Posted by
Katie Favazza on Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:53:43 AM
Missouri public school teachers are up in arms:
State Board of Education members criticized a federal push to change
Missouri’s definition of "highly qualified teacher," but they’ll follow
the provision to prevent the state from losing federal funding.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires 100 percent of teachers to be
highly qualified, which means they have the appropriate certification
for the classes they teach. No state reached the 100 percent benchmark
this year.
The federal law also requires states to change their definitions of
highly qualified teacher to include only teachers who are certified for
the classes they teach and who have taken a professional exam.
That means teachers who received Missouri lifetime certifications
before 1988 are not considered highly qualified by the federal act
because they were not required to take the professional exam that is
now necessary to be certified.
The article continues:
The U.S. Department of Education is giving Missouri time to prove that
teachers with lifetime certifications are highly qualified. Those
teachers, about 14,000 of them in the state, will be asked in the
coming month to complete a form showing their years of experience and
professional development.
"It’s a joke," Commissioner of Education Kent King said during a state
board meeting yesterday. "It’s just busywork for teachers."
In Columbia, Laffey said she would do as much of the work as possible
so teachers can focus on their classrooms. She’s gathering the data on
teachers electronically but might have to contact individual teachers
to fill in any information she doesn’t have.
I don't understand what the problem is here. The language is being clarified for the future AND a provision is included for those whose experience predates the decision. The paperwork can't possibly be that burdensome if it's being called "busywork" and it lets experienced, but potentially outdated teachers slide by without testing their knowledge or technological savvy. The form is a formality so that the decision can be put in place now.
On a much smaller scale, many student organizations or groups of the student government at my university have run into problems because of the abstract language of a constitution. "Active membership" seems to trip up many student groups around election time, as does "at the discretion of the Chairman." If college students can understand the need for clarification, surely public school teachers can, too. This need for specific language cannot be denied.
Future teachers will be held to a higher standard and current teachers will likely bypass any extra training or coursework. If anyone can provide a logical reason for these teachers to be upset, enlighten me.