In an article in the Atlantic, Joel Klein, the former chancellor of New York City, suggests implementing a teacher bar exam to improve teacher quality.
Contrast that with America, where virtually anyone who graduates from college can become a teacher, and where job security, not teacher excellence, defines the workforce culture. According to the consulting firm McKinsey, "The U.S. attracts most of its teachers from the bottom two-thirds of college classes, with nearly half coming from the bottom third." And, today, more than a third of math teachers in the U.S. don't have an undergraduate degree in math, let alone a Master's degree. Yet, even with this remarkably low threshold for entry, once someone becomes a teacher in the U.S., it's virtually impossible to remove him or her for poor performance.
He proposes a rigorous examination that would force education schools to increase their standards and then a multi-year internship.
What do you think?
Apt. 11d 
States do require certification exams. Massachusetts instituted a difficult exam in 1998 as part of Ed Reform. 50% of new teacher candidates failed the first exam.
John Silber’s editorial in the New York Times on the issue: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~sto/files/silber.html.
BU Bridge article about the issue: http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/1998/08-07/features2.html.
I have heard from friends who contemplated becoming teachers in this state that the education schools now require their students to pass the test before entering ed school (this may be for those completing a graduate degree.)
New York does have a teacher certification test. One could beef that up, rather than call for a “national teacher bar exam.” (Joel Klein was once NYC’s superintendent of schools?)
And, today, more than a third of math teachers in the U.S. don’t have an undergraduate degree in math, let alone a Master’s degree.
So few people major in math in the US, it would be ridiculous to require all math teachers to major in math. There aren’t enough people who majored in math interested in teaching. Math majors are in demand in many fields.
Some of my kids’ best math teachers were engineers or business people by training. Limiting math teachers to math majors is nonsensical.
LikeLike
WA state also requires some form of testing (used to obtain something called an “endorsement” in a subject).
http://www.west.nesinc.com/
The sample questions show the difficulty of testing a the range of subjects in a field as broad as biology (though I can presume that this is the biology taught to the kids, though it is pretty much non-overlapping with most of what is taught biology for those who become scientists). But, the test looks as rigorous as the bar exam, and prone to the same problems (a mismatch between what is taught in law school & what is tested, little to do with what, say, lawyers at major law firms actually do). Maybe other states don’t have these tests?
I don’t object to the tests — see them as a hoop to jump through, and jumping through any hoop shows a willingness to jump through hoops that is a qualification for employment. But, I don’t see how hoop-jumping would produce better teachers, unless it reduces supply, and increases compensation, thus, attracting other, better hoop jumpers to the positions. If the point of the hoop-jumping is that we think that most current teachers couldn’t jump the hoop, wouldn’t that be the way it would have to work? Otherwise, why would the better hoop-jumpers join the workforce if you make it harder to join? They might be able to jump, but there would be no incentive to do so.
LikeLike
The point of such tests is to assess content mastery. It’s hard to make good tests to assess content mastery (and the bar exam doesn’t do it — it’s a perpetual complaint, and my memory of the bar exam involves a lot of questions about the law against perpetuities). But, even if we did come up with good tests of content, is that what teacher’s are lacking? I’m sure that’s not the case in elementary school (for most teachers, though there might be a few who are lacking knowledge sufficient to teach). It may be more of a problem for HS. And, we may be better at testing content knowledge in some fields (math) than others (history, biology). I don’t see it as a fix, because I don’t think lack of knowledge of what they’re supposed to teach is what impairs teacher’s abilities in mot classrooms.
LikeLike
This is backwards from where the research is pointing us, right? The only way to figure out who is going to be a good teacher is to have them be a teacher. that suggests we need to make it easier and attractive to become a teacher while at the same time making it easier to terminate teachers, at least in the first free years.
LikeLike
“This is backwards from where the research is pointing us, right? The only way to figure out who is going to be a good teacher is to have them be a teacher. that suggests we need to make it easier and attractive to become a teacher while at the same time making it easier to terminate teachers, at least in the first free years.”
