A friend tells me that her husband is entering into teaching because it is a “solid job”. He lost his job and has been looking for work for some time. She suggested that he become a teacher. He is in an alternative certification process and will begin teaching within a year.
As her friend I understood the need to provide for the family and have a secure job. I don’t know if he will make a great teacher or not, but I began to wonder if we have set the bar too low for people to enter into the teaching profession. As it stands, we have a systemic issue of not identifying and getting rid of low performing teachers, so do we really want to create an environment where someone can earn their degree online and begin teaching in a year?
Wouldn’t it be beneficial to raise the rigor of entering into teaching, forcing future teachers to demonstrate high-levels of competency in their instructional abilities and content knowledge? Then, amply reward those that make the cut with a professional salary on par with lawyers? In this scenario, would we need to worry about attracting the best and brightest? I don’t think so.
My argument is that once we begin treating teaching as just a job, allowing people to earn certification and teach without proper teaching training or proving competency, then, at this point, teachers’ ability to take control of the conversation that teaching is a profession becomes difficult.
Agreed for the most part, but your still left with a lack of supply issue. Increase the salary of teachers to create supply? Where does that money come from? Raise the bar and make earning certification more rigorous? We’re already experiencing significant teacher shortages across many parts of the country, especially in Math, Science and Special Education. I’m not sure the solution is so simple.
This is a generalization, but I argue there isn’t a supply issue with teachers. I receive emails from teachers from around the country that are endorsed in high-need areas, yet can’t find a single job. I hear from principals (in WA and IL) that explain they have more applicants than ever in recent history for any one available positions. As the economy recovers this trend will reverse, leading again to shortages in high-need areas. Do we continue with status-quo? Consider the WEST-B, the Washington certification test, which I used to proctor. You can take that test as many times as possible. You can even take 1 section at a time, giving you 3-4 hours on any given section. I saw people taking this test 4-5 times. Do we want rigor in our certification, or just hoops?
Agreed for the most part, but your still left with a lack of supply issue. Increase the salary of teachers to create supply? Where does that money come from? Raise the bar and make earning certification more rigorous? We’re already experiencing significant teacher shortages across many parts of the country, especially in Math, Science and Special Education. I’m not sure the solution is so simple.
This is a generalization, but I argue there isn’t a supply issue with teachers. I receive emails from teachers from around the country that are endorsed in high-need areas, yet can’t find a single job. I hear from principals (in WA and IL) that explain they have more applicants than ever in recent history for any one available positions. As the economy recovers this trend will reverse, leading again to shortages in high-need areas. Do we continue with status-quo? Consider the WEST-B, the Washington certification test, which I used to proctor. You can take that test as many times as possible. You can even take 1 section at a time, giving you 3-4 hours on any given section. I saw people taking this test 4-5 times. Do we want rigor in our certification, or just hoops?
Hmmmm, yes, good points. I agree. I just always come back to the question of funding. I think the more rigorous certification is, the more money would have to go into its creation and assessment, which would be fantastic if supply is not an issue and states are willing to follow through.
Hmmmm, yes, good points. I agree. I just always come back to the question of funding. I think the more rigorous certification is, the more money would have to go into its creation and assessment, which would be fantastic if supply is not an issue and states are willing to follow through.