degrees of qualification A problem small high schools in rural areas are having is that the new No Child Left Behind Act is splitting up high school subjects that some states considered one subject and one certification until now. For example, a state may have certified Social Studies teachers, but now find that the feds distinguish between History and Economics. Or, a state may have certified Sience teachers, and now find that the feds distinguish among Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. While these distinctions may be valid, what is a small school to do if it only needs to teach one Physics class per day? Rather than accept a 25% pay position, or take 5 or 6 college courses to get an additional certification, the would-be Physics teacher in a rural area is apt to just move to an urban or suburban area that has enough students to keep a Physics teacher busy full-time.
teaching Quote "Federal law defines highly qualified teachers as those who hold a bachelor's degree from a four-year college, have state certification and demonstrate competence in the subject they teach." I teach in Ontario where we have problems of a different nature. However. it strikes me that to attract qualified people it is necessary to to offer a compettative employment package. Of course a teacher can find himself teaching areas in which he/she has minimal experience due to admin problems connected with enrolments. (I am teaching G9 math and G10 science next semester. I am a machinist with an archaeology degree.) Quote "The 2002 law requires that by the school year beginning in 2005, there must be highly qualified teachers in every class for core subjects, including English, math, science and history. " This is going to cost american tax dollars.
Re: degrees of qualification Excellent points, Gerry. I'm too far out of the loop for any of that to have occurred to me. I got that from from this blog and yours would make for a good comment there. Yes, I am shamelessly touting a blog I like. But then, these discussions of higher education are incomplete without a considering of primary education. Another point I'd make is that these Federal dictates are foolish and counterproductive. It is not possible to consider the needs of all locales from some central command post in D.C.
Re: teaching I'm all for competitive pay to attract qualified teachers but think that would be for naught in the current scheme of things. Reality intrudes and you teach in areas you've not formally studied. No dictate can alter that reality. It takes a Canadian to consider the American taxpayer. Excuse me for a moment while I chew my arm off.
Re: Re: teaching As things stand now it would just be paying the same teachers more money. Tax payers will be willing to pay more when they get more for their money.
Re: Re: Re: teaching I don't know that taxpayers would be willing to pay more as they've seen that more is never enough. Education monies better spent would be welcomed.
Is this not crazy? How can a teacher that has been teaching for 15 years, and is the teacher of the year not be qualified. Some of these yahoo's in educational leadership are nuts.
