High Quality Doesn't Make It So
So, on NPR this morning there was a short piece on yet another implication of the No Child Left Behind act. (I have mentioned that I hate this piece of ill-conceived legislation with a blind and biting fury, yes?)
As part of the act, schools are supposed to employ only Highly Qualified teachers. Highly qualified, according to the Department of Education's website, means the following:
Highly Qualified Teachers: To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have: 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.
Leaving aside the inanity of most Education degree students (dumb as posts from my encouters with them in my college career), how the hell does this actually differ from a Qualified teacher? Why do we need to add the modifier here? Are we not allowing qualified people to teach? Wouldn't it make more linguistic sense to set the verbal bar a little lower, require schools to only employ qualified teachers and then define qualified as above? Adding the Highly onto your statement does not mean that you're going to get better teachers. It doesn't mean that those teachers who meet your standards are suddenly and magically better than they were before. They are qualified to teach. Perhaps if they held a masters or a PhD, had been teaching for 20 years or excelled in some other fashion they could then be designated as Highly Qualified.
It's grade creep but for teachers. I shake a fist.
As part of the act, schools are supposed to employ only Highly Qualified teachers. Highly qualified, according to the Department of Education's website, means the following:
Highly Qualified Teachers: To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have: 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.
Leaving aside the inanity of most Education degree students (dumb as posts from my encouters with them in my college career), how the hell does this actually differ from a Qualified teacher? Why do we need to add the modifier here? Are we not allowing qualified people to teach? Wouldn't it make more linguistic sense to set the verbal bar a little lower, require schools to only employ qualified teachers and then define qualified as above? Adding the Highly onto your statement does not mean that you're going to get better teachers. It doesn't mean that those teachers who meet your standards are suddenly and magically better than they were before. They are qualified to teach. Perhaps if they held a masters or a PhD, had been teaching for 20 years or excelled in some other fashion they could then be designated as Highly Qualified.
It's grade creep but for teachers. I shake a fist.