I recently received anxious inquiries from friends in California who read an article in the Sacramento Bee claiming that the state was lowering standards for new teachers.
The authors of the article said that the California Commision on Teacher Credentialing was dropping the requirement of a four-year degree in academic subject areas. They wrote:
“The commission has effectively lowered teaching standards by giving the OK for school districts to allow core academic subjects to be taught by instructors who do not have four-year degrees or, for that matter, may not even have taken any college courses. Core academic subjects with rigorous knowledge standards that are required for high school graduation include English, mathematics, physical education, history-social science and science.
This was a dramatic claim.
I sent out urgent requests to several friends in California, including Linda Darling-Hammond, who chairs the Commission. Linda assured me that the allegations are untrue. She has written a response, which I will post as soon as it is published by the SacBee. The Commission’s decision pertained only to ROTC and PE. Teachers of ROTC are not currently required to hold a four-year college degree but to have at least four years of military service and at least 135 hours if teacher preparation in an approved program.
Meanwhile, here is an official rebuttal by the CCTC:
Dear colleagues~
As you may have seen, The Sacramento Bee ran an opinion piece in today¹s paper that is in response to the Commission¹s June 20, 2014 action related to its Designated Subjects teaching credentials in ROTC. The Commission took action at its June 20, 2014 public meeting to create an Special Teaching Authorization in Physical Education (PE) that may be obtained by holders of Designated Subjects ROTC and BMD (Basic Military Drill) to signal that they have met a higher standard to teach PE in the context of ROTC and BMD. Unfortunately, the opinion piece significantly misrepresents the Commission¹s actions. We wanted to provide you with some information in case you receive questions or inquiries from members or stakeholders with whom you interact.
The opinion piece states that the Commission removed the requirement that teachers have a bachelor¹s degree.
· The Commission¹s recent decision was related only to its
Designate Subjects teaching credentials in ROTC; not to its general
education teaching credentials or any other of its credentials or permits.
More importantly, possession of a bachelor¹s degree was not an existing
requirement for the Designated Subjects teaching credential in ROTC.
The ROTC credential is under the umbrella of the Designated Subjects
Credentials which recognize experience in a particular employment sector
as equivalent to a bachelor¹s degree for the purpose of credentialing. The
Commission issues Designated Subjects Credentials to individuals in a wide range of business and industry sectors, and these credentials are most
often used in Career Technical Education programs offered in California¹s high schools. ROTC Credential experience requirements include at least four years of military service; preparation requirements include at least 135 hours of teacher preparation in a Commission approved program.
The opinion piece states that the Commission dropped the mandate for
teachers to obtain preparation in the teaching of English Learners.
· Certification to teach English learners is a part of the clear
credentialing requirements for the Designated Subjects teaching
credentials.
Currently, local school boards make the decision about who teaches PE and
which courses are counted toward graduation credit, within broad state
requirements. The CTC recognition of a ROTC specialization does not
change this local decision making. Holders of this ROTC specialization
would NOT be authorized to teach regular PE classes.
Holders of this Special Teaching Authorization in PE would only be able to teach ROTC courses that have been approved by their local school board to
carry PE credit. ROTC teachers can already teach these courses under
current law; the Special Teaching Authorization will recognize that
teachers who meet PE subject matter requirements (the CSET exam) and
satisfy the basic skills requirement have met a HIGHER standard to teach
PE in the context of a ROTC course than the regular ROTC credential
requires.
The following FAQs will provide additional information but please do not
hesitate to call us with any questions or concerns you may have.
Click to access FAQ-auth-PE-ROTC.pdf
Best~
Erin
__________________________________________________
Erin C. Sullivan, Consultant
Office of Governmental Relations
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
phone: 916-324-8007 fax: 916-445-0800
Diane Ravitch's blog 
What’s NOT stated in the rebuttal are the impacts for this change in policy. Will students at my HS now be exempted from PE because they are enrolled in PE? This is a movement in the wrong direction because the curriculums in both classes are very different. Cash-strapped districts might find it financially advantageous to get rid of PE teachers, since students enrolled in ROTC classes will be exempt from PE classes. Is this to accommodate Charter Schools so that they can better compete against public education by operating under lower standards? Is this ruling opening the doors to other such rulings? I understand that Science and Math educators opposed its passage? Can it be extended to other subjects? Why was it all done so quickly, before the public was warned of the change?
