[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Neets]

I think the Teachers Union's do more to hurt teachers than they do to help them.

I am sure there are plenty of well qualified teachers out there; yourself included.

Get rid of the union and maybe, JUST maybe the good teachers will rise to the top.

[Savage Beast]

"Bush is trying to weaken teacher credentialing"

Considering the strength and viewpoint of teachers' unions and the deterioration in quality of teachers and education--weakening their credentials might not be a bad idea. During the past few decades, the emphasis on credentials has been accompanied by a dismal drop in quality. Education was much better and students much better off when the local schoolmarm was less credentialed and more responsible.

[the invisib1e hand]

union blather.

ARE we really satisfied to have public education dominated by members of unions that routinely engage in deceptive public relations activities -- in other words, that tell lies and try to make as many people as possible believe them?

[BoozeHag]

I'm wondering why the potential teachers making a clamor to teach in public schools (but don't want to go the ED School route) aren't making a clamor to teach in private schools? Could it be the money? There are several wonderful private schools in our area. People always ask why I don't teach private rather than public. I'll put up with the public school BS any day to make a decent wage. Isn't that the American way?

[DonQ]

It's true that teachers' groups are (generally) not asking the best teachers to go to the worst schools. .... And a major reason is the Bush "No Child Left Behind" scheme. One of the major elements of the Bush scheme is that money will be taken away from schools with low-scoring students and diverted to schools whose students already test well. It's a device that seems to defy logic, and it definitely discourages teachers and administrators from sticking with a school that presents a "challenge".

Teachers who hope for promotions and pay increases will shy away from schools with poor track records, schools in poverty pockets, and the like. Because going where the need is greatest could kill their careers.

Even now we've seen the side effects of the Bush plan. School administrators are so eager that their schools should test well that they've scuttled courses that wouldn't show up on the test - mostly art, vocational prep, some foreign languages and sports, some of the tougher science and math courses, etc. - and dumped the teachers for those courses - and turned the whole school into a giant cram course for the Bush tests (several commercial contract tutoring groups have sprung up to take the schools' money in order to direct these cram course programs). The damage done by this scheme will last for decades.

[M-cubed]

The bar is unusually high for beginning special education teachers "...<<<..SPECIAL ED!!!...Part of the problem!!....It has become a very expensive excuse for dumbing down...Check out your local schools SP. ED. population explosion and expendatures over the years...It will scare you to death!

[No Truce With Kings]

Summer:

I have been extremely cynical about the issue of teacher qualifications ever since 2001-2. I was unemployed. I had spent eight years as a business consultant teaching people to use e-commerce. I had taught classes on computer science at the college level. I had taught e-commerce in five different states to groups ranging from the US military to mom-and-pop tool and die shops. I had been an engineer for 22 years. I had written a textbook. But, because I lacked a teaching certificate, I was "unqualified" for a job teaching computer science at Westwood ISD at the junior high school level.

How did I get qualified? By taking $5000 worth of classes at an education college.

Who *was* qualified to teach the comp sci classes (and got the job)? Two english teachers at that school district who had never used a computer prior to a year earlier. They had the magic piece of "certification" that "qualified" them to teach the course.

How do I know this? Because they hired me to tutor them on how to use the computer. So, I was "unqualified" to teach computer science to school kids while being the preferred method for those "qualified" to do so to learn what they needed to know to "teach" those same school kids.

. . . And education professionals wonder why so many "unqualified" people are turning to home schooling -- and cannot even figure out why home school kids turn out some much better than those taught at public school.

Not knocking you, summer, just those that value credentials over capability.

[Redcoat LI]

"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.''

Since when is a Degree in Education considered a college degree?

It's not even a recognised field of study,last time I checked.

You can go to your local Cow college and get an ED.D,there is no Phd in "education".

It's vocational training,at best,so stop pretending you're educated.

[AmericanMade1776]

Read the article,and that is the Teachers Union Representing Public Educators, PAID SOLELY WITH TAX DOLLARS whinning about having to meet certain standards of quality.

Private Institutions are not paid with Tax dollars.

[FrankR]

This is just another "accuse the accuser" and "follow the money" situation. It's all about teachers unions and their fear that Bush will try to nullify their influence on education.

In my opinion, Teachers' Unions...or most unions for that matter - foster mediocrity.

Yes, I said mediocrity. I have witnessed the union mentality too often, same pay for everyone, even though the "80/20 rule of probability" kicks in...with 20% doing the actual work, and the other 80% reaping the benefits.

Now, originally unions were useful, back in the days of sweat shops, etc. But, today we have more than enough Federal agencies and laws to protect most workers.

Wondering why most of our manufacturing has moved off shore? Well, unions had a lot to do with it. Insisting a factory pays someone $35 an hour to screw a lugnut on a wheel, when some little guy in China will do the same for $3 a day is why. Of course taxes and overburdening regulations have some effect on it too, but the Unions do their part in soaking employers for all they're worth too.

Any business person knows that "labor" is their biggest expense, but there is something intrinsically wrong when it is cheaper to build a factory in a foreign country, hire the labor, ship in the raw materials, and then ship the product back to America (and still sell it cheaper) rather than making it right here at home.

If there aren't, there should be some panels in place to study and analyze this phenomenon and do something to reverse before Atlas Shrugs, and America collapese financially.

I think teaching should be one of the best paid professions on the planet, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR CHILDREN. It was better for the children when the teachers were not paid so well....why, BECAUSE THEY WERE IN IT FOR THE LOVE OF TEACHING...not for tenure, not for prestige...but for the kids.