In a move clearly intended to require greater supervision of Teach for America teachers, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing tightened the rules about the training and supervision of interns.
At hearings, civil rights groups argued that it was unfair to put poorly trained interns in charge of students with high-needs, especially English-language learners and students with disabilities. Supporters of TFA argued the other side, claiming that the rules were simply bureaucratic hurdles. The “reformers,” in other words, demanded lower standards for those who teach the neediest children.
This excerpt from the article shows the two sides at their best:
“For us, it’s a fundamental issue of equity and a constitutional right to equal educational resources,” said Tiffany Mok of the American Civil Liberties Union of California. The daughter of immigrants from Hong Kong, Mok teared up as she told the commission her parents always believed she should have the same opportunities as everyone else.
“But a powerful coalition of school boards, administrators, charter operators, reform advocates — and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and L.A. Unified Supt. John Deasy — had signed a letter to the commission arguing that state law explicitly allows interns to teach students with limited English and that they should be allowed to continue to do so. Placing more state regulations over them would create needless burdens, they argued.
“This is bureaucracy at its best,” said Jessica Garcia-Kohl of Rocketship Education, a charter-school chain based in San Jose.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“This is bureaucracy at its best” Freudian slip? Because, I would agree that licensing teachers is best. Shutting down a kid’s lemonade stand for not having a permit is bureaucracy at its worst.
Let’s consider our own experiences as students. Who were our extraordinary teachers? Where were they, on the teacher development time line? What other factors contributed to their “great teacher” status? With these questions in mind, what does this bureaucratic power struggle contribute to the ideal goal of placing the best and most inspiring teachers into our public classrooms?
I find the charter infiltration and attack on the teacher’s union bewildering. Who benefits from these rotten NCLB, Pearson online testing and teaching programs, and the added teacher tests, credential requirements and ongoing education rules? Why does Bill Gates and Microsoft keep surfacing when we see stories regarding financial interests and returns?
For over fifty years people could leave college, get an “emergency” teaching credential and teach school in the “inner-city.” It’s time for this travesty to end. Could this be the beginning of true professional status for teachers? I hope so.
“As California goes, so goes the nation.”
There is something that I thought was a very important point. If a child goes from k-12 grade in a charter school that is staffed with 60-70% TFA (being conservative), how many times or what would be the percentage of that child having a first year TFA teacher through his whole education? Would a student have a brand new teacher five times maybe seven times maybe more through their whole education. I know we talk a lot about these teachers being unprepered for teaching, but what about their students having to constantly being faced with a brand new teacher every couple of years. On top of everything else having to constantly deal with a stressed out, unprepared and un supported teacher. Am I wrong or wouldn’t this have a devastating affect on children?
So we the state strips away local control to develop complex models of grading schools, puts in place punitive systems of teacher evaluations, and even goes so far as to actually take over schools to run them-and that’s not bureaucracy?
Please explain to me how upgrading teacher licensing provisions hurts children.
Is it not a legitimate function of the state to develop benchmarks for teachers and insure compliance?
Why would anyone be against more rigorous standards for teachers?
I have noticed a trend in the actions of the reformers.
When they encounter resistance, they call it bureaucracy and bemoan the potential harm to kids.
When bureaucracies favor their policies (which is happening nationwide), they call it bold and innovative.
I agree with you. We regulate barbers and beautians, every level of caregivers, wouldn’t we want to regulate to have the best we can for a childs education ? The key answer is they can’t make a profit off the regulations. Having low paid (sort of untrained) teachers in for profit charter schools puts more $$$$$ in their pockets.
I understand the point about lowering standards but I think this may be an example of hurting kids to make a point. TFA attracts some of the smartest college grads in the country. They train them, hurriedly, but they train them. Most folks who went through teacher training would concede, I think, that much of what one needs to know is learned on the job, not in prep classes whether they be the quickee TFA style or the more traditional methods.
But most importantly it should be remembered that TFA folk generally displace longterm substitutes in these inner city schools. If you shut off the flow of TFA bodies you are probably sentencing those kids to completely untrained teachers, who often rotate every 30 days due to California laws on substitutes.
Raising standards in this case will not cause new, highly-trained teachers to take over classrooms hereabouts. There are no such folk waiting in the wings to take the place of Kopp’s kids.
Ms. Kopp and her ilk can be snooty at times, and they make grandiose claims based on scant statistical evidence. But there are many TFA teachers doing good work around this state. Casting them out in an effort to punish the vain Ms. Kopp seems to diminish her critics.
Jerry, no one is “casting out” TFA. The issue is whether it is fair to put the least experienced, least prepared “teachers” in the neediest classrooms. How would you answer?
Are they finally waking up out of their “Bad Dream?”
If, as Tiffany Mok says, each student really has a constitutional (state constitution) right to equal educational resources, then the duty to provide those resources (translate money, or stored work) must fall on someone else. What is being argued about is how MUCH stored work the state can demand from others to guarantee that each child has equal educational resources. But who decides when equity of opportunity has been satisfied? The parents and their child? The state of California? The teachers’ unions? The local school districts? TFA’s are cheaper. But perhaps there are hidden costs to society if the TFA’s are not also better teachers than the persons they are bumping. Has there been any research on that question?
