Wednesday
October 29, 2008
by desertjim
In Tuesday’s post, I noted that both presidential candidates have spoken favorably of Teach For America as a way to increase the number of excellent teachers in the public schools. Veteran teachers are aware that the debate continues about the efficacy of staffing classrooms with such alternatively certified teachers. Despite the increasing number of alternative certification programs, support in the educational community it hardly uniform.
There are research studies that argue both for and against alternative certification. With only five weeks of training and no advanced degrees in education, Teach for America teachers would presumably be far less qualified than those coming out of tradtional teacher programs. Yet a 2005 study found that 74% of principals polled considered Teach for America teachers more effective than other beginning teachers. Of the principals surveyed, 95% reported that TFA members’ training is at least as good at the training of other beginning teachers.
Another study found that, despite early hopes, alternative routes do not add to the diversity of the teaching force. However, the same study concluded that alternative routes can be effective in recruiting teachers for subject areasof greatest need, such as mathematics and science (Shen, J. Alternative Certification: Math and Science Teachers, Educational Horizons 78 (1), 1999). The Golden Apple Teacher Education (GATE) program was one such program which brought science and math experts from industry into public school classrooms. GATE (cosponsored by the Golden Apple Foundation and Northwestern University) introduced alternative certification to Illinois.
The US Department of Education considers alternative certification of teachers to be a useful innovation (3)The Department’s web page says, “The rationale driving alternative route programs is that many excellent teacher candidates have made other life or career choices but would be open to becoming teachers if presented with the right offer.” The department recommends recruiting widely in industry but being very selective in admitting candidates into programs. Many existing programs now use the Haberman interview to select only those most likely to succeed in urban classrooms. (Haberman, Martin; Star Teachers of Children in Poverty, Kappa Delta Pi, 1995).
The next federal administration will have to address the need for more and more excellent teachers to staff public school classrooms. As educators, we need to consider what direction we think will acquire the best teachers possible.
Labels:
I am not a fan of Teach for America because it puts beginning teachers into the classrooms of children who live in poverty, thereby giving those children the least experienced teachers and additional opportunities to experience instability and loss when those teachers leave at the end of their two year stint - something the children already have too much of in their young lives.
However, Teach for America does something quite significant as illustrated by the respect principals have for the program and their belief that TfA teachers are better prepared than other beginning teachers. I suspect that what sets TfA teachers apart from others is that they are very smart and very well educated, having been recruited from the best colleges and universities in the country. Kids and schools can’t help but benefit from having such individuals in the classroom.
Now imagine the positive impact if a way could be found to encourage the best and brightest of our college students to actually choose and prepare for a career in teaching, one that they commit to for more than a couple of years and one that they are better prepared to do effectively. What gains our students would make! What role models they would have!
A nation’s teachers should be drawn from the top quartile of college students not the bottom half. Here is a challenge for President Obama and the next Secretary of Education.
