakes test in music that can make or break a career (yet), but I understand these tests are coming for both music and art.
NYC used to have teachers be on the hiring committee until Klein got Weingarten to take it out of the contract. He only wanted principals to have that power. Then he started the Leadership Academy (now Broad) that trained people–some with little classroom experience–how to break the union. Randi sits on the Bd of Directors of this academy. (Conflict of interest anyone???)
As long as I and other teachers are judged by VAM, we will never get a fair evaluation. And to rely on a “fair” principal is fine, But what about those who don’t have a fair principal?? I think you should Google Joshua Starr and PAR to see how well this system is working before you rush to judgment. I am sure the teachers on the committee are not making any of this personal. We all can identify teachers in need–many of whom are giving a pass by principals for whatever reason. And this process gives a struggling teacher a year to improve.
The best way to improve a school is allow teachers to have ownership–to be part of the collaboration and decision-making process. If this process wasn’t working, I would be against it. But it is working and with union protections. Given NYS now has into law that any teacher who falls short on VAM 2 years in a row (which is worth 40% of the eval) will be fired. And only 13% of them are allowed to fight it. So 40% really equals 100%. Under VAM 200 teachers lost their job in DC. I don’t know how much you know about VAM (or if you are or will soon be judged by it) but any teacher who teaches an advanced class will not show any improvement using this flawed statistical model. Politicians don’t want to change it because they want to either break the unions or turn as many schools into charters as they can–and that includes my Democratic governor.
schoolgal, thank you for your response.
I mean no personal disrespect to Dr. Weast, but the mentioning of his friendship with Duncan in the article certainly has a political bent to it. I don’t usually consort with people with the political power to damage my livelihood even indirectly, but keeping Duncan as a friend could serve to influence him toward the policy changes that take the test score evaluation out of the federal equation. It may be difficult to know peoples’ motivations, but I often have a very difficult time trusting a person who openly sleeps with the enemy, after a fashion.
Many of the Broad principals of whom you refer are in school districts in states that have been overrun by reformers, but not all are in this situation. Believe it or not, there are many administrators who are trained educators at-large with no affiliation to Broad or any other reformer laboratory. For those districts that have the unfortunate position of having a Broadie in charge, the first order of business is to give the district back to the people. I don’t have a lot of faith in the idea that a Broad-run school or district will adopt PAR while there is corruption at the helm. Broad is a disease of the district’s brain and bringing in PAR is like operating on the heart of a brain-dead patient with the hope it will live. Get the district back into the hands of the people first by giving them voice via their local school boards and then by educating them about the credentials of their administrators.
My mind is not made up on whether or not to accept the concept of PAR, although I am suspect of PAR as a system that is tied to the firing or increment-awarding aspects of teacher evaluation. I fully support peer observation and counsel. In fact, I believe that having a peer counseling team in every school should be a mandate. I am not an advocate of giving firing power to peers, no matter how honest and sincere they seem now. Over years, there will be people taking advantage of that system like they always do. It is in human nature for someone to always be trying to gain advantage. Right now, it seems like a big ol’ love fest, but in reality, these kinds of systems have far too many problems with hierarchy issues.
Regardless of whether or not music and art are included in high-stakes testing is irrelevant. Kindergarten, first and second grade teachers as well do not give an assessment that could be tied into to evaluations. To satisfy the state legislation tying test scores to a percentage of evaluation, all teachers in my district are mandated to support writing and math in their courses and all teachers will share in the test-score component of the evaluation. We are going to be evaluated as a school, not as individuals, for the assessment portion of each evaluation. None of this makes sense for the same reasons you pointed out: These types of evaluative instruments do not take into account a host of variables that make them unfair, so you better believe I care about the quality of the work done by my teaching peers. I just do not feel that I nor they should be making the decisions of whether or not our peers keep their jobs.
Having teachers on a hiring committee is interesting but could be problematic. We used to do that in my district, but it fell by the wayside for reasons I was not privy to being a new teacher in the district at the time. I feel that there is some danger of nepotism in a situation like that.
“As long as I and other teachers are judged by VAM, we will never get a fair evaluation. And to rely on a ‘fair’ principal is fine, But what about those who don’t have a fair principal?? I think you should Google Joshua Starr and PAR to see how well this system is working before you rush to judgment.”
I am not putting PAR down–I am not ready to “pick it up” until the many questions I have posed are answered.
“I am sure the teachers on the committee are not making any of this personal.”