Right. The multi-year internship is a good idea, though (we’ve talked about that idea here a few times), and isn’t a huge barrier to entry, as long as it’s a paid internship.
Here are a few more ideas:
1. I think that tenure after three years for teachers is totally ridiculous, particularly since a teacher with three years experience has just barely found their feet.
2. Also, I’d suggest a flatter pay scale to reflect the fact that teachers get better for about 10 years and then stop getting better.
3. Seniority and pensions should be more portable. We live in a very mobile society and a) teachers may need to relocate so their spouses can find work b) portable seniority and pensions make it more feasible for teachers to do temporary stints in difficult schools without getting punished. (Am I right in thinking there are problems with portability?)
bj said,
“But, even if we did come up with good tests of content, is that what teacher’s are lacking? I’m sure that’s not the case in elementary school (for most teachers, though there might be a few who are lacking knowledge sufficient to teach).”
The question of what elementary teachers should know and how they should teach it is hugely controversial.
LikeLike
Yes, there is a test in Massachusetts, but I don’t think it’s as rigorous as the exam Klein is suggesting.
Even so, the test (and other changes) improved Mass schools by attracting smart students to teach instead of mediocre ones.
The problem when my kids were in school was there there was a huge and obvious quality gap between the good teachers (mostly but not all new) and the not-so-good (mostly but not all long-tenured), and you can imagine the issues that created all through the system (parents fighting for good placements, teachers dealing with a class half of whom was less prepared than the other half, etc)
My hope for a more rigorous test is that it would serve as a proxy for intelligence. There may be no consensus on which teaching styles are most effective, but the research has been pretty clear that good teaching correlates closely with intelligence.
LikeLike
Have you looked at the Mass test? I can’t imagine that a tet would be particularly more rigorous than the WA test, having looked at th bio — it seems comparable to th bio GRE.
I can imagine the tests being a stand in for intelligence. But if they were, why would a more intelligent person enter the field because thy had to take a tet to enter it? What would be in it for them?
LikeLike
“But if they were, why would a more intelligent person enter the field because thy had to take a tet to enter it? What would be in it for them?”
Getting to have smart, non-burnt out colleagues is a perk, all by itself.
LikeLike
That may sound airy-fairy, but it is true in other work environments. I was listening to Dave Ramsey a few days ago talking to a guy whose metal-working company employees several good guys and then a mass of drifters and ne’er do wells. DR was telling the guy that he’s going to lose the good guys if he doesn’t watch it, because long term, they’re not going to stick around in that sort of working environment. And indeed, schools lose something like half of their best teachers within five years.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/164363336_Report_finds_urban_schools_losing_talented_teachers_because_of_poor_conditions__pay.html
That’s not to say that a post-graduate test is a good idea. Why get all strict about standards only after the aspiring teacher has invested four years and tens of thousands of dollars in debt in getting certified? That’s wasteful and inhumane.
LikeLike
I do think folks will take an economic hit for smart capable colleagues, as well as for prestige, meaning, . . . . I don’t believe a GRE style test is going to produce that scenario.
LikeLike
I think tougher requirements (and tougher means fewer people can satisfy them) might produce that workforce, but there would have to be value for the individual’s (economic as well as other value).
One also runs the risk of choosing the wrong capable people (since though the test might test for intelligence, it probably doesn’t test for patience, compassion, or the willingness to deal with either 5 year olds who still have potty accidents or the general insanity of teenagers.
LikeLike
“I think tougher requirements (and tougher means fewer people can satisfy them) might produce that workforce, but there would have to be value for the individual’s (economic as well as other value).”
As I suggested upthread, have a flatter pay scale so that teachers will be rewarded sooner for being good now, rather than 10-20 years from now. A flatter pay scale would also make teaching more attractive to highly-qualified women and career changers from technical fields.
LikeLike
Haven’t we written off Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee and their Galtian overlords yet?
http://unionosity.com/breaking/michelle-rhees-studentsfirst-backs-alec-sponsored-parent-trigger-law/
LikeLike