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in Rowley that the educational benefit public school children with disabilities are entitled to is a Chevy, not a Cadillac.
What about all the Special Ed kids TFAers work with in both inclusive and separate classrooms, when TFAers have reported that they’ve gotten little or no training in Special Ed? Sounds like those kids are getting a lemon.
If I am correct Federally the Supreme Court declared in a Texas case that students state to state did not have a Federally constitutionally protected right to an equal opportunity education. However, I think 37 states have that requirement in their state constitutions. Even in California with a State Supreme Court decision, Serrano v. Priest, declaring constitutional equal opportunity education, money/student, it varies dramatically. In 1993 it varied from $3,268-16,588/student. Today LAUSD receives over $2,000/student more than the average Unified School District in California. The variation is much worse than that today even with the so-called equalized funding. The variations are done through catagorical funding. When you compare the revenues of different districts none of it makes sense in the sense of extra for Title 1 and such. It is all political. It is BIG MONEY.
If one is concerned about outcomes in dealing with students from immigrant non-English speaking homes with a litany of problems, I suggest that the best practice protocols can be found in Rafe Esquith’s Hobart Shakespeareans program within the massive Hobart Elementary School in Central Los Angeles.
A one page summary by the education writer for the Washington Post, Jay Mathews, is at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/08/the_best_classroom_teacher_in.html
I suggest that if we are going to ever have America’s public school students learn as do the students of the more enlightened countries of the world, which are now eating our lunch in global trade, we need to look to those protocols that produce scientifically verifiable outcomes, as opposed to blindly insisting on certifications based on antiquated theories lacking a scientific basis.
“Minimum wage, at-will, workers and volunteers are cheaper. But perhaps there are hidden costs to society if the minimum wage, at-will, workers and volunteers are not also better teachers than the persons they are bumping. Has there been any research on that question?”
Not that I’m familiar with, Harlan. But I’m sure you can get some money from Tilson or the Koch Brothers or the Walmart Klan or Broad or Gates or some ersatz “research institute” that will give you the answer you’re obviously hoping to receive.
Actually, wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier, Harlan, if you volunteered to go into the nearest Burger King or 7-11 and hand out a flyer advertising “Teachers Needed!”, to each of the workers? Heck, you could even offer them a ride to their new job.
After all, “anyone can teach”. Right? And it’s only “that (Expletive Deleted) Union!” that prevents us from saving a boatload of money for taxpayers by “letting the market decide”.
Did I correctly summarize your true beliefs on this, Harlan?
Great writing and to the point.
Good. Now let’s ban uncertified “teachers” like TFAs from public schools. TFA is clearly a racist organization now.
What if we let a scientifically designed study compare the outcomes of students who have had TFA teachers to a carefully matched beforehand students who are products of
schools of education and who have full teacher certification?
Emotional outbursts are not the solution. Scientifically verified outcomes are.
Separately, is the Puget Sound parent a Logger, or a resident of that most attractive area of the US that is so great to visit which my wife just returned from after visiting fantastic Leavenworth, WA?
Dormand, the many peer-reviewed studies comparing TFA teachers to other new teachers show that the scores of their students are similar. The real difference is that at the end of two years, most of the TFA teachers are gone, and the district loses whatever it spent to train them.
Dr. Ravitch,
I had thought that the important difference between TFA teachers and traditionally trained teachers was the lack of preperation for TFA teachers. I think I have read many many posts here arguing that. This post seems to contradict that viewpoint, and seems to suggest that California should not worry so much about the qualifications of interns but instead concentrate on the retention of teachers.
Perhaps scores of students is a factor which does not warrant substantial weight in the big picture.
What is more important is whether these students gain the confidence and the skills
( such as how to think critically and how to write a compelling paper ) that will get them comfortably into regular college courses at a college which will effectively develop functional literacy in them.
This might require a longitudinal study so it does not give the instant gratification of the standardized testing that has consumed so much of our nation’s resources as well as teacher and student time over the past decade.
It would, however, provide far better insight as to whether there is an alternative that will result in our students who are well prepared for college ( not for developmental courses)
and apply themselves in their courses can fulfill the demanding requirements of the world class organizations that have gone on record of being unable to recruit the quality and the quantity of US college graduates they require to maintain leadership in their industries. A technical company that consistently produces the second best technology
is a company that is dead in the water.
To see how less-than-adequate human resources results in products and service that clearly fall behind the global competition, skim the Haggler’s column in the NYTimes on March 10, 2013.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/your-money/a-whirlpool-microwave-and-a-customer-service-problem.html?_r=0
Whatever the route to improve effectiveness in our human capital development, it is clear that we have a real and immediate problem in producing domestically the talent needed, or our country will fall down to the second or third tier in global competitiveness.
If the outstanding products are developed overseas and all we can do is sell them through our big box stores at tiny margins, this country is destined for more poverty and less well being. With our massive federal debt, we have problems. If you read
Kotlikoff & Burns “The Coming Generational Storm” you will understand the gravity of our situation.