Pamela, CAHPERD members were sent a “blast” (actually several) which resulted in hundreds of letters, emails and phone calls to the CCTC. The Commission received more than 800 calls/emails in opposition to their ruling and only a couple in favor of. It would seem likely that this could be extended to other disciplines, though at the moment I don’t see that happening. If JR. ROTC can draw away enough kids, there would certainly be job losses for PE teachers, maybe 1 per school, but state wide that adds up to a lot. We should all work with district officials, trustees and our union to protect PE teachers. Districts will do almost anything these days to save a buck. I’m working with CAHPERD leadership to come up with ideas, and I have a meeting with a state senator at the end of the month and perhaps that will lead us in a positive direction. We ALL need to stay on the backs of the CCTC AND the governor.
This was a terrible decision by the CCTC, overturning their previous ruling which would have prevented JR ROTC instructors from teaching physical education; the commission members were leaned on quite heavily by Gov. Brown to allow JR ROTC instructors to teach PE. We believe that the CCTC overstepped its authority and are taking steps to stop this action. JR ROTC and physical education have wholly different standards and purposes. The common assumption is that JR ROTC instructors can teach fitness as well as PE teachers do, but in fact specific fitness and the Fitnessgram (The state fitness assessment) comprise only 17% of physical education curriculum. It should seem a no-brainer that JR ROTC instructors will spend the vast majority of their instruction time teaching their own discipline. Physical education is a vastly more complex discipline and its standards are profoundly different from ROTC. Physical Education is directed at life-long learning and teaching the ways, means and values of such. ROTC has a defined military purpose directed at students likely to finish HS and go directly into the military. Allowing non-credentialed individuals, regardless of military experience, whose discipline is an elective, to teach a state mandated discipline (200min/10 school days for elementary and 400min/10 school days secondary) that has specific education code guidelines as to what what must be covered in PE is ludicrous. There is not time in ROTC to teach both disciplines and non-certificated, with minimal training in the delivering of instruction in physical education should NOT be allowed to teach a subject in which a students physical, emotional and cognitive growth are primary concerns. The mea culpa is always that there are “bad” PE programs out there; the same can be said about any other discipline or any other job or profession on the planet. Having spent 36 years teaching in multiple schools that had JR ROTC programs, I’ve only encountered one instructor I thought qualified to be working with children. Certainly I’m aware that there are more, but I’m commenting on my experience. There is NO justification for the ruling by the CCTC and I would hope that parents and teachers alike, would express their profound distaste for the CCTC ruling. Do it so that your children/students will receive their right and proper education in a discipline that is crucial to their social, emotional and cognitive growth. Leave physical education in the hands of dedicated, knowledgeable and caring physical educators. Do it for the kids.
Actually, California IS lowering its standards for teachers–physical education teachers. No other subject has a mandated minimum number of instructional minutes. Just because it is only one subject area being deprofessionalized does not mean that teaching standards aren’t being lowered. California school p.e. classes are overcrowded, lack equipment, fail to engage students in physical activity for adequate time, and at lower levels are often taught by unqualified aides. The CCTC’s awful decision will only exacerbate the situation.
ROTC should be banned in ALL public schools and colleges. Military training is the antithesis of education.
As you can see from the following, a new accreditation system for teachers and teacher prparation has, in fact, been separated from earning an academic degree–perhaps not yet in California. More than you want to know is here, and VAM lives on.
July 1, 2013, marked the de facto consolidation of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), making the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) the new, sole specialized accreditor for educator preparation.
CAEP accreditation is specific to educator preparation and is different from regional accreditation. It is the educator preparation provider, specifically, that receives CAEP accreditation — not the larger organization or institution of higher education that may house the provider.
Licensure Level A professional educator preparation program that provides the courses for a specific certificate or license but that does not lead to an academic degree.
Certificate Level A professional educator preparation program that provides the courses for a specific certificate or license, but does not lead to an academic degree
Educator Anyone who directly provides instruction or support services in P-12 or higher education settings.
Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) The entity responsible for the preparation of educators including a nonprofit or for-profit institution of higher education, a school district, an organization, a corporation, or a governmental agency.
Grade Point Average (GPA) A quantitative indicator of candidate achievement. Letter grades are converted to numbers and averaged over a period of time. Commonly used but controversial due to grade inflation and lack of alignment between grades and specific learning outcomes.
.
Institutional Standards Standards set by an Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) that reflect its mission and identify important expectations for educator candidate learning that may be unique to the EPP.
Program Completer Any candidate who exited an educator preparation program by successfully satisfying the requirements of the Educator Preparation Provider (EPP).
Teach-out Agreement An agreement between accredited educator preparation providers (EPPs) and its candidates that will provide a reasonable opportunity for candidates to complete their program of study if the EPP stops offering its educational program before all enrolled candidates have completed the program.
