[Previous entry: "Set List from the first night"] [Next entry: ""levelling"?"]

04/03/2005: "Philly Certification Issues"

There's an article in todays Inqy that lays out some of the problems with the "highly qualified teachers" portion of NCLB. In her attempt to be balanced between teachers, administrators, and federal policy makers, Ms. M fails to make several crucial points:

1. These tests are frickin' expensive, running between $75 and $85 a pop.

Word Problem:

A test costs $75 to take. If it costs $30 to administer, how many teachers must take the test for ETS to earn a profit of $1,000,000? $10,000,000? How much of that profit must be turned over to legislatures to continue their emphasis on testing?

2. NOBODY WANTS TO TEACH IN MIDDLE SCHOOL. This testing procedure creates trouble in a chronic problem area, in an area where state regs, PFT regs, National laws, and the demon middle school children all converge. By messing with folks who didn't want to be there in the first place, or with the good souls who actually like middle school kids (I'd take a room full of hulking 17 year olds before I'd go near middle school children) you create unecessary problems.

3. TESTS DON'T MAKE TEACHERS QUALIFIED. Taking a test doesn't make me understand history any better. This is as true for teachers as it is for kids, but no one really cares. Why not bolster the local universities by paying for teachers to take science or math courses?

4. My favorite line:

"Despite an aggressive campaign to help teachers earn middle-school certification by passing one or more content tests, just 124 so far have done so, said Beth Moore, director of teacher certification."

I would love to hear from any middle school teacher who has seen or heard of this "aggressive campaign."