Friday, July 07, 2006

Highly Qualified Teachers

Federal law stipulates that by today all states must inform the federal government what they plan to do to ensure that all teachers are taught by highly qualified teachers. According to No Child Left Behind not only must all teachers possess degrees in the subject areas that they are teaching but there must not be an inbalance between the number of unqualified teachers teaching in urban settings and those teaching in other more affluent schools. The Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington based education watchdog group, released a report entitled, "Days of Reckoning: Are States and the Federal Government Up to the Challenge of Ensuring a Qualified Teacher for Every Student?" The report found a wide range of problems in the ways that states are implementing this component of the NCLB legislation. Some states consider teachers highly qualified simply because they have been teaching for a very long time. Nine states were cited for having no equity plan. Education week contains a useful analysis of this report.

In the beginning of my teaching career I often thought about what it meant to be a qualified teacher. I graduated from a joint program between Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, earning two B.A.s. One of my degrees was in Political Science. The other was in Talmud and Rabbinics, ancient Jewish Law. In my first teaching position I taught middle school Jewish studies at a Jewish day school. I certainly had a deep knowledge of Judaism. However, I lacked an understanding of effective teaching practices. I was a horrible teacher. I think that No Child Left Behind misses the mark when it mandates that teachers have a degree in the subject that they are teaching. Simply because somebody knows a subject well does not mean that they know how to teach the subject effectively.

After I began my teaching career, I earned a teaching certificate from the State of Texas, in history and government. During this coursework I took classes on pedagogy and educational psychology and classroom management. I also observed teachers in their classrooms. One teacher I observed in a summer school class was showing his students an old fashion film, in which a tape recording was cued to specific slides in the film. The tape recording buzzed when it was time to move to the next slide. The teacher did not have the slide and the recording cued properly but he didn't notice it. This teacher had a teaching certificate but he didn't care enough to be an effective educator. Many teachers who possess teaching certificates and know pedagogy don't know enough subject matter to teach effectively.

Degrees and certificates alone cannot make an individual a highly skilled teacher. Indeed, there are far too many variables at play to legislate what it means for a teacher to be highly qualified or highly skilled. Rather than using federal legislation to define these teachers, I suggest that we empower principals, perhaps in collaboration with teacher leaders, to determine who is effective and who is not.


Just a thought!!

5 Comments:

At 1:49 PM , Anonymous jonathan said...

Amen to that. I started teaching three years ago with a B.S. in biology and M.Ed. in secondary science education. I had a strong background in science from school and from work experience. I had little teaching experience. My first year was horrible! I was probably one of the worst teachers ever. It was so bad that when I see students that I had my first year, I shudder...not b/c they were terrible, but b/c I remember how terrible I was then! It has taken a few years to learn how to teach, something that don't think can be taught/learned in education programs. A degree or background in your subject area helps, but that teaching experience is vital.

 
At 2:48 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former college professor I agree with everything that you say but I would like to know what you think the state can do aopart from legislating and adequately funding to improve the performance of teachers?

 
At 5:13 AM , Blogger Andrew Pass Educational Services, LLC said...

Here's my take on your question. (Actually, I'm thinking aloud.) I think that principals should be empowered to identify talent and pay accordingly. Perhaps they should receive a budget for salaries and together with an advisory team of teachers allocate the funds accordingly. In addition to distributing these salaries principals should have the responsibility to help teachers think about their practice and improve it so that they can continuously earn higher salaries. My thought is that if all schools were charter schools than the schools with the most students choosing them would get the largest budgets to allocate. This way teachers could continuously strive to earn most amounts of money. Certainly when a school has an overabundance of excellent teachers some teachers might have to leave their schools and go to other schools where they could earn the highest salaries, but this wouldn't be such a bad thing. After all in the free market system people often move from one job to another to both better themselves and better the institutions for which they work. As you can see, I'm oriented towards a capitalistic system. Let me know what you think about this.

Andrew Pass

 
At 10:30 AM , Blogger Darren said...

The feds require a degree in the subject area because some states didn't even require *that* much. States are still free to have additional requirements for "highly qualified", such as some amount of time in a (probably worthless) credentialing program.

 
At 6:07 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home