Value-added Measures (VAM) For CAEP purposes, assessments that provide evidence of P-12 students’ intended educational outcomes as measured by standardized tests and other assessments. For CAEP purposes, VAM should demonstrate the change over time of intended educational outcomes that is attributable to teacher preparation programs.
in other words, teacher preparation is now contorted to fit the for-profit, on-line, and off-shore “providers” as well as the metrics demanded by Gates/Obama/Duncan in order to track the test scores of students (P-12) to their teachers, and then back to their teacher education programs.
The larger concern is that charter school “teachers” are teaching throughout the state without credentials and in some cases, with even a bachelor’s degree.
In effect, California has already lowered standards for teachers in Single Subject areas. It has done so since 2004. Largely in response to the “highly qualified teacher” provisions of No Child Left Behind, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing enacted in 2004 more complicated and rigorous standards for approving subject matter programs in the various subject areas. Because of the greater amount of time, not to mentional organizational rearrangements, needed to meet these new standards, their effect was to dramatically reduce the number of institutions able to offer approved undergraduate programs in the various subject areas. In my own field of English Education, the number of approved programs fell from 45 to just over 25. The result? Significantly more credential candidates in California are now demonstrating their subject matter competence through examination rather than coursework. I can’t say for sure whether they are any more or less qualified to teach their subject area as a result, but I can say for sure that many more teachers have had far fewer courses in their subject matter areas prior to their initial teaching experiences.
For the record, I have taken the California Teacher Examinations in English twice, finding it rather like preparing for a game of Jeopardy rather than preparing for teaching. But teaching any subject effectively is a complicated business, and I would be hard pressed to say whether the teachers I advise in the English Single Subject Program at San Jose State today (about 1/3rd of whom have completed an approved program) are any better or worse at it than those I was advising 25 years ago.
CAHPERD and all physical education teachers should demand that WASC NOT accredit any district that allows a non-certificated instructor or an instructor without a BA to deliver instruction in physical education.
As an NBCT in EMC PE, I can’t even begin to tell you how disappointed I am in this decision. I can easily make the argument that physical education is just as important as any subject area. One-third of our children are either overweight or obese. In 30 years, it will not matter how “globally competitive’ our kids will be when this current generation of students suffer from heart disease, diabetes, etc. I realize many people have an unfavorable opinion of PE mainly due to their own bad experiences when they students. However, there are very few subject areas that have evolved as much as ours has. I appreciate Dr. Ravitch for advocating curriculums enriched in the arts. She has always mentioned physical education alongside art and music for developing qualities that cannot be captured by testing or drill and kill instruction.
“they were students”
There’s a petition circulating. http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/gov-brown-keep-teaching.fb50?source=s.icn.fb&r_by=5846396
Please read and sign if you have concerns about the Commission’s ruling.
The vast majority of my youngest son’s physical training is under the watchful eye of his cross country/track coach (the distance runners train year round). While the coach is a former professional track athlete, he is a science teacher and I doubt he has a four year degree in physical education.
Teaching economist, is your son also required to take PE? PE does not just address physical training anymore, but has a wide range of standards to address beyond physical conditioning. Of course, physical conditioning is a big component. In the high school where I teach we teach literacy and numeracy across the curriculum in all subjects.
Pamela,
One unit of PE is a state graduation requirement.
My post was less about what is in a PE class than about the qualifications of the cross country/track coach.
I have nothing but respect for the PE community. I am a credentialed PE teacher as well as a Cadet Corps teacher and the comments on the blog really seem to be focusing on things that are not at heart of why I advocated for the new credential in the first place. I know how important teaching to the CA PE standards is. This new credential is designed to tell a school board that someone who teaches Cadet Corps or JROTC has sufficient content knowledge to teach a course aligned to the PE Standards. This credential says nothing about whether a course should meet PE standards — that is a local school board decision just as it always has been. There are folks who teach Cadet Corps and JROTC who do not teach to the PE standards and those courses should NOT receive PE credit. But if a JROTC or Cadet Corps teacher has designed their course to ensure all PE standards are addressed in both letter and spirit, then a local school board should be able to assess whether that teacher has sufficient content knowledge to teach a course after which that same board has decided the course should get PE credit because it aligns fully to the CA PE standards. This new credential answers one question— does the holder of a Designated Subjects Special Subjects Basic Military Drill or JROTC credential have sufficient knowledge to teach a course for which CADETS could get PE credit? This credential specifically PROHIBITS someone from teaching a regular PE course to non cadets, unless they also happened to have a regular PE credential.