I’m sure they are not either. Sounds like everyone is on the up-and-up. In time, however, systems of trust break down. This is why we have laws, contracts, and (sorry for those who got screwed by by the AFT/UFT in NY) unions.
It’s unfortunate that there are cynics out there, but without us, the Kum-ba-ya moments in our lives won’t turn around to bite us in the behind…that is, bite us too much. I want to believe that PAR is a great thing. Conceptually having teachers help struggling peers is absolutely the right course of action. My concern as I’ve tirelessly stated over and over here is with putting teachers in charge of their peers’ firing. It’s not a position in which a peer should be put. I would very much love to see the “union protections” of which you speak. I could not dream up enough protection for the evaluator-teacher in this scenario, but you claim it exists. So lay it out for me, and I will give it a chance.
The article you posted gave some insight into the process, but I am still having issues with the “power” conditions. Because of that component, I am not convinced it is the smartest idea. Again, please do not construe that I am against teacher-driven support systems. Those should be in every district, and there should be time in the schedule for these. We absolutely need teachers to collaborate on good teaching practices. We also need teachers to be more involved in their own personal evaluation process. We do not need to be putting responsibilities of hiring and firing people onto their peers. That is my biggest, and right now only, concern.
Once again you fail to understand that this is a “union-sponsored program” which means due process rights are secured. However, like you said, what if the program was co-opted. Is the current system using VAM any better? Principals can easily stack a class against you. Their percentage is still not entirely based on objectivity. Look at how many principals are misusing Danielson. I would rather be in a PAR system if I worked for a Broad principal because it would diminish his/her authority and save good teachers that are outspoken. And that’s why Bloomberg would never go for it.
Again, The new superintendent is not tied to Duncan. The point of Winerip’s story was someone with ties to Duncan stood up to him and stood up against VAM because their process was indeed working. Under VAM good teachers can easily lose their jobs and bad teachers can easily teach to the test or cheat. Your responses leave out VAM. And that’s what we are all stuck with if your district wants RTTT funding which btw no student ever sees. It all goes to consultants and testing companies.
Of course a reform state and Obama/Duncan will never accept PAR because it doesn’t line the pockets of Pearson. This was never about the students. It was never about empowering teachers. It was always about privatization. Montgomery isn’t the only district using PAR. And as I suggested, you can Google it to learn more.
But you failed to answer my question:
Do you teach a subject that is tied to VAM??
“Once again you fail to understand that this is a ‘union-sponsored program’ which means due process rights are secured.”
With all due respect, perhaps you failed to read what I wrote. My concern is not just for the teachers being evaluated by their peers–it is also for the teacher-evaluators. I am most interested in knowing how they are protected. I have seen unions agree to policies that appear to be benign before–I’m still reeling over how the use of the ATR system ever got the blessing of the union in NYC–so using the argument that PAR is a “union-sponsored program” as proof that it is a good idea does not negate my skepticism.
“However, like you said, what if the program was co-opted. Is the current system using VAM any better? Principals can easily stack a class against you. Their percentage is still not entirely based on objectivity. Look at how many principals are misusing Danielson. I would rather be in a PAR system if I worked for a Broad principal because it would diminish his/her authority and save good teachers that are outspoken. And that’s why Bloomberg would never go for it.”
Obviously VAM is worse than anything. However, the system that employs trained and experienced educators who are actual administrators evaluating their staff members is better than giving teachers the power to fire their peers–it is an absolutely excellent idea to ask peers to counsel each other, yes, but not to recommend termination. As you keep insinuating, yes, admins can be corrupt, but so can fellow teachers. I think it’s a mistake to put the responsibility of recommending whether their peers keep a job or not on teachers. Firing and making contract renewal recommendations is the job of an administrator, not a peer.
I am most interested in learning more about the misuses of the Danielson model as my district has just begun training us on Danielson. We had an introductory workshop on it two weeks ago. Next week, we go into further detail. So far, my principal’s initial interpretation of the model most aligns with what we have done in the past–his approach is to connect the two models by examining their commonalities first before exploring their differences.
“Again, The new superintendent is not tied to Duncan. The point of Winerip’s story was someone with ties to Duncan stood up to him and stood up against VAM because their process was indeed working. Under VAM good teachers can easily lose their jobs and bad teachers can easily teach to the test or cheat. Your responses leave out VAM. And that’s what we are all stuck with if your district wants RTTT funding which btw no student ever sees. It all goes to consultants and testing companies.”
