Changing of the Gaurd

In the process of writing my changes paper about Title II of NCLB I found an interesting article. I found it interesting for three reasons. First, I felt it represented the feelings of many of those individuals that have been part of the “established” system for many years. Second, I found it interesting because the thinking that it stirred in my head. The third reason is the article helped me to once again realize that challenge of creating effective reform when faced with the large number of people that are invested in the current system that isn’t working.
The article title Highly Quantified Teachers: NCLB and Teacher Education is written by Doug Selwyn, who is an instructor in a teacher preparation program. Selwyn supports his arguments almost entirely through interview with teachers. He basically argues that the NCLB definition of “highly qualified” does exactly the opposite of what it intends, namely reducing the number of effective teachers in the classroom, reducing the diversity of the teaching pool, and forcing the least qualified teachers into schools that are suffering the most. Furthermore, Selwyn’s frustration is almost solely placed on NCLB’s requirement that teachers take a test to show that they are competent in their subject area. All of his comments about requiring exams for teacher certifications, and while he never directly says it, he seems to indicate that an individual should not have to take a test to become a teacher. In reading this I felt that Selwyn’s view--this feeling maybe sterotypical and I would be happy to be proved wrong if anyone has an data--represented what those in the “established” educational system felt. There is no place in teacher preparation for tests to determine if an individual can be a teacher.
As I said, the second reason I found this article interesting is because it got me thinking. I got me wondering, doesn’t Selwyn understand the reasoning behind why their the requirement to show proficiency in a teachers content area? Now I must admit that I don’t know if test is the best way to show proficiency, but in any system, a written exam would be part of it. I wouldn’t want my children being taught by a teacher that couldn’t prove they new what they were teaching. Think about how many things have been taught to students over the years incorrectly because teachers didn’t fully grasp the material. Think all of the misconceptions that have been fostered. Heck, just in science I can think of a handful--What color is blood? Why is the sky blue? What causes the phases of the moon?

Another aspect that troubled me about the article, was Selwyn’s total focus on NCLB. After-all NCLB is a pretty week bill since it doesn’t actually dictate what the test is that teachers must pass, or what level of proficiency is passing, those decisions all fall to the state. While I agree the NCLB definition of lacking, don’t put all of the blame for the current troubles on that definition. States have complete autonomy in how teachers show they have mastered the subject areas content, so get off of your little booty and make some changes at the state level. In other articles I have read, several states are doing just that, and they are seeing great results.

The third reason for being really interesting really lies at the problem of creating effective change. If Selwyn’s views really are representative of the “old guard,” which would undoubtedly be the views of the majority, then making and investing people in the changes and innovations that will create an effective system for the 21st will be very very challenging. Not to pet my own scientist-ego too much, but I think a large part of it boils down to a lack of understanding of data, how to interpret data, and how it should be utilized. If everyone in the US really understood what the result of a standardized test told us, no one would ever think to make it the sole measure of performance for students or teachers. Likewise, everyone would realize the usefulness of that data, and how it can be used to areas that are in need of improvement as well as areas that excelling.

As part of this the “old guard” must face a harsh reality, teachers and schools do need to be held accountable, no take that back everyone must be held accountable for the success of our schools, and to do that there must be testing as part of that measure. Additionally the only way to ensure that schools, teachers, and students are on the right track is by collecting and analyzing data. I will be the first to admit that a teach can no a lot about where their students are at just by “feel,” but I also know that you can miss a lot if you are not looking at data.

Lastly, public education really needs to take a cue from the business world. While I know many very experienced teachers would like to argue that education is too different from business that you can’t replicate business practices in a school, I would disagree. In fact to reform our schools we must adopt a business like approach. We must be goal orientated with our goal of producing free thinking and independent citizens of this country. And, we must measure our progress towards that goal. If we aren’t making progress then we need to suck it and make some changes. If we don’t, then we just maintain the status quo and we risk losing a lot more than any business would loose if they go bankrupt. If are schools fail, we loose our future and destroy our students.