PE teachers are a wonderful group of people who perform valiant work for our children. They deserve our respect and admiration. The JROTC and Cadet Corps teachers likewise do admirable work. This should not be an “us vs. them” kind of argument. Let’s make sure that ALL kids in CA get meaningful and quality PE instruction whether it is in a regular PE course or a course like JROTC or Cadet Corps and this new credential ensures that if a school board has already decided a JROTC or Cadet Corps class should get PE credit, it will be taught be a qualified person.
The issue about bachelors degrees has gotten very muddy. Currently, there are a variety of teachers who are professionals or experts in a subject matter who may not hold a bachelors degree, yet they teach a course for which students get graduation or “UC A-G” credit. This is especially true with vocational education courses. The degree may not be required because the teacher has demonstrated competence in the respective professional field. Whether someone has a bachelors degree is not as important as whether they have the necessary content knowledge and pedagogical skill to teach a course. I realize many people disagree with that statement, but it is my opinion based on professional experience.
I encourage everyone to take a step back and think about what this credential was really designed to do — answer that question of whether someone has the content knowledge to teach to the PE standards. When we have been saying that it increases standards, that’s because it DOES. It increases the amount of demonstrated knowledge a person must possess through passage of the CSET. That test is very rigorous. Anyone who has ever taken it will attest to that fact. These Cadet Corps and JROTC teachers are being required to pass the CBEST and ALL THREE CSET tests in PE. That is definitely a higher standard than they currently have to meet.
Dr. Mark Ryan – Can you tell me the instances where instructors without an BA are teaching courses that qualify students for their A-G requirements? I was not aware that ROP classes were subject for state and UC approval. High school elective credits for graduation, yes certainly, but A-G? – this is new to me. I am not a big fan of the CSET and I do not believe that standardized tests – no matter how rigorous – are a good substitute for participation in classes over a period of time under the guidance of a qualified instructor or professor.
One common example is folks taking a technology course for elective credit that fulfills the “g” elective but is not necessarily taught by someone with a BA. Folks with Cisco Certifications might well have a credential to teach such a course. There are various examples of this in the “G” elective realm.
What is a Cisco Certificate?
Cisco Certification is a rigorous verification that a person has completed training at computer networking, among other things.
There is an important story here that is not being reported by either the Bee or Diane Ravitch. Evidently, the wording is fairly specific that the new policy would allow students to receive PE credit for ROTC classes. According to my sources, this new policy was primarily instigated to accommodate (enable?) students of Charter schools to fulfill their PE requirements by taking an ROTC class from an instructor who does not have a traditional PE credential. ROTC instructors, at present, do not have teaching credentials to teach ROTC or even a BA – their 4 years of military experience qualifies them to teach military training courses – now with this new policy, 5 of the 7 requirements for teaching PE are being waived. As soon as Gov. Brown approves (and he is in support), all that these ROTC instructors will be required to do beyond their 4 years of military training is pass the CSET in PE and the CBEST in order for the school to offer classes in military training that qualify for PE. Under the new policy, an ROTC instructor will not have had to major in PE, received a BA or taken any of the post baccalaureate credentialing coursework. These are some of my concerns:
1. It sets a poor precedent. There are other instances when it would be ‘convenient’ to lower standards for other subjects. What safeguards are in place to keep a specific policy from becoming generalized? 2. It is designed to accommodate Charter Schools. We should be holding Charter Schools to our higher standards, rather than allowing them to lower ours for their sake. 3. PE curriculum has changed a lot and includes more than fitness training – though of course, fitness remains a big component. PE has its own state standards that are addressed in the coursework that PE majors are required to fulfill. It’s a problem that we are not requiring ROTC teachers to have this training. Military training is different from PE curriculum. 4. It could eventually lead to substituting people with more training for people with less. When a credentialed PE teacher retires, a district could decide to cover their PE classes with ROTC classes. 5. It was decided very quickly – people tell me it was decided in a 5 month period – without the public having a chance to understand the policy change or fully debate how it would impact our schools. 6. In spite of the limited time period, there WAS a great deal of pushback (someone reported over 800 emails, letters, etc.) with few who voiced their support and yet the decision was made against the recommendations of the California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance; the California Mathematics Council; the California Science Teachers Association; the California Teachers Association; and department heads from 16 California State University campuses. The Commission should have very clear reasons why they chose to override so much expert educational opinion.