I understand full well the travesty of VAM. Let me make this perfectly clear, I am not arguing FOR VAM, although I am perplexed as to why you keep bringing it up as an off-shoot of my concerns. It seems that you speak of PAR in terms of little else but VAM, yet a discussion of the differing evaluation systems is irrelevant to the most basic red-flag with PAR: putting the responsibility of recommending a person be fired on that of his peers.
I am going to simplify my concern in a question: Do you honestly think that putting teachers in charge of firing their peers is a good thing, and if so, how do you reconcile all the possible issues that surround this positioning of teacher-evaluators as administrators? “Administrators” are essentially what they ultimately become when you put them in charge of people’s livelihoods.
“But you failed to answer my question:
Do you teach a subject that is tied to VAM??”
Not sure what my opinion on the mis-use of teachers as administrators has to do with my personal experiences with VAM. I advocate for individuals having more of a say in their own evaluations, but I fail to see how any experience with VAM cancels out my concern for the power distribution and protections of all parties involved in PAR. According to my principal, the Danielson model is designed to allow teachers more input in their own evaluation process, but not necessarily to evaluate each other to determine who should keep a job and who should not.
And I did answer your question…the evaluation of every teacher in my district will include student test results starting next year as per new state legislation (surprise, surprise), so indirectly…YES, we all teach a subject that is tied to VAM–at least that will be next year unless something drastic changes in the law. I have already had a conversation with our new supervisor during a team meeting about the unfairness of the policy. She agreed but could not answer me when I asked what we, teachers and administrators alike, are doing about it. Perhaps she was blind-sided by my question, but even our admins do not know how this will play out. I have a meeting with her this week where I am going to broach the topic again. As for my principal, he knows how I feel about it. He’s feeling the crunch himself this year. It is my hope that admins like my principal will continue to influence his supervisors to affect changes in the policy since it is a misuse of standardized tests, not to mention, wholly unfair.
As a NYC teacher, I know just how badly my union can screw things up. I and others posted all over every NYC blog including Edwize against voting for the ’05 contract. I therefore have no pity for any ATR that voted the money over their rights. However, besides being here, I am an advocate for bringing back excessing rights and an end to the ATR provision. I am also fighting hard to get Julie elected as our next UFT president. But many schools seem not to be interested in union politics and that is a big problem. I also agree I would not be happy with any negotiation done by the UFT without our input and vote. I think its criminal NYC teachers can’t vote on any eval deal Mugrew puts through–and I don’t trust him. It’s for that reason I liked the PAR deal because unlike the NYS deal, due process rights are included.
NYC teachers were also on the hiring committee until Randi and Klein took that away. That’s something I would like to see returned. But what I truly like about PAR–unlike the VAM system–is that staff development is included. And as a teacher I feel most teachers who I hope are “voted” on the committee (God forbid if it’s principal selection–but I would never agree to that in any agreement including PAR) would opt for the staff development. I have taught with some really horrible teachers. If principals did their job correctly, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, debate, or whatever this is. I just suggested you did more investigation as to why teachers under this plan like it before you continue with why is “might” not work.
Thanks for the dialogue, schoolgal. Your passion is encouraging me to find out more about PAR and hopefully get some answers as to how the committees are chosen and their positions compensated and protected. A fellow colleague of mine who is also our union executive board member has talked about a similar system, as well, although he and I never seem to have the time to get our debate off the ground.
My heart ached for the NYC teachers the very second I learned of VAM through one of the many articles in the NYTimes that my then GSE professor at Rutgers had sent to us for discussion. I was so horrified by the equation used to evaluate teachers that was posted in the article that I asked the prof how in the world this mathematical construct could be justified knowing what we all as graduate students/educators knew about teaching. His response was for me to write the equation on the chalkboard behind him while the class engaged in the discussion. This took me several minutes which further solidified the ridiculousness of the VAM model for all of us.
Needless to say, I was and remain horrified by the goings-on in NYC. I can only hope that a new mayor can usher in an ideology of change for the better. The coming campaigns of candidates to replace Bloomberg will be of utmost importance. And yes, I have also found schools in my district with members who refuse to get involved in the politics of education–an act of folly since politics have been forced upon us. Your best bet is to organize your colleagues and support those who can crack the current destructive political agenda. I am my district Legislative Action Team Chairperson, and my job is to inform the membership of the goings-on in the state legislature. Whenever I think about even the most minute piece of legislation and how insignificant it may seem, I think about the plight of ATRs and how I could never live my life with so much instability in my career. I send everything along to our members no matter how trivial it may seem. As well, we are watching our neighbors to the NE very closely in an effort to learn from what is happening there.
