In the past few days, there has been vigorous debate about whether California’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing was lowering standards; some critics went so far as to claim that future teachers in core subject areas would no longer need a four-year degree of any kind. None of this was true. I reached out to friends across California who assured me that it was untrue. Just this morning, the Sacramento Bee published an article by Linda Darling-Hammond, chair of the CCTC, explaining exactly what transpired.
D-H explained that standards were not lowered and remain high in every field.
Here are the changes that alarmed teachers of physical education:
“The commission did vote to provide an authorization within the physical education credential for ROTC teachers. Those who pass a basic skills test and a test of PE knowledge and complete 135 hours of teacher preparation can earn this authorization. If they are to teach English learners, they must also meet the requirements for an English learner authorization. Under the new authorization, these individuals can still teach only ROTC courses. They cannot teach regular PE classes. However, they will have a stronger knowledge base in physical education, which will help them serve their students.
“Some of these instructors do not hold a bachelor’s degree, but they have relevant job experience that California has long recognized in lieu of a degree for ROTC instructors and other specific groups of teachers, like those from industry who teach in Career Technical Education programs.”
In short, ROTC instructors will not replace PE teachers.
Be it noted that Governor Brown is a strong supporter of ROTC, having started a military institute charter school when he was mayor of Oakland. With crucial decisions about the Vergara trial hanging in the balance, this is not a propitious moment to pick a fight with the governor when so little is at stake. He respects teachers; he loves learning. Message to California teachers: Unite on the big issues.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/12/6620786/another-view-teacher-standards.html#storylink=cpy
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
This letter was sent to Linda, we are awaiting a response. We also received a response from the writer of the SacBee article and there are still many unanswered questions:
Dear Linda Darling Hammond,
I’ve been reviewing the information presented in the Sac Bee’s Aug. 6 Editorial “Change in Teacher Credentialing is a Step Backward” and your subsequent rebuttal. I wondered if you could clear up some questions:
1. Can you state clearly what military personnel need to teach ROTC in our public schools and what they need to obtain to be credentialed to offer ROTC classes that satisfy Physical Education graduation requirements? Can you also state what is required for Physical Education teachers who follow a traditional baccalaureate and credentialing route? Some sources have indicated that military personnel with 4 years of military training could have their courses qualify for PE credit if they took the CSET in PE and the CBEST, but you indicated that in addition, ROTC teachers, with or without BAs need to complete 135 hours of teacher preparation. Can you clarify?
2. Why were so many experts opposed to the Commissions’ ruling? The Sac Bee indicated that 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 were all opposed. What experts were in favor and why?
Many of us, public school teachers, are concerned that students will be shortchanged by only taking military styled classes in lieu of PE. We are concerned that the Commission is weakening standards for the profession and paving a way for other alternative routes to the credentialing process. Your comments about “relevant job experience’ are not reassuring. We are concerned that this could cause a loss of personnel in PE Depts. – that when PE teachers retire they will not be replaced because ROTC classes that qualify as PE classes will take their place. Cash strapped districts have made all kinds of compromises lately that have been to the detriment of a comprehensive education because of loopholes that incentivize hiring the less trained.
Thank you for your consideration
Pamela Nagler
CA teachers consider PE a real subject and we would like answers regarding any changes to requirements that are not made in a Democratic fashion.
This letter was received by the writer of the SacBee article. We are all still concerned:
Thank you for your interest in the Sacramento Bee article regarding teacher credentialing issue, and your request for documentation. Most of the documentation for the article is contained in the letter sent by our California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. This 17-page letter contains the specific California Education Code sections and California Administrative Code sections that are relevant. A copy is attached for your perusal. Other documentation was obtained from the specific web site of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/
On the CTC website, review the agenda items and the minutes of the meetings for this year, as this issue has been addressed at each of the meetings. You will find letters of opposition from the California Teachers Association, the California Mathematics Council and the California Science Teachers Association, among others. CTA and other organizations have voiced opposition to the CTC proposal at all meetings. Furthermore, the Commissioner and alternate Commissioner appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, have consistently voiced and/or voted opposition to the CTC action at every meeting.
