Highly Qualified Teachers Need Not Apply -- Bush is trying to weaken teacher credentialing

The New Jersey Teachers Union ^ | President of the NJ Teachers Union

[summer]

February 22, 2004

Highly Qualified teachers need not apply --The Bush Administration is trying to weaken teacher credentialing.

Anyone familiar with Three-Card Monte knows it’s a game you can’t win. Keeping your eye on the money card is impossible, making the game a perfect street-corner hustle.

It’s also a perfect analogy for the Bush administration’s policy on teacher quality.

In a classic case of “watch what we say, not what we do,” the administration is setting high standards for public school teachers. Then, while our attention is diverted, it is covertly working to weaken the “alternate route” entry path for teachers, in order to soften the landscape for vouchers.

Under the administration’s so-called “No Child Left Behind” act, all public school teachers of core academic subjects (English, math, science, foreign languages, history, geography, civics and government, economics, and arts) must be “highly qualified” by September 2005.

“Highly qualified” means holding at least a bachelor’s degree, and obtaining full state certification or passing a state teacher licensing exam. The bar is unusually high for beginning special education teachers and middle school/high school teachers who teach multiple subjects. They must either pass a rigorous state test in each subject they teach or successfully complete coursework or credentialing in each subject area. Veterans must either do the same or demonstrate their competence in all subjects they teach in a state evaluation.

Ironically, under the newly enacted District of Columbia voucher law – a major priority of the Bush administration and its allies in Congress – teachers in private and religious schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers don’t even need to possess a college degree.

Whatever happened to “highly qualified” teachers?

This is a common theme with “No Child Left Behind.” The rhetoric sounds great, but there’s a rather profound lack of sincerity behind it. (There’s also a rather profound lack of funding to implement the law – $9 billion less than authorized this year alone. Small wonder more and more state legislatures are telling the administration to keep its inadequate money, rather than try to comply using already-strapped state revenues.)

But why the double standard on teacher quality? It’s really obvious, once you connect the dots. The Bush administration openly supports vouchers. It tried to get enabling language for a national voucher program into “No Child Left Behind,” but it was deleted in committee.

Undeterred, the administration is doing everything possible to pave the way for an eventual national voucher program. While demanding that public school teachers exhibit the highest quality credentials, it has now pumped $42 million into the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, one of several pro-voucher organizations receiving millions of our tax dollars to further the Bush agenda for privatizing public education.

ABCTE is developing a fast-tracked route for alternative teacher certification (no “highly qualified” caveats here), consisting of – you guessed it – a standardized test. Those lower qualifications will cost a lot less – meaning more profits for private voucher schools.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige lashed out at critics of the administration’s education agenda, saying they had “a different ideology.”

We certainly do. Giving students vouchers to attend private schools – where the qualifications for teachers will apparently be little more than their ability to fog up a mirror – is about as far away from the promise of a “highly qualified” teaching profession as you can get.

Keep your eye on the money card, if you can.

[summer]

Ironically, under the newly enacted District of Columbia voucher law – a major priority of the Bush administration and its allies in Congress – teachers in private and religious schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers don’t even need to possess a college degree.

This is the first I've heard of this new law. I was quite surprised.

However, from my perspective - I taught in a failing, all-black, inner city school as a new teacher - there are two major issues I think this union president omits:

1) If the new law only applies to private schools receiving vouchers, then, the new law concerns students who may be leaving failing public schools.

Now, who usually teaches in failing public schools? New teachers. Why? Because experienced teachers will often refuse to teach in those schools.

In Jacksonville, FL, the local union actually tried to address this well-known problem in education, by asking experienced teachers to transfer to these failing public schools. Some experienced teachers agreed to do that, and student achievement improved.

But, by and large, the union is not asking experienced teachers to consider going to the worst public schools. Thus, not only is there a shortage of experienced teachers for the students, there is also a lack experienced teacher mentors in these schools to help the new teachers.

So, what we have had in this country is a revolving door in these schools with respect to new teachers arriving, and then leaving as quickly as possible to a better school, if they don't leave the teaching profession altogether.

This is an extremely serious problem but the union has never aggressively recruited mentors to support new teachers in these schools, nor have most local unions ever asked experienced teachers to transfer to these schools.

So, now, there may be vouchers -- and alternatives for these students.

And, frankly, I say this to the NJ Teachers Union President: Wake up. You didn't want to acknowledge or solve the problems. So, someone else is trying.

2) This new law -- requiring NO college degrees for people willing to tackle the job of teaching these kids from failing schools -- will have no impact if consumers reject it. Here in FL, where we have had vouchers, only a small percentage of parents whose kids are eligible for vouchers actually used the vouchers and enrolled their kids in private schools. Why more parents did not, I don't know.

Also, vouchers or no vouchers, most private schools seek to sell their services by competing -- and always want to tell parents/consumers: "Oh, yes, all our teachers have the same level of certification requirements that public school teachers have met." Otherwise - no sale to some parents.

So, I don't know how much of an impact this new law will really have. But, I think GW is trying to address the question of who will teach these kids that others do not want to teach. And, you have to make that new applicant pool of teachers as large as possible, since it is already smaller than most imagine. (But this union president surely knows that.)

[livius]

I know many people who would be happy to go into teaching - if they didn't have to go back to college and get an ed degree, which is now required in many states. And these are people who already have advanced degrees in subject areas, particularly math and the sciences. The ed bureaucracy keeps a lot of good people out of teaching, and then burns them out if they somehow manage to get in.

