WIGGLE ROOM?

The "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001 requires public schools to have a "highly qualified" educator teaching every class in core academic subjects by the end of the 2005-06 school year.

Despite some initial reports of success, whether the law will improve the quality of the teacher workforce is still up for debate, and will depend on how much wiggle room federal officials allow in interpreting what "highly qualified" means. Some critics say one of the law's primary weaknesses lies within that definition. By including as "highly qualified" teachers who have gained certification through alternative programs like Teach for America, they say the law puts into classrooms teachers many consider inadequately prepared.

REFLECTION How would you define a "highly qualified" teacher? How much wiggle room would you allow, and what other types of training or incentive programs might you suggest to administrators aiming to meet your high standards?

ANSWER My definition of a "highly qualified" teacher, would be one with either a bachelor's degree in education or a master's degree in a core field of study, full state certification, and demonstrated teaching skills and subject-area competence. Fast-track certification programs would be acceptable only for candidates who either had the aforementioned bachelor's in education or master's degree. As incentive, I would offer, free of charge, alternative training and certification programs to candidates meeting the aforementioned degree requirements. However I would require two hours per day of team-teaching, pairing a new teacher with an experienced teacher-mentor, during the first year of each new teacher's probationary first year. Mentor-teacher's would be compensated both monetarily and with continuing education credit. New teacher's would be compensated firstly with a higher starting salary for all teachers, with $2000 of that amount held back and offered as a lump sum bonus after the successful completion of their first year and the evaluation there of. Moving forward, their base pay would include that $2000, plus any increases they might obtain through cost-of-living or merit-based increases. Where does this money come from, you ask? Good question. It could come from tax-increases, reallocation of current funding, and/or from grants from individual or corporate donors. The catch in that statement is the word "could". It could come, but it hasn't and it isn't for most districts. Unfortunately none of this can happen without money, and it's this larger question of where it will come from that adds to my own personal doubts about the effectiveness of this new law.

Submitted by: Mark Mattison, American University
Source: Education Week, September 11, 2002 http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=02qualify.h22