Should mid-career switchers, including former military personnel, be able to go directly into teaching without obtaining certification. John McCain seemed to suggest as much in the last presidential debate. Over at Teacher Magazine, the question is being hotly debated. Unsurprisingly most find the idea wanting. Says one:
If military retirees are allowed to go straight into the classrom, then why not allow all college graduates to do the same thing? As the nation argues for more accountability for teachers, why would we lower the bar for the necessary post-secondary education needed to become a teacher?
At least one teacher, however, is willing to suggest there is a difference between being certified and being qualified.
Private schools do not require their teachers to be certified, and many have very qualified teachers….I agree that teachers should have extensive training in pedogogical practices before they become teachers, but I’m not sure if taking the Praxis and doing all of that paperwork towards my certification has made me a better teacher.
The problem is that recruiters, across all industries, usually don’t know what it takes to make a successful teacher, or a successful accountant, or a successful web developer, etc. Trustworthy certifications give recruiters an extra tool to identify higher-quality applicants.
So, no, getting a certification probably doesn’t change you at all. It certifies that, according the certifying agency, you have certain skills. Experienced teachers probably don’t need this, as they have student performance data that shows whether they’re good or not. Certifications help recruiters evaluate people with no teaching experience.
I don’t need a First Aid training certificate on my wall to do the right thing in an emergency, but having that certificate lets people know that I’m more likely to know what to do than someone who doesn’t.
Comment by Dave — October 23, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
A couple of years ago, I looked into what it would take for me to earn a California credential for teaching science at the high school level. I studied human biology at Stanford and graduated with a 3.8 GPA. I’d also worked my junior and senior years for the department as a tutor. One of the other tutors did Teach for America so I likely would’ve qualified too had I decided to apply.
When I looked into the credential program at my local CSU, it turned out that only 3 of the required 12 courses were actual subject-specific methods or student teaching. The other 9 were politically correct nonsense like “Multicultural Foundations of a Diverse Classroom”.
Okay, I can see wanting to make sure teachers are sensitive to the needs of students from a variety of background at a time when something like half the kids in the state’s government-run schools are minorities. But can’t that be done as a unit incorporated into a course on academic pedagogy? For example, a unit on teaching about famous minority scientists like George Washington Carver as part of a class on science instruction.
I decided that it wasn’t worth the investment in time and money for me to pursue a CA teaching credential. 3/4 of the courses have nothing to do with preparing me to actually teach the subject so why would I bother? I can always go the private school route and avoid all that nonsense.
Comment by Crimson Wife — October 23, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
I worked for an alternate teacher preparation program in the 90’s. We took mid-career changers and those separating from the military and put them through a year of professional coursework, including an internship. These teachers always went to positions that districts couldn’t fill — classes of kids with learning difficulties or behavior problems. Of course, the new teachers were often disillusioned that they ended up with the kids the union teachers abandoned.
The one year of professional coursework taught the new teachers how to manage groups of kids and plan curriculum, but many of them had such experience in heir jobs, where they were actually accountable for their success or failure at managing projects, training, and product. I don’t think certification or “qualification” mean anything in our current public education system. The system is not responsible for the good teachers I meet, but is often responsible for the bad ones.
The great thing about second-career teachers was they came from such diverse backgrounds, and all brought not only content competence but real-world experience. If diversity is supposed to be a great thing, let’s truly make the profession diverse and expand the teaching pool with diverse ages, experiences, and professions, not just race and gender.
Let me disclose that after graduating summa cum laude and working for a university, I have chosen to homeschool my children.
Comment by Teresa — October 23, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Speaking strictly for myself, I’ll confess I’ve always viewed teaching more as a craft that a profession. Indeed, I worry that teacher preparation is overly concerned with pedagogy at the expense of subject matter expertise. Your experience, CW, validates my bias. When a Stanford grad has a tough time finding a place in a classroom in her field, we’ve got problems.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — October 23, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
One of the problems with CA credentialing now is that they want *both* subject matter expertise and the pedagogy courses. Its pretty much impossible to become a high school math/science teacher with a 4-year degree at UC. It’s pretty challenging even to get the subject matter courses you need to pass the CSET subject matter tests in four years unless you want to be able to *only* teach biology or *only* teach physics.
Comment by Rachel — October 23, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
It’s not that I couldn’t become a teacher but that all the red tape required by the state makes me not want to go through the hassle. I would have no problem going to grad school for training IF the coursework was going to help me become a better instructor.
Can you imagine if other professionals were required by the state to spend 3/4 of their training time on pure nonsense and only 1/4 on actually learning how to do the job in question?
I wouldn’t want to go to a dental hygienist, say, who’d taken 3 classes on cleaning teeth & gums and 9 courses on how to be sensitive to the needs of a diverse population of patients…
Comment by Crimson Wife — October 23, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Should we defend ed school or not? Teachers in some situations are quick to dismiss required education courses as unsubstantial. I am one of them. Other teachers will defend ed school to one extent or another. I am not one of them. However I don’t want to be a jerk about it. Ed school professsors and ed school believers are decent people trying to do the right thing. Before we claim that what they produce is without value, or that we would be better off if we dropped all certification requirements, we ought to give careful thought to it. We ought to be able to explain to at least some extent the ways we disagree, and offer some alternative, and a rationale for that alternative.
Since I do claim all of the above, I have given a bit of thought to it. Here’s a link: http://www.brianrude.com/indict-ed.htm
Comment by Brian Rude — October 24, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
I am currently studying to be an educator and I have seen many certified teachers who I do not beleive are qualified. Although someone is certified to teach, does not mean they are actually able to.
Comment by Amber — October 27, 2008 @ 7:27 pm