The actual wording of the CTC amendment immediately impacts physical education instruction. However, school districts, as mentioned at the last meeting by one of the CTC Commissioners, are also giving history-social science credit for JROTC. The CTC has pointed out that state law allows a local school district to give subject area credit for any course that meets the curriculum content standards adopted by the State Board of Education. The CTC web site provides the criteria for the DSSS (Designated Subjects Special Subjects) credentials which are considered non-academic credentials and require no higher education. Physical education/kinesiology is an academic subject which has a Framework, Model Curriculum Standards, assessments. Physical education/kinesiology currently requires a Single Subject Credential, Multiple Subject Credential, or Supplementary Credential to teach, as do all other academic graduation requirement areas. For the CTC to propose to give a statewide authorization for a Designated Subjects credential holder to teach an academic subject is setting a precedent of great concern for all academic subject areas, and appears to overstep the legislative authority of the CTC, as the Legislature has set the minimum requirements for each type of credential. Note the following CTC response to one of its Frequently Asked Questions posted on its website:
4. Why aren’t these teachers required to hold a bachelor’s degree like other teachers?
The Designated Subjects Credential series recognizes experience in a particular employment sector as
equivalent to a bachelor’s 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 California’s
high schools.
Furthermore, the Designated Subjects credentials do not require many of the other courses and certifications required for the Single Subject, Multiple Subject or Supplementary credentials.
Best wishes,
Betty Hennessy
CAHPERD President-Elect
Diane, The information you received is not accurate. Two is less than seven. Teacher preparation standards will be lowered if a Title 5 Regulation is found to pass the six-step legal test performed by the Office of Administrative Law. Physical educators are hopeful that this independent agency will find the proposed regulations do not meet the tests of authority, reference, consistency, necessity, clarity, and non-duplication.
Physical education, as all high school graduation subjects, is an academic subject with rigorous content standards approved by the California State Board of Education and posted on the California Department of Education’s website. The California Legislature has identified the minimum requirement of a baccalaureate degree to teach and give credit for academic subjects. The Commission on Teacher Credentialing does not have the jurisdiction to over-ride the legislature.
Reference to Career Technical Education is not applicable as generally stated by Chairperson Darling-Hammond as some career tech courses require only job experience and no college coursework, while others require college degrees.There is an academic Designated Subjects Special Subjects credential for adults that requires a baccalaureate degree. This “authorization” is inconsistent with other credentials that give academic credit.
In 2009, the legislature vetoed AB 351 and AB 223 which would have allowed physical education course substitution for activities such as Junior Reserve Office Training Corp. Now, the Commission is attempting to attach an academic “authorization” to an non-academic credential. Their action is being termed as an “end-run” around the legislature.
As identified on Commission’s website, Designated Subjects Special Subjects preliminary and clear credentials do not require English Learner certification. School districts will be misled if this “authorization” is approved as they will assume the credential holder is fully qualified in all aspects. Darling-Hammond’s comment is misleading.
Your “warning” is of grave concern. Is course substitution okay for a physical education? One Commissioner expressed her concern at the recorded February 2014 meeting stating the following paraphrase: “You know, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was biology.” At another recorded meeting in June 2014, a Commissioner indicated that a school district was giving History-Social Science credit for JROTC and this statement was later repeated by Chairperson Darling-Hammond. Teacher qualifications must be safeguarded.
We are fully aware of Governor Brown’s support for ROTC and military charter schools. It was pleasing to read that he respects teachers and loves learning. Your implication that we are “picking a fight” with the Governor is troubling on two accounts. The first implication is that this issue is about what the Governor wants and not about safeguarding teacher preparation standards. The second is that there could be retaliation and teachers should just step aside and allow lower teacher preparation standards that will encourage course substitution.
We live in a democratic society and have elected the Governor who should be working for us at all times. Is he aware that over 829 opposition opinions were sent to the Commission by individuals and at least seven organizations that represent over 7,000 constituents?
As an educator, I have to assume that the Governor does not fully understand the impact of this proposed regulation amendment. It is not about saving ROTC from declining enrollment. It is about upholding rigorous teacher preparation standards. If the Governor truly respects teachers, perhaps he would be willing to meet with members of the California Teacher’s Association and representative physical educators at the district and university levels.
Does the Governor know that this regulation is not needed? Anyone with a baccalaureate degree may take any of the California Subject Examinations for Teachers and upon passing the test and six other requirements, they can get a single or multiple subject credential.
Thank you for the opportunity to reply.
Joanie Verderber, Ph.D.