Dormand; many of those companies you allude to do not wish to pay a liveable wage to Americans. They set impossible requirements with the help of their lawyers to allow them to get H-1 V visas to import cheap labor because labor laws do not apply to those persons. Do you really believe we do not have capable scientific and engineering people here in America? What needs to change is the tolerance we have for the oligarchs selling us down the river along with our children. Jefferson warned of this, we should have listened.
I spent a lot of time in this industry, and you are absolutely correct. There is no shortage. There is a shortage of people willing to do it for as little as a talented Indian with an eye on permanent residence and citizenship.
Now that these workers can enjoy an elevated status in India and China, the talent pool is not as great as it was, but still better than an overpaid American (sarcasm).
There are somewhere around 4 million new hires a month in the US. The total number of H1-B visas for last year was 65,000.
Virtually ever challenge can be solved by examining the protocols used by the most effective organizations in comparable environments, commonly referred to as
“best practices management”.
I suggest that examining the protocols used by those systems which produce the best trained graduates. i.e. Finland, South Korea, and Singapore would be worthwhile.
We do have outstanding results by programs in the US involving extreme poverty students in the quarter century track record of Rafe Esquith’s Hobart Shakespeareans.
The problems that we have are not with the students or with their impoverished families.
The problems that we have are in the outmoded and obsolete protocols that are in place, fiercely protected by administrators and public officials who have no sense of the scientific method to test the effectiveness and reliability of protocols.
Thus we have college graduate burdened with enormous student loan indebtedness unable to find work other than in big box retailers.
And these are the people whose earnings will be taxed to pay for your Social Security and Medicare as well as the $16 trillion in debt that our generation has burdened them with paying.
As for as the supply/demand situation in the highest levels of new graduates in the hard sciences and technology, I can only relate to what the various respected media report from hiring organizations. You are most welcome to corroborate as you choose:
*Microsoft has been seeking for some time to hire immediately 1,600 advanced IT professionals.
* the New York Times has reported that both Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly & Co. have reported to the SEC that their respective inability to recruit adequate quantities and quality of scientific talent from US universities have put them at risk for maintaining their competitive leadership in global trade.
*both the CIA and the NSA report being unsuccessful in recruiting US citizens who are highly trained IT professionals for their respective cyber-terrorism initiatives.
The financial media are filled with reports of vigorous recruiting of competitors’ top IT talent among the top companies in Silicon Valley. Google reports that it has increased
IT professionals pay by $10,000 annually to abate the loss of top talent to competitors.
One glaring omission in the listing of highly trained professionals in perilously short supply is that of registered nurses.
Some hospitals are able to keep their doors open only by sending recruiters to scour the developing nations around the world to steal away one of their most precious assets: their scant supply of registered nurses.
Instead of developing a logical human capital development supply chain to train nurses from the population in lower socioeconomic areas, we steal nurses from foreign countries.
We are approaching a perfect storm situation in the supply/demand levels of registered nurses. As baby boomers age into the more prolific age of consumption of hospital services, many experienced RNs are too approaching retirement age. Due to the physical demands upon nursing professionals, age 55 is the common retirement age.
When the current patient-to-nurse ratio of 5 to 1 legally mandated in the State of California spreads to more or all of the nation, panic will result.
When a hospital is unable to sustain a critical mass of nurses, it must shut its doors and cease operations. This occurred in Terrell, Texas in February, 2013, leaving this small city with no hospital within thirty miles.
The only thing more essential to a hospital than nurses is oxygen.
The US and especially fast growing Texas is sadly deficient in its organic development of these professionals from domestic resources.
Dormand, Don’t believe the all the “hype” from corporate “reformers,” Millions of Graduates Hold Jobs That Don’t Require a College Degree:
http://chronicle.com/article/Millions-of-Graduates-Hold/136879/
“millions of college graduates over all—not just recent ones—suffer a mismatch between education and employment, holding jobs that don’t require a costly college degree.”
There is significant and consistent longitudinal data that confirms that TFA’s corps recruits spend less than 24 hours in the actual practice of teaching children, during their preparation.
To suggest that TFA intern teachers placed in in Special Education classrooms as the teacher of record, are qualified, effective, or a better alternative for children who are 98% poor and minority, warrants an investigation by the Justice Department.
This practice, by districts and the superintendents who make these decisions, has proven to be dangerous, unfair, discriminatory, and patronizing to children, whose disabilities range from cognitive, to physical and emotional. Moreover, it has taken serious physical and emotional tolls on well-meaning and often naive corps members, whose placements were the result of checking the “would you consider teaching Special Education” on TFA’s application form.
Mentor teachers, assigned to bring TFA’s in SPED placements up-to-speed, report that they are overwhelmed, jaded, and minimally supported. Their IEP’s are out-of-compliance.
This practice is pervasive and has been duly noted for too long.
Fair and Appropiate Public Education is not just the law of the land for some children. Every child who receives less than they are entitled to, has no second chance to receive an education from a credentialed and fully trained Special Education teacher and this will impact their learning outcomes for the remainder of their lives, and cost society much in the future.
I agree that licensing teachers is a good thing and I simply can’t understand that Why would anyone be against more rigid standards for teachers? In my opinion this is the right step.