Ms. Nagler,
Thank you so much for your comments. This honestly had nothing to do with charter schools or giving PE credit per se. It had to do with school districts who had already decided to give PE credit for JROTC or Cadet Corps courses and the question they kept asking of “how do we know if our JROTC or Cadet Corps people are qualified to teach a PE course?” This new credential simply gives the school boards additional information about whether they have passed the CSET and CBEST and are therefore qualified to offer cadets PE credit IF AND ONLY IF the course has been approved for PE credit by the governing board of the local district.
One of the requirements to receive the special PE teaching authorization is that it be used to teach only within in a specific environment–i.e., JROTC classes. As its advocates have noted, the instructor would not be authorized to teach PE outside of those classes. What this means is that the JROTC curriculum was incorporated as a requirement for the authorization.
If the assumption is that the course, itself, is a critical element needed to justify awarding a PE teaching authorization, how did the credentialing commission arrive at such a conclusion? When and how did the commission review JROTC curriculum content? How did it know that the class provided sufficient time for a JROTC instructor to teach under the standards that the state has mandated for physical education?
The answer is that the commission did NOT know these things because it did not conduct an actual review of the JROTC (or Basic Military Drill) curriculum. And without such a review, the commission majority’s vote to approve the special PE authorization violated CCTC’s own previous standards.
Here is what a CCTC policy document said in response to the debate in 2009 over whether PE credit should be granted for JROTC classes:
“The content of the course curriculum for a course is the determining factor for assignment purposes. The appropriate credential or authorization for the assignment must align with the primary content or focus of the course.
“The credential or authorization held by an individual indicates that he/she has been prepared to teach the course curriculum subject-matter content. The Commission’s concern is not generally with the credit earned for the course; however, it may be a guide to determining who should teach a specific course. For determining appropriate assignment, a review of the course title and curriculum content may determine which credential or authorization is the appropriate choice.” (Coded Correspondence 09-10, 6/23/2009
Just to repeat: in this case there was NO review of the JROTC (or Basic Military Drill) curriculum content, so the commission never determined whether a PE teaching authorization would align with the primary content or focus of the course. Yet the commission made the course curriculum, itself, one of the criteria used to justify the PE teaching authorization. How logical is that?
North Dakota has higher credentialing standards than California when it comes to JROTC credentials. North Dakota requires a minimum of a Bachelor’s Degree for the JROTC credential, and this credential only allows instructors to teach JROTC to students in grades 7-12, Even with a Bachelor’s degree, North Dakota does not authorize JROTC instructors to teach any subject area other than JROTC. Just taking the CBEST and CSET in any subject area does not prepare JROTC instructors to teach that subject area, even within the context of JROTC or Basic Military Drill. Any education beyond high school may help JROTC instructors to become better JROTC instructors, but it will not prepare them to become physical education instructors, nor to replace physical education courses with JROTC courses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the National Association for State Boards of Education, both recommend school district policies in which school activity programs, such as JROTC, always supplement and never supplant physical education courses. To do so lowers standards for instruction in physical education and is self-defeating in preparing physically educated and physically fit students for careers in any field, including the military. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing should focus on raising standards for JROTC and California Cadet Corps/Basic Military Drill teaching credentials to improve instruction for all California students enrolled in elective JROTC and California Cadet Corps programs. The CTC could begin to do this by requiring all JROTC and California Cadet Corps instructors to have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree, pass the CBEST, become authorized to teach English Learners, and take pedagogy courses so that all California students enrolled in JROTC and California Cadet Corps elective courses will have access to higher quality instruction in these courses. Setting higher standards for JROTC and California Cadet Corps teachers would also make it easier for instructors in these areas, who wish to become teachers in other subject areas, to earn a Multiple Subject credential or a Single Subject Credential or Supplementary Credential in other subject areas. School districts that have set quality curriculum standards for physical education and who require high quality teachers to implement these standards require that any instructor for physical education hold a Single Subject, Multiple Subject or Supplementary Credential. To do otherwise is to lower teaching standards for physical education and any other academic subject area that experiences similar course substitutions. How can the Commission on Teacher Credentialing claim it has high standards for teaching credentials, when over and over again the agency strives to circumvent established requirements (such as the Single Subject credential in physical education) by authorizing persons without appropriate subject matter and pedagogy preparation, and in this case, without any higher education experience, to teach the subject to students in lieu of a highly qualified teacher?
“Teachers of ROTC are not currently required to hold a four-year college degree but to have at least four years of military service and at least 135 hours if teacher preparation in an approved program.”
Exactly the point if concern. A degree in Physical Education requires training in curriculum and instruction methods. Beyond that it requires ELL or ESL training. This is not required for ROTC instructors.
Teacher training schools need to end. They are counter-productive, scare away good teachers with their bureaucratic approach and attract paper pushers without people skills.