A path to quality schools...
I just read a great, innovative idea from the experts at the Brookings Institution on how to revitalize our nation's schools by increasing the number of qualified teachers. It works for private schools--why wouldn't it work for public schools?
I teach at a private school. Why not a public one? I would have to get certified, which means going back to school (for two YEARS) to be a teacher. Public schools could use more science and math teachers like me, but they aren't getting them. Ever wonder why?
Going back to school for certification can cost $1000s, and two years of my life are worth something to me--especially when I would just be training to do what I already do, and to get paid what I already get paid. It's just not a compelling value proposition. I know my subject pretty well. It's what I majored in in college, what I have tutored and TA'ed, and what I have substitute taught. I have learned more about teaching on the job in my first year than I could possibly learn in two years of certification classes.
Certification does not teach basic knowledge in science or math--it teaches how to teach. Since teaching is such an applied art, one has to ask: Is certification a waste of time and money? I don't need to spend two years to learn how to teach. Let the school evaluate me every year, and kick me out if I am a bad teacher.
Evidently private schools agree with me on this one, and no one hears about a crisis in the quality of private school education. The Brookings Institution, as part of their attention-worthy Hamilton Project, came up with the idea of abolishing certification and replacing it with teacher performance evaluations in the first two years. I am in whole-hearted agreement.
College students from across the nation line up to try out teaching in private schools because they hire uncertified teachers. Certification favors only education majors and the teacher's unions. It shouldn't be so difficult to become a teacher--or do teacher's unions want the current nationwide shortage of talented teachers?
I teach at a private school. Why not a public one? I would have to get certified, which means going back to school (for two YEARS) to be a teacher. Public schools could use more science and math teachers like me, but they aren't getting them. Ever wonder why?
Going back to school for certification can cost $1000s, and two years of my life are worth something to me--especially when I would just be training to do what I already do, and to get paid what I already get paid. It's just not a compelling value proposition. I know my subject pretty well. It's what I majored in in college, what I have tutored and TA'ed, and what I have substitute taught. I have learned more about teaching on the job in my first year than I could possibly learn in two years of certification classes.
Certification does not teach basic knowledge in science or math--it teaches how to teach. Since teaching is such an applied art, one has to ask: Is certification a waste of time and money? I don't need to spend two years to learn how to teach. Let the school evaluate me every year, and kick me out if I am a bad teacher.
Evidently private schools agree with me on this one, and no one hears about a crisis in the quality of private school education. The Brookings Institution, as part of their attention-worthy Hamilton Project, came up with the idea of abolishing certification and replacing it with teacher performance evaluations in the first two years. I am in whole-hearted agreement.
College students from across the nation line up to try out teaching in private schools because they hire uncertified teachers. Certification favors only education majors and the teacher's unions. It shouldn't be so difficult to become a teacher--or do teacher's unions want the current nationwide shortage of talented teachers?
posted by Tree Texan at 9:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home