RSS
Home
Duncan's reform hinges on an ancient theory
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Teachers, historically, have had to fight for respect in a society that placed a lower premium on teaching. From its origins, teaching has been held as a lowly position held by unskilled clergy and masters (mostly men) who, as long as they could recite the Bible, were equipped. Those that couldn't do, taught. As a matter of fact, not too long ago, before unions fought for higher pay, teaching was the one of the lowest paid professions.
Currently, in Connecticut, along with other states across the country, we have raised the bar, and set the highest standards for our teachers. Susan Engel suggests otherwise. In an article in the New York Times entitled "Teach Your Teachers Well" (11/01/09), she agrees with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's reform that in order to have good schools "we need great teachers." Engel goes onto say that "once we have a better pool of graduate students, we need to train them differently than we did in the past." Engels calls for a more rigorous teacher preparation program with a 3.5 GPA minimum requirement and an "intensive application process."
The implication is that our failing schools are due to dumb teachers teaching the students. As she states: "weaker students are in the less intellectually rigorous programs and the ones training to become teachers."
Before the 19th century, teachers didn't require a license to teach. Today, we have increased standards, dramatically, yet, oddly enough, our students are failing to make the grade. It's hard to believe that we were better off just teaching the Bible.
Part of the problem, that Engel fails to consider, is that teachers have had to modify instruction to include visuals, scaffolding, rubrics, graphic organizers and the like, to accommodate a more challenging group. Public School teachers are teaching a larger pool, a more diverse group of students. Instruction must be broken down into parts. The students who are required by law to sit in your classroom, 100 years ago, might have been working in a factory, or at home on the farm, or reeking havoc (urchins of the streets).
Additionally, Engel suggests we need to understand our students better from a developmental standpoint. She doesn't mention the rigor of teacher preparation programs that exist today: classroom observations and data collection; copious notes and reflections; extensive graduate work in educational theory; and lengthy portfolios and writing assignments.
Students are required to major in one subject area, and to take a broad range of graduate classes from Remedial Reading and Diagnostic Testing to Developmental Psychology. Although initial entry into a teacher programs is a lower GPA (2.67), teacher candidates entering the program have closer to a 4.0 average and are, for the most part, studious pupils. Teacher candidates come from a long line of teachers and are usually the best students themselves. Others possess an intellectual prowess and are impassioned with a particular subject, such as history or British Literature, and feel compelled to share.
Today, it takes more than a Bible to become a teacher. Teachers aren't simply appointed by a community. They are required to take graduate classes and pass exams. For Connecticut, in order to get a teacher certificate, a candidate must pass the State's PRAXIS, which tests extensive knowledge in one's subject area. As in any profession, this is a weeding out mechanism. Those that are able to pass the PRAXIS exams, complete graduate school, and pass the BEST Portfolio (which is in the first or second year of teaching) can procure the highly qualified status. The rest find a new career.
Contrary to Engel's notion that teachers are not "smart" enough or "passionate" enough, the process to become a teacher takes considerable dedication and intelligence. Both Duncan and Engel underestimate the skill level and expertise of our teachers. The majority of teachers working in our schools today are some of the most highly intelligent and dedicated professionals.
Duncan's aggressive reform to boost graduation rates and scores feeds off the misguided notion that the teachers are the problem. If we just had smarter teachers, we'd be all set. Engel is in agreement as she states: "Show me a school where teachers are smart, well educated, skilled, happy to be there, and I'll show you a group of children who are getting a great education."
I'll show you the state of Connecticut where teacher standards are the highest in the country. Nevertheless, we have segregated schools and only 30-47% of students are graduating, and there is a chronic problem of underachievement. The ones that do remain in school are well below the state average, and have progressed in small measures over the past 50 years, despite the teachers.
Jump over the town line five miles or so, and I'll show you teachers equally intelligent, trained in the same manner, but here the students perform in the upper 90th percentile, and the kids enter kindergarten ready to go, already reading and writing. The teachers in this particular school, judged solely on students' performance, would be, according to Engel and Duncan, perceived as smarter and better.
Engel's proposal touting Duncan's reform is neither new nor innovative, but hinges on an ancient theory called the scapegoat theory: if it's not the students or their parents or society, then it must be the teachers. The premise for Duncan's reform is counterintuitive as it debases our teachers, the most essential part of the equation.
Related Articles:
Comments
