Congress approves weird definition of 'highly qualified’ teachers

Congress approved a nearly 2,000-page “continuing resolution” that will fund the government until March.

In a seemingly contradictory move, Congress also wrote into law a 2002 federal regulation that allows teachers still in training programs to be considered “highly qualified” under No Child Left Behind... it apparently doesn’t mind calling non-certified teachers who are still being trained "highly qualified." And because of this designation, school districts aren’t required to tell parents just how little training their child’s teacher has had.

In September, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the “highly qualified” regulation unconstitutional. But its supporters moved quickly to get Congress to not only save it.

Congress did, giving a gift to alternative teacher training programs such as Teach for America, which trains participants for five weeks before sending them into high-poverty schools.

"If this were just about enacting a "temporary solution" to avoid short-term disruptions, the language would not seek to modify the highly qualified teacher definition for the next 2½ years. Instead, it has now become more important to maintain the status quo of using poor and minority schools as the training grounds for interns than enforcing teacher equity as NCLB called for and as parents are demanding. In fact, the real disruption is to the democratic process."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/congress-passes-weird-definiti.html?wprss=answer-sheet


The Bush admin touted the "highly qualified" teacher requirement as some kind of victory for students.

Little did we know that it was just meaningless rhetoric that meant whatever congress said it did. "highly qualified" = 5 week training course.

okey-dokey.

to run a school? To drive toward successful learning? To handle a classroom?

Would you want a teacher creating military strategy? a chef determining environmental policy?

Time to admit we need educators at the table if we are serious about educational reform.

It's playing basketball with the president that qualifies one to run the nation's schools.

You know, the kind of thing that we all considered cronyism around here when Bush did it.

The Big Question hovering over primary and secondary education is whether it would be better for a math/sci/engineering major to teach math, or an education major. Should the teacher "know the subject" or "know education"?

Especially for the science courses, you should have some sort of degree in the subject area plus the requisite foundational knowledge of education. Education is not one size fits all. I have seen some truly brilliant TFA people from the engineering and mathematical fields who were simply awful at teaching. They had no idea what to do with students who where ADHD or diagnosed with various social phobias. They couldn't control their classrooms and fostered an environment where students who were there to learn and wanted to learn couldn't.

Teaching is knowing one's subject matter and good pedagogy as well. Teaching is classroom management and differentiation. Teaching is arousing the intellectual curiosity in one's student and giving them the tools they need to think critically and solve problems for themselves.

Not everyone is cut out to be a teacher... it's a difficult profession and our teachers deserve a lot more respect than they are currently given.

Education is not one size fits all. I have seen some truly brilliant TFA people from the engineering and mathematical fields who were simply awful at teaching.

True, but then again I've worked with teachers who were great at pedagogy but couldn't invert a 2x2 matrix. And it's hard to deny that currently the pendulum of education theory definitely leans towards pedagogy rather than subject mastery. Take professional development: what percentage of staff development hours are devoted to pedagogy vs. subject mastery? (In my own entirely anecdotal experience, it was something like 100% vs. 0%.) Do the teachers keep up with the journals in secondary education, or with the journals in the field they teach? Which one are they rewarded for keeping up with?

I have to say that most of the teachers I work with absolutely know their subject matter and continue to take grad courses at local universities (U of Illinois - Chicago, Loyola, U of Chicago, Northwestern, Roosevelt U, etc.) in both their subject matter and educational best-practice. Now my experience is at the secondary level. I do know some elementary teachers who are more focused on pedagogy, but I feel that's appropriate as long as their knowledge of subject matter is above-average (which the Praxis tests in basic skills and subject mastery are supposed to demonstrate). Third graders are not going to be tackling the Human Genome Project, yet.

I don't know about other states, but in Illinois, the minimum standards and scores have been raised significantly, which favors those strong in subject mastery, in my opinion. Professional development does tend to be pedagogy-based, but I believe that is because we have a multitude of different types of learners that we didn't see in decades past. For instance, if I am trying to teach a unit on multi-step math problems and order of operations, what if I have some IEP students who will not stay in their seats or some regular ed students who are having problems grasping the concept? As a teacher, I ought to know the order of operations... that's a given. However, it becomes more important to know how to differentiate for both my special education, average, and advanced students so that they all walk away with some understanding of what I'm trying to teach.

