In the United States we strive for high quality education. However, we seem to believe that high quality education can come from any quality teacher. For example, in Utah, you can get a professional teaching job if you have a GED and are currently doing an alternative licensure program. Granted, you are more likely to get the job if you have a Bachelor's degree (in anything) and even more likely to get the job with additional credentials and experience. (For Doug, and other nitpickers: I do believe that you can be an inna
tely good teacher without training, but I think you will be a better teacher with training.)Background:
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) (NCLB) increased accountability for teachers, and required schools to inform parents if their children did not have a "highly qualified" teacher. (I think that is good.) NCLB will undergo many changes this year. First, it will be changed [back] to Elementary and Secondary Education Act (don't be fooled by the name change). Second, it will lower standards for teachers required in NCLB.
As you might deduce, wealthy school districts would more readily hire a more qualified teacher over another because they can afford to pay them. Hoping to get the most bang for their buck, poor school districts hire those they can pay the least--the less qualified teacher. So, because urban school districts are generally poor and a higher proportion of students living in urban areas are "high-risk" students, under-qualified teachers' classes, will have a higher proportion of high-risk students.
Issue:
The big question is: should under-qualified teachers be teaching the most ne
edy students (this includes students in special education as well as)? If not, should they be teaching our least needy students? or the students in the middle? or no students at all?This picture is of NJ teens at a two-week workshop training to be special needs and urban teachers.
What I think:
Ideally, under-qualified teachers should not teach in schools at all. I realize this is a fairly extreme position. What about moms who home-school their kids? Interns? etc. If they are not qualified, they should not teach. An underlying question throughout this whole discussion is: what qualifications make someone "qualified." That's a whole nother issue. (Apparently that phrase doesn't translate to written English.)
If we allow under-qualified teachers to teach our most needy students, I think that those students will fall farther and farther behind. It's even scarier if a lot of these teachers work in "needy" schools and dramatically increase the ratio of "not yet qualified" teachers to qualified teachers. We need to maintain a high standard of education for our teachers so that our children will receive a high standard of education in return.
7 comments:
The obvious answer in response to the issue above is that under-qualified teachers (whatever that means), if preventable, should not be teaching at all.
But should it be preventable?
Any parent, whether affluent or indigent, would “prefer” their child is given the same educational opportunities as anyone else. Fact of the matter is “parental preference” is impossible to satisfy. We live in a divided society…always have…always will, excuse the truism, but it’s not changing. Affluent families will always have superior education, health care, real estate, etc. (so long as Dr. Obama doesn’t attempt to ameliorate every sector in the country).
The U.S. Educational System shares many of the same qualities that catapulted into effect the recent health care reform bill – one class of individuals receives mediocre service, while the other class benefits from exceptional service (education or health care it doesn’t matter). Identify the difference between the two statements: 1) One life isn’t any more valuable than another, and 2) Your child doesn’t deserve a better education than mine. There is no difference. Both statements are attempting to eradicate social classes and deny the FACT that money DOES buy superiority.
In my opinion, unqualified teachers employed by urban/poor school districts are educating the correct social class. Is it right to penalize the affluent by subjecting their children to “shady” unqualified instructors simply because they have demonstrated their willingness and ability to pay a premium for more qualified teachers? It makes zero sense, just like it makes zero sense to inadvertently decrease the quality of our health care system through arbitrary legislation, ultimately ensuring the same crappy service for everyone. You get what you pay for…sorry.
Jarom
I feel like these issues (health care and education) have no easy answers. Of course, given infinitely available resources, we all want premium health care (pun intended) and premium education. The problem is, and always will be, that there are constraints on resources. It has been decided for us by legislators that both education and health care should be public. With education, that means that what you pay in taxes funds your local school. So inevitably, schools in poorer neighborhoods will be poorly funded. To be fair, money does not always equal better education/teachers, but it certainly isn't a bad thing, and in general, I would say that it does equal those things.
The only way to improve the current situation is to incentivize good teachers to go to inner-city (or podunky) schools. This is most cost-effectively done by convincing them to teach (and live) in these areas out of the goodness of their hearts for the current going rate (determined by the school district's budget, which is determined by the incomes of the people living there). Unfortunately, this won't be a strong enough incentive for enough people to change the problem.
The only other incentive is money, which does work. But this money would have to be granted by the state or federal government, and it must come from the rich. So besides more effectively spending the money that the government has, the only way to do this is to increase taxes on the rich. This should only be done by the consent of the governed, and by the spirit of "No taxation without representation," this should really only be imposed on the rich if they vote for it themselves. So, if rich people would like to pay more for good teachers to teach inner-city kids, that is their prerogative. This can be imposed on the rich since if legislators choose to do so (much like health care), in which case legislators who are making the decision should ask themselves, "Is the benefit worth the infringement upon the wealthy's rights and money?" I personally believe that it is not. I think that money will do more good elsewhere, and that bad students will be only marginally better if their schools have a lot more money. I firmly believe that anyone wishing to succeed in America with 3/4 of a brain can (and it's in the country's best interest to help those with less than 3/4 of a brain, but I digress), especially with the current programs in place for people to get into college coming from bad neighborhoods. The only long-term solution is a change like Bill Cosby suggested in his poundcake speech.
- Doug V.
I have mixed feelings about this issue. My sister-in-law lives an a very upper-class school district in Orange County, CA. and just pulled her 5 year-old daughter out of school last week to homeschool her because the teacher was a terrible teacher. The teacher had schooling and training to become a teacher as far as I know and she also has tenure and therefor she is not going anywhere. But that does not mean your a good teacher.
I on the other hand grew up in a middle-to lower-class school district, but feel that the teacher I had were for the most part very qualified and goo teachers. But I did go to school in NY which is one of the most regulated states in terms of teaching requirements.
So my point is that I do not feel that wealth in a community necessarily plays a tremendous role. Throwing money at a school district does not fix problems.
But as you may have guessed I do not like tenure or unions. I believe that those are detrimental. Let the free market determine how they are paid based on how well they teach (education or not---I side with Doug about that one). But that is an entirely different discussion.
Christina
Christina, in a sense labor unions ARE free-market. They're composed of individuals acting together according to their individual freedoms. What's more free than that? But yes, they do discourage competition.
Tenure is undoubtedly one of the most despicable programs in existence. The institution of tenure undermines the foundation of this country. Where’s the incentive to perform? Under tenure there is none.
Also, we must not forget that money is a powerful motivator. Money (in addition to other reasons) is cause for sacrificing four, six, or eight years of your life to gain an education. I guarantee none of you (myself included), would be pursuing a masters, law, or PhD if you didn’t have a reasonable expectation of earning a "satisfactory" salary upon completion. I say this because I firmly believe that “throwing money” at underprivileged school districts would significantly help improve the quality of education received by the students.
Bleeding hearts are too few. Not many will work for the better cause without monetary compensation.
Jarom
Christina: Miss Kenny. end of story.
Charisse, just realized you said "That's a whole nother issue" What the heck is a "nother?" maybe it has something to do with getting ahold of an apron (there's a whole list of words that have had the n shift from the article to the word or versa vice...
Post a Comment