Blogiversity; Authentic and Unique source for News, Discussion, Cartoons & Editorial Comment

The United States has a long and dishonorable history of dumping the least-qualified teachers into schools that serve poor and minority students. This shameful practice has persisted nationally, despite the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which required the states to place “highly qualified” teachers in every classroom.

The picture has improved significantly, however, in New York City, where state law has abolished temporary licenses for uncertified teachers, raised standards in teacher preparation programs and spawned innovative strategies for recruiting better teachers.

A new study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the teacher qualification gap between poor and well-to-do schools in New York City narrowed considerably between 2000 and 2005. The qualification index took into account several factors, including certification, experience, the teacher’s SAT scores and the rank of the undergraduate college the teacher attended.

In the poorest schools, the better-qualified teachers have driven modest improvements in student achievement. It may be that right now the city is doing as well as it can with the current applicant pool. And there is certainly more to teaching than SAT scores and other credentials. Still, the study shows that the city could substantially improve performance in fourth and fifth grade math by hiring more people with strong credentials.

Higher salaries have clearly played a role in strengthening the city’s teacher corps. But the state kicked off the quality movement when it prohibited the hiring of uncertified teachers and required lackluster training programs to shape up or shut down.

These programs are indeed producing stronger teachers. But a large part of the improvement in New York is owed to two alternative certification routes: the Teaching Fellows program, which encourages mature professionals to enter teaching, and the national Teach for America organization, which places high-achieving college graduates in schools that are difficult to staff.

it's odd that teach for america is cited as a way to get better qualified teachers. the three individuals i know who participated in this program as teachers all had similar experiences: they entered the profession in title one schools in inner cities, felt horribly unqualified, and quit teaching completely once their service terms were up.

none of them had any training in education or psychology. furthermore, none of them held advanced degrees. each of them had just graduated when they were recruited for tfa. one had a bachelor degree in english, one in sociology, and one in political science.

teach for america, from what i saw as a college student, is marketed to new college graduates as a way to "make a difference," pay off student debt, and gain experience. in some states, tfa programs can lead to alternative certifications--that is, licensure--while bypassing classroom training.

if i were drafting a plan to attract quality teachers with solid credentials, teach for america would not be it. 

I think a lot of the problem is that there just aren't enough good teachers who are truly qualified for their jobs. It seems very little emphasis is placed on the students and everything is focused entirely on the material to be learned. Probably a good 80% of my teachers seemed to view their job as a glorified babysitting job where they had to herd unruly cattle and train them to perform and do tricks. They had a certain amount of material to jam down our throats and nothing really mattered past that. The other teachers actually loved teaching, and cared genuinely for their students. They had that extra qualification that seems so overlooked: the love of teaching. It showed through every lesson and every action that they cared for us and wanted to bring out the best in us. It permeated the whole classroom and caused the students to respect them and genuinely try to do well. I was almost always in honors classes, so I was supposedly given the best of the best teachers.

Most of the teachers I really liked had multiple teaching awards or were heads of their departments. If we only had more teachers like these, I think our schools would be extremely good. But I think there just aren't enough teachers like this in the world, and certainly not enough to fill the needs of our schools. So we end up having to fill the spots with someone--anyone who meets the text book requirements to babysit our children and shove books down their throats. If they hate their job, if they hate their students, if they yell and abuse them, if they don't actually teach them anything, if they make them hate learning... then we'll just rush another batch of teachers through training and have them replaced with more of their kind.