Do the teachers keep up with the journals in secondary education, or with the journals in the field they teach? Which one are they rewarded for keeping up with?

Most of the MS and HS teachers I know subscribe to professional journals in their various subject matter fields. On most pay schedules, teachers are rewarded for keeping up with either/or. I don't have a problem with it -- with the exception of the science faculty. Both my union and school district have mandatory workshop modules on subject-focused topics that all teachers at the different grade levels are required to attend.

They "know" both. Typically teachers who are going into secondary education take virtually every single class in their specialty subject, except for the capstone project class. For instance, I am certified to teach history at the secondary level. To get that degree, I majored(and got a degree in) middle school education. In addition to the education classes that I took, I also took every single history class required for a history major. When it came to my senior year, all that I had left to take in order to get the additional history degree were six hours that were required to write my senior thesis. I thought, as many secondary education teachers do, what the hell, might as well pick up those extra hours and get my history degree as well.

For primary teachers, they take education classes, not to mention methods classes in each subject, along with other subject specialized classes. You don't need a major in math to teach kids fractions in fourth grade. In fact it is better when dealing with kids that age that you concentrate on developmental classes, pedagogy classes and the like.

As far as whether it is better to have a teacher teach math or an engineering major teaching math, no contest, it is better to have a teacher. For while a person who has a bachelor's in engineering might have a bit more knowledge of the field, they will have absolutely no knowledge of how to effectively convey that knowledge to students. Far too many people think that teaching is simply standing in front of a class lecturing or writing on the chalkboard. It isn't. There are aspects of psychology, childhood development, and other such areas involved in teaching, which you would completely lack if all you had were a degree in the subject area.

Furthermore, this is a "Big Question" only in the mind of those so called, inexperienced "education experts". Teachers, as always, have known the answer to this question and have acted accordingly, and effectively. The reason why these "education experts"(who have never spent a day teaching in a classroom, thank you very much) are pushing putting math majors in a classroom without the prerequisite education training is because this allows those math majors to be paid less. Again, this is about spending less money on personnel, facilities and education in general, the same old story that has been plaguing education for decades. What these experts fail to realize is that in countries with excellent education programs, they actually do go out and pay for it. They pay teachers comparably with doctors, and each and every classroom is fully funded.

Until we follow that model, until we actually start paying for education like we value it, then our education system is going to continue to deteriorate, and no amount of "reforms" are going to fix it, rather these "reforms" will simply make the situation worse.

i don't know anywhere that ed majors with no math/science training teach algebra & physics.

I know five languages. I am well versed in American history, European history, art history, theater history, music history, music theory, English literature, and economics. I am also a certified teacher in NJ.

And I can't get hired b/c I'm "over qualified".

Go figure.

A recipe for a short, unhealthy, unpleasant, and unappreciated life.

that'll cure the problem

Some states (stupidly) allow for-profit corporations to manage charter schools; that needs to end. But the schools themselves have to be non-profit, everywhere.

Quit hiding behind legal terms. We both know that if billionaires didn't see a way to syphon boatloads of taxpayer money into their bank accounts, they wouldn't be waging war on our public educational system.

Neil has made millions in Florida peddling his software.

Which sort of makes one wonder what "highly" means. It's sort of like how 85% of Americans consider themselves above-average drivers.

...I wasn't "highly qualified" until I paid $75, filled out several pages of paperwork, and waited for the bureaucracy to churn out a document that said so. The procedure took about 6 months.

Not sure if that is still true. In DC you had to have either a certain cert or a graduate degree in education or an undergraduate degree in the subject you teach.

I just didn't have the paperwork. And until the paperwork got processed, my school had to send those letters out to parents stating that their kids were being taught by someone who wasn't "highly qualified." I always wonder how much those letters cost the school district to send.

Most parents have no clue and don't read the memos the school sends home. So this won't make a bit of difference. It's just for show.