You have our support, my sister. Here’s hoping this whole reform agenda takes a turn for the better and soon.
Thank you. But living under Christie can’t be easy either. I think the article you are referring to is “Evaluating NYTeachers, Perhaps the Numbers Do Lie” about a new teacher who was denied tenure due to VAM even though the staff and her principal thought she deserved it. That was also written by Winerip. btw, I also tried to fight the Newark deal along with people like Jersey Jazzman and others. But this is another example of teachers wanting money by giving up rights. And under the new rubric, I doubt many teachers will see those bonuses–unless of course they teach to the test.
“…I have also found schools in my district with members who refuse to get involved in the politics of education–an act of folly since politics have been forced upon us.”
I used to say that I wasn’t a political animal, that I just wanted to teach. I can’t believe how incredibly naive I was! You cannot afford not to be political. When push comes to shove, no one else but you can watch your back. If you are blissfully unaware, it is only dumb luck that you haven’t suffered the effects of your ignorance. Take it from someone who still hasn’t totally given up on the innate goodness of people. I still just want to teach, but they took that away from me.
From where I stand, Newark is hot mess. The current contract was a mistake that will echo all over this state. You can be certain we are keeping a close eye on its impact.
Are you aware of the TPA (Teaching Performance Assessment)? It is currently being used in several states during student teaching. Info can be found at edtpa.aacte.org/. In Ohio, it is currently in the pilot stage. It is basically a mini National Boards. Possibly as soon as next year, student teachers will not get a teaching license unless they pass the TPA. Once they do, they will get a 4 year license, and then have to retake the TPA in their third year of teaching to prove they are worthy of a 5 year license. This is extremely problematic, as we are asking pre-service teachers to do what many didn’t do until they taught 10-20 years(National Boards). MAYBE this is a good idea. I could go for using this in place of using student test scores to ‘grade’ teachers, as long as educators are scoring them. Any thoughts?
I believe the TPA is the Pearson assessment over which the UMass teacher instructor, Barbara Madeloni, lost her position.
If that’s the Pearson assessment, it was approved in NYS–with the approval of the UFT president who btw took over when Randi left. It’s only getting worse under “Unity” folks!!!
Yes. It is Pearson. What current assessment isn’t?
The newest “someEEcard” out is:
“If ed reformers ran art museums, artists would be forced to paint by numbers.”
Interesting choice of analogy. Exactly how a mathematician’s lament begins.
I would totally be okay with a bar exam. Something more unified than all these different state tests. I think its the right idea, if we want the best teachers then we need to make those entry levels hard!! And I say this as a college student!
So, do you all realize that the bar exam officially proposed last month by Randi is practically a done deal? AFT Report Recommends Teacher Bar Exam, NBPTS to Assist: http://www.nbpts.org/about_us/news_media1/web_feature_releases?ID=803
What are the chances that states will substitute all their other teacher certification exams with just this one –or will they require the Bar on top of all of those tests?
To those who support it, do you expect Bar certified teachers to then be paid as high as lawyers, when so many “reformers” (like Rhee) argue that education and experience don’t matter to teacher quality?
To tell you the truth I was suspicious about the timing of this post since Diane didn’t seem for or against it when it was first proposed. I just hope Diane is not in any way doing Randi any favors. Diane doesn’t need Randi. Randi needs Diane. I wonder how many good people who really want to become teachers will now look for another path? Randi has not made one proposal that will stop high-stakes testing or stop privatization. In fact, she is now trying to open new sources of dues by unionizing charter teachers, but not with as strong a contract. Her last deal was with Newark public school teachers was horrible. This exam is just theatrics on her part. It will do nothing to increase the respect for teachers or our pay scale. As more states vote in merit pay and take away collective bargaining and seniority rights, where is Randi??? Look how she gave control of the NYC schools to Bloomberg and took away excessing rights. Look at how she got duped into an agreement with Rhee that led to 200 teachers getting fired. And the same will happen in NYS within the next few years under that agreement where VAM trumps the 60% principal evaluation after the 2nd year. Everything she proposes and gets turns to %%%%!!!
When Randi came up with the Bar idea and discussed it on Twitter last year, most teachers opposed it. As with other issues teachers have disagreed with, she just dug in her heels, I think Randi has repeatedly demonstrated that she discounts teacher concerns.