[cynicom]

Years ago, in publik skool, I remember "one" excellent teacher, the others were average at best and far too many were a total waste.

[summer]

And, if they want to teach those kids no one else can reach - good luck, God bless, and who knows, if it works, great. If it doesn't, the person will leave that teahcing job soon enough, for it is not an easy task.

[buffyt]

"Ironically, under the newly enacted District of Columbia voucher law – a major priority of the Bush administration and its allies in Congress – teachers in private and religious schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers don’t even need to possess a college degree."

Ironically, my BEST teacher grades 1-12 was a wonderful lady Mrs. Manning who never went to college. She started teaching at age 19 and learned it on the job. She taught English and Latin and she KNEW her material, she was an excellent disciplinarian, and a wonderful person and teacher. Everyone loved her. She was tough, but you learned a LOT. My father and older sister also had her as a teacher. The cr*p they are teaching in today's liberal colleges do not necessarily make for great teachers!

[Fenris6]

Exactly. Short version - its not the teachers or their credentials, its the unions. Get our kids away from the teachers unions and things will get better.

[buffyt]

At the local community college we actually have people from the field teaching classes. People who have worked in the computer field, network administrators, people who have worked at the local chemical plants as engineers, etc. It is hard for them for their first year but that is a difficult time for ALL new teachers.

[buffyt]

I think YOU nailed it!

[P.O.E.]

Teacher ping.

I've never done a ping list before - just starting this one. Please let me know if you'd like to be on (or off) the list.

[samtheman]

Ironically, under the newly enacted District of Columbia voucher law – a major priority of the Bush administration and its allies in Congress – teachers in private and religious schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers don’t even need to possess a college degree.

If it's true, I can see the reason why.

Kids are forced to go to government schools in the current system, so it makes sense that those teaching there must meet high standards.

People choose private schools voluntarily, so in that case it should be left to the consumer to decide on the quality of the school. There is no (or at least less) need for government regulation there.

[SubMareener]

The bar is unusually high for beginning special education teachers and middle school/high school teachers who teach multiple subjects

This must be where they dump the bad ones. By the way, why is a high school teacher teaching more than a couple related subjects?

[11th Earl of Mar]

I am not sure what I think of teacher certification anyway.

If a college degree is required in the subject being taught, then Bill Gates would not be qualified to teach high school computer class.

Ross Perot would not be qualified to teach a high school business class.

George Bush Sr. would not be qualified to teach high school government.

And Terry Bradshaw would not be qualified to teach high school PE.

[macrahanish #1]

My wife wanted to get out of the rat race and become a teacher. She has an MBA, is a CPA, and has 15 years of experience. She supervises a staff of about 30 people.
To become a teacher, she would have had to go to college full-time for two years. She told them no thanks.
The school hired someone fresh out of college, who has absolutely no practical experience. However, he is a teacher DONCHA know.

[P.O.E.]

The ed bureaucracy keeps a lot of good people out of teaching,

After working in business for over 22 years, with a BS and an MBA, and plenty of math classes, the local teacher's college STILL wanted me to take 8 college-level math classes in order to teach Math in High School, plus the "teacher ed" classes.

I suspect they really just wanted my tuition money.

[macrahanish #1]

I don't know if I'd want Bradshaw teaching me, and I'm a die-hard Stillers fan.

[summer]

teahcing = teaching

[OldFriend]

This sounds like a lot of spin or smoke with no fire.

Governor Kean (of the 9/11 committee fame or infamy) allowed New Jersey to hire people to teach who did NOT graduate from teacher's colleges. They had degrees in subjects such as MATH, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY........

I think you get my drift. He didn't insist that the applicant have a degree from a teacher's college for obvious reasons.

Our NJ schools had and continue to have a desperate need for people able to teach those subjects.

Major US corporations allow their scientists to go into the colleges and teach courses, and I assure you, none of those people have degrees from 'teaching' colleges either.

I would need a lot more details before I'd react this this charge from the unions.

[summer]

Re posts #6 and #8 - Yes, Fenris6 understands what I am saying, but I also think it is more than being in the way and obstructing; it is also a terrible lack of leadership and communication on the part of the union, and that has been a problem for a long time. And, for me, it is sometimes a problem, in that I would actually like to support an organization that supports teachers, but too often, the union did not support me. Once in ahwhile they did; but more often than not, they do not see the points or issues I see.

BTW, I did not rejoice nor see any merit in Rod Paige's recent comment. I thought he would have been far more accurate had he described the union leadership, in some cases, as "criminals" -- since JAIL is where some of them are in fact going, in light of recent criminal convictions.

[summer]

ahwhile = awhile

[Zeppo]

"They must either pass a rigorous state test in each subject they teach or successfully complete coursework or credentialing in each subject area. Veterans must either do the same or demonstrate their competence in all subjects they teach in a state evaluation."

I don't have time to fact-check the article, so I'll only focus my comments on what appear to be dishonest sleight-of-hand tricks used in the author's over-the-top rhetoric.

Did anybody else notice that when tests are mentioned in the context of new or veteran public school teachers, the tests are described as "rigorous"? Yet when tests are mentioned in the context of private school vouchers and alternative teacher certification, they are sneeringly referred to as merely "a standardized test".

Also, did anybody else notice other propaganda gems such as "one of several pro-voucher organizations receiving millions of our tax dollars to further the Bush agenda for privatizing public education" without any mention of the billions and billions of tax dollars that are being spent by the Bush administration to further public education.

I would bet that there are plenty of other such examples of intellectual dishonesty in this article. After all, I would expect nothing less from a teacher's union flack.