The percent of teachers licenced in their teaching assignment in Massachusetts is 94.4%. In the North Adams School District, the number is 85.8%. At our local Charter School, the percent of teachers licenced in their teaching assignment is 31.4%.
The percent of teachers "highly qualified" in Massachusetts is 93.8%. In the North Adams School District, the number is 89.8%. At our local Charter School, the percent of "highly qualified" teachers is 50.0%.
Does this seem okay to you?
(Source: Massachusetts Department of Education)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
In private prep schools, few if any of the teachers have any kind of accreditation or public school experience; an English teacher is expected to have a degree in English, a chemistry teacher in chemistry, and so on. As such, essentially none are "qualified." Do you think that makes the state's most prestigious schools bad at teaching our children, that the people who spend five figures each year on such education are fools?
The whole point of charter schools is: 1) to allow some choice and competition among schools, without opening up such choice to all private schools; and 2) to get away from the administrative rules of the public school system, such as the system of accreditation under discussion.
Well, first of all, no one was talking about private prep schools. A Charter School is said to be a public school, and falls under the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind mandates. The federal NCLB deadline for all teachers of core academic subjects to meet highly qualified teacher requirements was this past June 30, 2006. Few have reached this 100% level. But our local Charter School is lagging way behind all other public schools in Berkshire County (and most of Massachusetts). If our own public schools had similar low numbers, we'd be headed for restructuring or take-over by the state DOE. Don't look for our local charter school to be sharing the same fate any time soon. It's not a level "playing-field" for Charter Schools, and this is just one of several examples.
My point was that, since most of the best schools in the country do not meet these bureaucratic requirements, most likely the requirements are unnecessary or even counterproductive.
Indeed, I argue that "highly qualified teacher" should always be in quotes, since the law's definition of the same is demonstrably unrelated to a teacher's ability. Strictly applying this bad definition to charter schools would "level the playing field" but would not actually improve anyone's education.
And after all, it's "all about the kids."
"Highly qualified teacher" is a governmental term, not one of the actual quality of the teachers. The Charter certainly has its problems, as any school does, but the fact that their teachers are not trained to the general middle like regular public school teachers is not one of them. This is one of the strengths of charter schools, that they can take some of the models from private schools that actually work and deliver a quality education, without any of the exclusionary trappings of the same schools.
On one hand, school boards bitch about state accredited teachers and their unions controlling the quality of education in public schools. On the other, they apparently also complain about the alternative to that being hired in charter schools. Would a regular public school even bother to step outside the tiresome system and hire some interesting teachers if they were given the opportunity? I'm not so sure they would.
"Highly qualified teacher" is not a "governmental term".
In order to meet the "highly qualified" definition, a teacher must hold a state teacher certification and must demonstrate subject matter competency.
If a teacher at the Charter School is not "highly qualified", he or she does not hold a state teacher certification or has not demonstrated competency in the subject matter he or she is teaching - or both.
Your explanation just proved it is a "governmental term" and not one of quality.
If you don't demonstrate competency in the subject matter you're teaching, that's a "quality" issue. There are few teachers who can't pass the competency test (unless of course you're not competent).
And if you're not certified to be a teacher in Massachusetts, you have no business teaching in Massachusetts.
I think I have demonstrated that "qualified" according to the state has little to do with "quality" as most people would use the term (i.e., having something to do with the ability to get students to learn).
It may be that people who try to qualify and fail are apt to be of poor quality. But it is also the case that many quality teachers would rather not jump through those hoops, and would prefer to teach in a charter or private school, for that among other reasons.
Post a Comment