I agree that a Bar exam is going to dissuade many potential teachers from pursuing a career in education and I fear it will serve as a gatekeeper that prevents more people of color from entering the profession.
I have never seen “reformers” make exceptions about the quality of National Board Certified Teachers, so what’s the likelihood they will suddenly respect teachers (and increase their pay) if they have passed a Bar exam? The very “reformers” Randi seems to have sold out to believe that a high ACT/SAT score, BA and just 5 weeks of teacher training are needed to become an “Irreplaceable.” I’ve seen Randi defend TFAers because, she said, they also belong to the union –but she failed to mention that most joined because it was a requirement where they work, i.e., not in the “Right to Work” states.
I think this is another example of the double standard: increasing regulations and qualifications for regular public schools and teachers, while decreasing standards for charter schools and charter teachers.
As the charter empire expands and the number of low needs students attending neighborhood public schools, as well as teachers needed to serve them there, are decreasing, and with charters replacing union teachers with non-union teachers, teacher aids and computers,you have to ask, “What is the end-game for requiring a teacher Bar exam?” is Randi just pandering to “reformers,” did she fail to really think this through –or is it something else?
Personally, I would prefer to see a master’s degree required of teachers, as in Finland, than one MORE high stakes test –because I don’t see states giving up all the other tests required of teachers. I’m not sure why Diane and Randi have not promoted that.
This just seems so hinky!
BTW, I would never expect to see a master’s degree required of teachers in the US, because that would be a game-changer for “reformers” promoting TFA et al, since most of their 5 week trained “teachers” are holding off on going to Grad School until after they complete their missionary temp teaching, so they can pursue more lucrative careers.
In fact, “reformers” deny the positive impacts of masters’ degrees on student learning, even after research came out last year indicating improved outcomes on the NAEP for students of teachers with master’s degrees compared to those with just bachelor’s degrees from 2005 – 2011: http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2012/02/29/02effect.h05.html
I too am surprised to learn that some states don’t require a Masters in order to receive certification. Reformers are trying to change the college requirements and certification requirements around the country as well. If you can breathe and go to a “reform sponsored program” for a few weeks, you are ready to walk into a classroom. Having a Masters or passing a bar exam with flying colors are not enough to guarantee you will make a great teacher, but the fact people are willing to invest in this education says something about their future commitment.
I’ve worked in Teacher Education a long time and my understanding is that, currently, all states grant either initial or provisional certification for teachers with just a bachelor’s degree from an approved Teacher Ed program. Continuing education or professional development is required to maintain or renew certificates in virtually all states, but the only states that I know of which require that be an earned master’s degree are NY and MA. I believe there had been other states, such as OH and MD, which have since repealed their master’s degree requirement for cert renewal. I understand that CT is adding a master’s degree requirement for cert renewal in 2016.
These things change frequently, so I could have missed some current info. Please feel free to weigh in if this is incorrect or you have additional information about master’s degree requirements in different states.
CT has had a master’s degree requirement for many years. I got mine in the early 90′s.
Interesting. It could be that due to low starting salary, teachers can’t afford a Masters. NYS gives you 2 years to get it, but I think you can ask for an extension. Our salary increase are also tied to higher education. A Masters plus 30 above gets you maximum salary after 22 years.
Has it changed in CT since the 90s, or was it the BA + 30 requirement mentioned on page 2, where it says a related master’s degree will be required in 2016? http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/cert/maintaining1109aw.pdf
In PA, teachers can remain Level I certified for a period of up to 6 years (I believe it used to be 5) before they either obtain a Level II certification or risk losing their PA certification altogether. Here are a few of the guidelines for PA Level II certification:
“Applicants for Level II Instructional certification must complete 24 semester credits beyond their bachelor’s degree before they are eligible for Level II certification. These credits must be earned at a four-year degree-granting college/university.
Community college credits and continuing education units (CEUs) are not accepted toward Level II certification. Credits must be earned at and appear as a passing grade on an official transcript by a state-approved, four-year college or university approved by that college’s state education agency for awarding the bachelor’s degree.
Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE)-approved in-service credits count toward Level II certification, provided an official in-service letter with raised seal is submitted with the application.
Credits can be undergraduate level provided the credits were earned after the conferring of the initial bachelor’s degree at a four-year, degree-granting college.”
I remember my father having to complete a Masters degree in order to make his certification permanent. He also took CEUs which brought him a pay raise after 30 credits. It appears that PA no longer requires Masters level coursework, just coursework at accredited colleges or universities.